Mac's Law: New bill would prohibit insurance discrimination against dog breeds
Mac's Law would prevent homeowners from being discriminated against solely based on the breed of dog they own. In a memo, Representative Kathleen Tomlinson shared that a constituent in her area spoke up on issues that they had with getting homeowners insurance due to the fact that they owned a pitbull.
''Mac' the pit bull never had a history of being aggressive, and to be perfectly clear, he wouldn't hurt a fly. He was judged by an insurer purely because of his breed,' Tomlinson wrote.
Pennsylvania parking ticket fines could change under new bill
The proposed legislation would prohibit this type of discrimination.
The stereotype against pitbulls isn't something that's new as it's estimated that nearly 800 cities and towns have Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL). Things like breed discriminatory legislation are the result of misinformation, stereotypes and irresponsible ownership that can reinforce it.
BSL most often impacts Pitbulls, Staffordshire Terriers, English Bull Terriers, but it's been known in other areas to include Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers. It can also affect mutts or other dogs that resemble them.
The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that there are 4.7 million dog bites each year and 800,000 will require medical attention. It's also worth noting that critics argue that 100% of locations that have BSL will continue to see reports of bites as 'safety is not a breed-specific issue.'
Tomlinson goes on to argue in her memo that while prohibiting discrimination, her legislation would also take into account if a dog has an aggressive history.
You can read the full memo here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
06-08-2025
- Buzz Feed
PA Lawmaker Sparks Outrage Over Livable Wage Claim
As Americans struggle to afford groceries and get priced out of cities across the country, Republicans are still advocating against increasing the minimum wage. Back in June, Pennsylvania House minority leader Jesse Topper, a Republican, gave remarks against a bill that would increase the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour for most. That would boost hourly workers' wages to over double where they currently sit at $7.25. "Not every wage is designed — and please hear me clearly on this," Topper says. "Not every wage is designed to be a livable wage." He goes on to give examples of his point, like a teenager or a retired person working for income they don't technically need to survive. You can watch Topper's full remarks on his Facebook page. The clip was posted to r/Fauxmoi, where it racked up over 2,000 upvotes and 270 comments (and counting). "So some jobs are supposed to be a hobby then?" this person asked. Someone else suggested giving Topper "one of those not designed to be livable wages." "You can't say a job is essential and then turn around and say the person doing it doesn't deserve to live off it," one user wrote. This person simply wrote, "Fuck this." Someone said that the people working for minimum wage "do more work in a week than these people do in an entire year." "The audacity of this man to say this, when those same people not making a livable wage are literally paying his salary with their tax dollars," this person wrote. "Despicable humans." One user said that service jobs like those at fast food joints sometimes go to kids who don't "need" the money, but that lots of those jobs are occupied by people who really do. "So pro life," someone joked. And finally, this person pointed out that the mere existence of the phrase "livable wage" is troubling in itself. So, what do you think? Sound off in the comments.
CNBC
04-08-2025
- CNBC
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Firing of BLS commissioner is 'dangerous'
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) joins CNBC's 'Squawk on the Street' to discuss her reaction President Trump's firing of BSL chief, whether Congress is able to take action, and much more.
San Francisco Chronicle
21-07-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
How's Lurie doing as mayor? Our new poll on the state of S.F. had stunning results
Six months into Mayor Daniel Lurie's tenure, San Franciscans are far happier with his performance than they were with former Mayor London Breed's one year ago, according to a new poll commissioned by the Chronicle. The poll also revealed a turnaround in voters' attitudes about the city overall: A majority now rate the quality of life to be good or excellent, and half of respondents believe that conditions will continue to improve. The poll, which surveyed 961 registered voters between July 9 and 13, found that almost three quarters of San Franciscans approved of the job Lurie had done so far. His sky-high approval rating is almost the exact inverse of how likely voters rated Breed's performance last July: At that time, just over one quarter of respondents said they approved of the mayor's performance. The poll reflects a sampling of San Francisco residents, and was not perfectly representative of the city's demographic breakdown. Notably, even after weighting the results to better reflect the city's demographics, respondents were 53% non-Hispanic white, while the city on the whole is just 37% white. Still, the poll found no major difference between white and non-white respondents in their support of the mayor — although Asian respondents were more supportive than Black and Latino respondents. The positive results for Lurie come just six months into his term. Last July's poll on Breed, on the other hand, came six years into Breed's tenure — and months before the election. The political landscape in which the two polls were conducted has notably shifted as well. Last July, San Francisco was still struggling out of its pandemic-induced slump and grappling with a bruised national reputation. Campaigns for the mayoralty, swirling controversies around the state of the city and the presidential election were in full swing. Now, even as much of the nation's attention has shifted to President Donald Trump, his sweeping cuts to the government, his harsh immigration policies and even his feud with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, San Franciscans seem to prefer that Mayor Lurie stay out of the fray. Half of voters said the mayor should remain focused on local issues, while just 29% said Lurie should help lead the opposition. Not everyone is bullish on the mayor. Men were slightly more supportive than women, and more recent arrivals to San Francisco were more supportive than longtime residents. But the sharpest divide was political: People who identified themselves as progressives were far less likely to approve of Lurie's performance, and to be bearish on the city's future in general. Strikingly, Lurie was less popular on specific issues than he was overall. While most respondents agreed that he was keeping the city clean, keeping residents and businesses safe from crime and revitalizing downtown, he scored less favorably when it came to providing shelter for the homeless, handling the overdose crisis and addressing the cost of housing. The poll also found that San Franciscans still have mixed reviews of the Board of Supervisors: 38% of respondents said they approved of the supervisors' performance, and 46% said they disapproved. Though that's far from the ringing endorsement that Lurie enjoyed, it's much better than a year ago, when just 20% of respondents approved of the board's job, while 70% disapproved. Overall, San Franciscans are more likely now than last year to say that the city is headed in the right direction. Almost 50% of people in the new poll said they believed the quality of life in San Francisco would get better, while 23% said they believed it would get worse. Last July, 40% believed it would get better, while 32% believed it would get worse. In both years, a little over a quarter of people believed that the quality of life would stay the same. Even as a majority agree that things are looking up in the city, it's clear that a certain nostalgia for the past persists. The Chronicle asked whether respondents found the city to be more fun today than it was 10 years ago. Nearly 60% said it was more fun a decade ago. Just 13% found it more fun today.
