Paws for a Cause Vet Care leaves Lisle location for new expanded facility in Naperville: ‘Like a dream come true'
Paws for a Cause Vet Care — a low-cost veterinary clinic formerly known as Spay Illinois — has moved from its longstanding location in Lisle to an expanded space in Naperville.
Though they officially opened in their new 16,000-square-foot facility at 1620 Bond St. in early April, the clinic will celebrate with a grand opening event from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. Thursday, May 15, at which the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce will hold the ribbon-cutting.
'(It's) kind of like a dream come true,' Brittany Eslary, Paws for a Cause Vet Care's chief development officer, said Thursday.
The new facility is about quadruple the size of where they had been operating previously, Eslary said. The clinic offers preventative care, diagnostic services, surgical services, dental care and an on-site pharmacy.
Services are devised to be comprehensive and affordable, according to Eslary. The latter goes back to the nonprofit's founding mission to make pet care more accessible as a means of preventing pet homelessness and shelter overpopulation.
'That's really been a big piece of the puzzle and focus — making sure that affordability and price wasn't the reason that people weren't able to get care for their pet,' Eslary said.
The origins of Paws for a Clause date back more than 15 years. The venture started in 2009 when founder and CEO Kathi Daniels, alongside a small group of volunteers, started organizing low-cost and free spay/neuter clinics in the Kankakee County area, she said.
From there, 'by word of mouth it just grew,' Eslary said. In 2010, the nonprofit opened its first stationary clinic in Momence, about an hour and a half southeast of Naperville.
In 2013, the nonprofit started renting a space in Lisle, which is where the venture really started to become more of a full-time operation, she said. Meanwhile, the clinic still traveled to off-site locations to offer vaccinations and microchipping to other communities. That was the clinic's model for years until the COVID-19 pandemic put a stop to off-site work, Eslary said.
But in the pandemic's wake, the nonprofit honed in on a years-long goal of expanding and bringing services under one comprehensive roof.
'Our new space allows us to meet the growing needs of our community while staying true to our mission of keeping pets healthy and in loving homes,' Daniels said in a news release. 'Our new location not only expands our capacity but also enables us to introduce a wider array of services that address the comprehensive health needs of pets.'
Last year, the clinic had more than 27,000 pet visits, including 15,562 general wellness visits, 11,116 spay and neuter surgeries, and 334 dental procedures, according to the nonprofit's website.
With the opening of its new facility, Paws for a Clause now has a staff of 47, Eslary said.
She started working with the nonprofit in 2014 after graduating from college, she said. For six years, she was the clinic's assistant development director. In 2019, Eslary left to take a job out of state but returned last October as chief development officer.
'Seeing the slow growth over time and having this opportunity to have what's becoming a state-of-the-art facility brings (this) to a new level of affirmation,' she said.
'It definitely keeps you motivated to want to do more.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
22 minutes ago
COVID-19 patients with reduced kidney function who are vaccinated are more likely to survive: Study
Patients vaccinated against COVID-19 who caught the virus -- and were hospitalized with reduced kidney function -- had better outcomes than unvaccinated patients with the same conditions, a new study has found. Vaccinated patients were less likely to need dialysis after being discharged from the hospital and were more likely to survive, according to the study. Lead author Dr. Niloofar Nobakht, a health sciences clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of nephrology at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said the findings suggest COVID-19 vaccination can reduce the risk of long-term kidney function decline and of death. "The COVID-19 vaccine is an important intervention that can decrease the chances of developing complications from the COVID-19 infection in patients hospitalized with acute kidney injuries," Nobakht said in a news release. "It is important for individuals to discuss the benefits of getting vaccinated for COVID-19 with their doctors as it can decrease the chances of needing dialysis, which can severely affect the quality of life of patients and lead to further complications, including death," she continued. For the study, published early Friday in the journal Kidney Medicine, researchers looked at about 3,500 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and March 30, 2022. Of those patients, 972 developed acute kidney injury, which is a sudden reduction in kidney function, with 411 who were unvaccinated against COVID-19 and 467 who were vaccinated. Vaccinated patients received either at least two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Nearly 16% of unvaccinated patients needed a form of dialysis known as continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) -- a continuous, slow-motion dialysis that runs 24 hours a day -- compared with about 11% of vaccinated patients. Results also showed unvaccinated patients were 2.56 times more likely to need CRRT after being discharged from the hospital and 5.54 times more likely to die in the hospital compared to vaccinated patients. Additionally, those who were unvaccinated were 4.78 times more likely to die during long-term follow-up. "This study also emphasizes the importance of the need for continued research in understanding how COVID-19 infections affect the kidney and how we should manage and monitor kidney complications from COVID-19 infections to improve patient outcomes," Nobakht said. The authors said one of the limitations of the study was not enough data on the severity of COVID-19 illness, but the team did note all the patients were ill enough to have required hospitalization. The new study comes as COVID-19 vaccines have received renewed attention due to recent moves from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Last month, Kennedy announced COVID-19 vaccines were being removed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's immunization schedule for "healthy children and pregnant women." Additionally, earlier this week, Kennedy removed all 17 sitting members of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory committee and appointed eight replacement members, some of whom have shared vaccine-skeptic views.