Expressing opposition to the use of onychectomy, also known as declawing, for elective surgery in cats.
- Bill Number
- H.Res. 985
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Animals
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-13: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-16T08:07:14Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This House Resolution (H. Res. 985) expresses strong opposition to the elective surgical procedure known as onychectomy, or "declawing" cats, which involves removing a cat's claws. It highlights the procedure's cruelty, health risks to cats, and lack of necessity, while promoting humane alternatives and encouraging bans at the state level. The resolution aims to advance animal welfare in the United States by recognizing declawing as inhumane when done for non-medical reasons.
Key Provisions
- Opposition to Elective Declawing: The House opposes declawing (including onychectomy and tendonectomy, where tendons are cut to disable claws) when performed for cosmetic, aesthetic, or convenience purposes, such as preventing furniture damage. It urges veterinarians to strongly discourage the practice.
- Medical Necessity Only: Declawing should only be allowed if medically necessary to treat a cat's health issues, such as infections, injuries, or diseases affecting the claws, nail bed, or toe bones—not for behavioral control or property protection.
- Encouragement for State Action: Urges state legislatures without bans to consider prohibiting elective declawing and tendonectomy based on animal welfare and public health concerns.
- Commitment to Animal Welfare: Affirms the U.S. dedication to protecting animals and improving welfare standards.
The resolution defines "declawing" broadly to include any surgical, chemical, or mechanical method that removes or disables a cat's claws or their function (e.g., via tendon changes), but excludes simple nail trimming or temporary nail caps.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This is a non-binding resolution, so it introduces no direct changes to federal or state laws. It builds on existing trends by supporting state and local bans (e.g., in New York, California, and several cities) and international prohibitions, but it does not enact new regulations or penalties.
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens and Pet Owners: May raise awareness among cat owners (over 40 million U.S. households have cats) about declawing's risks, including chronic pain, behavioral issues like litter box avoidance or biting, and increased human infection risks from bites. It promotes alternatives like scratching posts, potentially reducing cat surrenders to shelters.
- On Government Agencies and Veterinarians: Encourages federal agencies (e.g., CDC, NIH) and veterinary groups to reinforce anti-declawing stances, possibly influencing professional guidelines. No direct impact on agencies, but it could prompt more state-level legislation.
- On International Relations: Aligns U.S. policy with global standards, as over 40 countries (e.g., most of Europe, Australia, Brazil) have banned elective declawing, potentially enhancing the U.S. image in animal welfare discussions without affecting treaties or diplomacy.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Cat Owners and Pet Communities: Directly impacts those considering declawing, emphasizing ethical and health alternatives.
- Veterinarians and Animal Health Professionals: Urged to avoid performing elective procedures; supported by groups like the American Association of Feline Practitioners and International Society of Feline Medicine.
- Animal Welfare Organizations: Bolsters advocacy efforts from groups opposing the practice.
- State and Local Governments: Encouraged to enact or strengthen bans, affecting lawmakers in states without prohibitions.
- Shelters and Public Health Entities: Addresses issues like cat surrenders and bite-related infections, involving agencies like the CDC.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: As a simple resolution, it has no enforceable legal effect but serves as a symbolic statement that could influence future binding legislation or court challenges to state bans. It reinforces veterinary ethics without overriding professional standards.
- Constitutional: No direct implications, as it does not infringe on rights like property ownership or free practice of veterinary medicine; it focuses on voluntary discouragement and state-level action.
- Political: Represents bipartisan support (introduced by Democrats) for animal welfare, potentially galvanizing public and legislative momentum amid growing bans. It highlights a shift toward prioritizing animal rights, aligning with international norms, but may face pushback from those viewing it as federal overreach into state matters.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12]
Cosponsors (19)
Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5], Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4], Rep. Dexter, Maxine [D-OR-3], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32], Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-13: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
- 2026-01-09: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 2026-01-09: Submitted in House
- 2026-01-09: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Expressing opposition to the use of onychectomy, also known as declawing, for elective surgery in cats. — issued 2026-01-09 — PDF (5 pages)