For starters, last week President Donald Trump signed into law the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act. Passed unanimously by Congress, on the surface, the act appears to protect animals from abuse, and it’s important to note the exemptions on veterinary care, euthanasia, hunting, slaughtering animals and farm animal husbandry are included in the language.

However, even despite good intentions, this act creates vulnerabilities for animal owners.

In a statement, The Cavalry Group, an organization that works to protect and defend animal enterprises, said in a release, “The danger of this (now) law is in the vague language and definitions which will become the gateway for future amendments. And because it was an ACT and not a bill, it can and will be easily amended and have Rules promulgated under this Act. Many of you have witnessed this under the Animal Welfare Act and Horse Protection Act which some have not been favorable to animal owners or their animal related businesses.”

Despite the language that exempts farm animals, you better believe animal rights activists have their sights set on the agricultural community next.

In an interview with Vox, AJ Albrecht, Mercy For Animals senior policy adviser and counsel, said, “The exceptions encapsulate all the animals that we here at Mercy For Animals advocate for,” adding that “hunted and farmed animals are afforded very, very few protections under the law.”

Anytime animal welfare is on the ballot, citizens will support it because of their compassion for animals. Their kind hearts are wonderful; however, there can be unintended repercussions that lead to greater animal suffering worldwide and higher grocery store bills.

Another example is in California, where animal owners are challenging Proposition 12, a measure passed in 2018 that sets minimum space requirements for veal, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens, while also forbidding the sale of raw veal, pork or eggs from animals enclosed in too little space.

According to Reuters, “The North American Meat Institute argued that enforcement would hurt producers and consumers by increasing food costs, and violated the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by requiring out-of-state producers to comply or face the sales ban.”

However, despite protests, a federal judge in Los Angeles refused to halt the voter-approved measure.

And then there’s the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2019 (S. 1499), endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States.

Of the bill, Protect The Harvest says, “S. 1499 reads as follows, ‘To establish National Wildlife Corridors to provide for the protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species and for other purposes.’ We have a very important question. What does the bill mean by the statement, ‘for other purposes?’ This seems to be left intentionally vague so that it may be manipulated and enforced at will.”

These are just a few examples of the many ways activists are messing with our futures, and with any of these acts, bills and other pieces of legislation, the devil is in the details.