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Owensboro women's recovery facility sees rare availability
OWENSBORO, Ky. (WEHT) — A recovery program in Owensboro says they have more than half of their women's facility available right now. Staff at Friends of Sinners say the vacancies are something they've never seen say when it comes to substance abuse recovery waiting lists are the norm. Owensboro's Friends of Sinners women's recovery program staff say for the first time since they can remember their waiting list and two-thirds of their facility's client spots are empty and have remained that way since the beginning of June.'If one person goes or completes [the program], we're able to fill that bed immediately. So, the fact that we have seven open is a very rare occasion. After COVID, the overdose deaths [were] hitting over 100,000 in the United States. I believe that those numbers have dropped a little bit, but my goodness, we still see it everywhere,' says Jordan Wilson How would phasing out FEMA impact Kentucky? Statistics show a 30 percent decrease in Kentucky overdose deaths from 2023 to 2024, dropping to a little over 1,400 annually. Wilson says the recent decline highlights that investments in recovery efforts are working, but says the work is far from over. Whether it be opioids, methamphetamine or alcohol addiction, Wilson says its hard to find someone unaffected by the epidemic. Angel Harper, a current client, says she knows firsthand.'I lost everything. I lost my family. I almost lost my life. I got narcaned 16 times in 30 days…that's 16 times I died in 30 days. I just realized that, I had to try something different. It's scary when you're like that, and there is no way out,' says Angel Harper, a client at FOS. Harper traveled all the way from Georgia hoping for a second chance and is a little over a month into the year-long program. After a month of being enrolled, clients work to get a job, learn life skills like budgeting and pay a little over $100 each week for rent. Being admitted requires a 3-step process. Requirements include writing a letter explaining why you feel God wants you to come to the program, answering application questions and scheduling an interview with staff who were once in their shoes years prior. 'My son said to me, 'mom, give God a year, and see where you're at. You dedicated a lot of your life to doing drugs. Give him a year.' That's what I did, and that's the advice that I give to these girls,' says Elizabeth Cockrell, a staff member at the facility and FOS alumna. Cockrell is three and a half years into her sobriety journey and says she tries to serve as what she needed when she walked through the front door of the center. She says she pushes for the ladies to understand that God makes all the difference. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Is Barely Even Pretending Anymore
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accepted his new position as health secretary, he made a big show of distancing himself from his past life. 'News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry,' Kennedy, who has for decades promoted the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism and has baselessly sown doubt over the ability of the U.S. government to vet shots, said at his confirmation hearing in January. 'I am neither. I am pro-safety.' But for all Kennedy's talk, this week, he did exactly what a person would do if they were trying to undermine the scientific consensus on vaccination in the United States. He abruptly dismissed the entire expert committee that advises the CDC on its nationwide vaccine recommendations—and began to fill the roster with like-minded people ready to cast doubt on the benefits of vaccination. Like Kennedy, few of these new appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, or ACIP, have openly embraced the notion that they are anti-vaccine. But among them are individuals who have spoken out against COVID vaccines and policies, claimed vaccine injuries for their own children, and falsely linked COVID shots to deaths—or even baselessly accused those vaccines of 'causing a form of acquired immunity deficiency syndrome.' In January, I wrote that remaking the committee in exactly this way would be an especially harmful blow to Americans' health: Perhaps more than any other body of experts in the U.S., ACIP guides the nation's future preparedness against infectious disease. By appointing a committee that is poised to legitimize more of his own radical views, Kennedy is giving his skewed version of scientific reality the government's imprimatur. Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization. In an emailed statement, Health and Human Services Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard reiterated that 'Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine—he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability,' and added that his 'evidence-based approach puts accountability and radical transparency first, which will restore trust in our public health system.' (Kennedy, notably, promised Senator Bill Cassidy during his confirmation process that he would maintain ACIP, as Cassidy put it, 'without changes.') Since the 1960s, ACIP has lent government policy on vaccines the clout of scientific evidence. Its mandate is to convene experts across fields such as infectious disease, immunology, pediatrics, vaccinology, and public health to carefully vet the data on immunizations, weigh their risks and benefits, and vote on recommendations that guide the public on how to use them—who should get vaccines, and when. Those guidelines are then passed to the CDC director, who—with only the rarest of exceptions—accepts that advice wholesale. 'These recommendations are what states look to, what providers look to,' Rupali Limaye, an expert in vaccine behavior at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me. Medicare, for instance, is required to fully cover the vaccines that ACIP recommends; ACIP also determines which vaccines are covered by the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines for children whose families cannot afford them. The experts who serve on ACIP have the opportunity, more than just about any of their scientific peers, to translate their vaccine rhetoric into reality. So far, Kennedy has dismissed the 17 people who were serving on ACIP, and filled eight of the newly open slots. Most of the new nominees have an obvious bone to pick with at least some vaccines, especially COVID shots, and have publicly advocated for limiting their use. Among the new members, for instance, is Robert Malone, a controversial physician who has spoken at anti-vaccine events, where he has denounced COVID vaccines and, without evidence, suggested that they can worsen coronavirus infections. Another appointee is Vicky Pebsworth, who serves on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine nonprofit previously known as Dissatisfied Parents Together. A third, Retsef Levi, a health-care-management expert, called for the administration of COVID vaccines to be halted in 2023, and has questioned the shots' safety, despite a large body of evidence from clinical trials supporting their continued use. Overall, 'this is not a list that would increase confidence in vaccine decisions,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-policy expert at UC San Francisco, told me. (None of these new ACIP members returned a request for comment.) The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for the end of this month—and the agenda includes discussion about anthrax vaccines, chikungunya vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines, cytomegalovirus vaccine, the human-papillomavirus vaccine, influenza vaccines, the Lyme-disease vaccine, meningococcal vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, and RSV vaccines. That's a big slate of topics for a brand-new panel of members, Paul Offit, a pediatrician and a vaccine expert who has previously served on ACIP, told me: Depending on how the meeting is structured, and on the input from CDC scientists, these new committee members could substantially alter the guidelines on several immunizations—perhaps so much so that certain shots could stop being recommended to certain groups of Americans. Based on the composition of the committee so far, Offit predicts that the new ACIP will eventually push the CDC away from full-throated endorsement of many of these vaccines. Even subtle changes in the wording of CDC recommendations—a should swapped for a may—can have big ripple effects, Limaye told me. Insurers, for instance, may be more reluctant to cover vaccines that are not actively endorsed by the CDC; some states—especially those in which vaccines have become a political battleground—may stop mandating those types of shots. If the CDC softens its recommendations, 'we will likely see more partisan divides' in who opts for protection nationwide, Jason Schwartz, a vaccine-policy expert at Yale, told me. Pharmaceutical companies may, in turn, cut down production of vaccines that don't have full CDC backing, perpetuating a cycle of reduced availability and reduced enthusiasm. And primary-care physicians, who look to the CDC's vaccination schedule as an essential reference, may shift the language they use to describe childhood shots, nudging more parents to simply opt out. Historically, medical and public-health associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have aligned their vaccine recommendations with ACIP's—because those recommendations were all driven by scientific evidence. Now, though, scientific consensus and government position are beginning to diverge: Multiple groups of physicians, scientists, and public-health scholars have issued statements condemning the vaccine decisions of Kennedy and his allies; a number of prominent scientists have now banded together to form a kind of alt-ACIP, dubbing themselves the Vaccine Integrity Project. As the views of fringe vaccine groups become the government's stance, Americans may soon have to choose between following the science and following what their nation's leaders say. Identifying as 'anti-vaccine' has historically been taboo: In a nation where most people remain largely in favor of shots, the term is pejorative, an open acknowledgment that one's views lie outside of the norm. But the more vaccine resistance infiltrates HHS and its advisers, the more what's considered normal may shift toward Kennedy's own views on vaccines; ACIP's reputation for evidence-backed thinking could even gild those views with scientific legitimacy. Assembling one's own team of friendly experts is an especially effective way to sanewash extremism, Reiss told me, and to overturn the system through what appear to be normal channels. If the nation's most prominent group of vaccine advisers bends toward anti-vaccine, the term loses its extremist edge—and the scientists who argue, based on sound data, that vaccines are safe and effective risk being labeled anti-government. Article originally published at The Atlantic
