FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Historic Vote to Abolish Vivisection

In March 1910, the Southern California Practitioner observed in an editorial that the animal movement was gaining momentum: “We have an organization which meets at the Chamber of Commerce called the California Anti-Vivisection Society [based in Los Angeles], and notices of which meetings appear with considerable frequency in our newspapers.”

The writer, George H. Kress, predicted an anti-vivisection bill would be introduced during the state legislature’s next session. “Unless the medical profession be aroused in regard to the matter, and the persistent and insistent misrepresentation of facts by anti-vivisectionists be refuted,” the editorial continued, “these sentimentalists (to be charitable) will have a fair chance to bring about the enactment of some such a statute.”

It was a prescient declaration. The coming decade would include a number of battles in the state legislature over animal testing. In 1915, the ‘Open Door’ bill — which allowed greater oversight of research facilities — passed, but was vetoed by the governor. And, in 1917, pound-seizure legislation was defeated after a tough fight. But the stakes would only grow higher in the following years.

In 1919, the California Anti-Vivisection Society united with the San Francisco Anti-Vivisection Society and the Alameda County Anti-Vivisection Society, to form the California Federation of Anti-Vivisection Societies, according to historian Diane L. Beers. Some other sources date the unification a year earlier. Regardless, the newly formed organization worked to put forward a ballot initiative seeking to completely ban animal testing statewide.

In the April 1920 issue of The Starry Cross, a publication of the American Anti-Vivisection Society, editor Robert R. Logan laid out what the effort would require. “It is necessary to obtain fifty-five thousand signatures from actual registered voters, but [state activists] will not be satisfied with less than one hundred thousand names,” he wrote. “It is no wonder, therefore, that the members of the society are on the go, and, with hundreds and hundreds of petitions to be filled, have scarcely time to eat or sleep.”

Later, in the same issue of The Starry Cross, B. L. McHenry, president of the Alameda County faction, described the work by his group to meet their quota. “In two weeks we have secured 3000 names and have placed ninety petitions with friends of the cause who are helping us,” McHenry said, noting each petition could fit 82 names. “We have three tables, with two workers at each one, soliciting on the street.”

Thankfully, the anti-vivisection federation was able to meet its goal and the question of animal testing was put on the ballot for November 2, 1920. Rosemonde Rae Wright, president of the Los Angeles society, who seems to have been the driving force behind the initiative as a whole, wrote the official argument in favor of abolition. “Vivisection is founded upon torture,” she said. “It violates the laws of God and nature, and imposes upon humanity a system barbarous, immoral, unscientific and misleading.”

The proposition failed by a vote of 272,288 to 527,130, according to the UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Still, having won 34-percent support for such an ambitious measure, animal activists were pleased. An unsigned report appeared in the May 1921 issue of The Starry Cross, assessing the results: “Every possible device was made use of by our thoroughly organized opponents… All things considered, we feel greatly encouraged by the good showing made.”

Venia Kercheval, member of the Los Angeles faction, might have captured the feeling of the federation, in a letter published in The Starry Cross a few months earlier, written shortly after the defeat was known. “We are not at all discouraged and will keep right on,” she said. “Our cause is right and MUST and SHALL win in the end.” Unfortunately, the 1920 vote seems to have been a high-water mark for the federation.

A similar proposition was on the ballot in 1922, but garnered a lesser share of the vote, approximately 30 percent, according to results compiled by then Secretary of State Frank C. Jordan. California anti-vivisectionists soldiered on, while apparently never commanding the influence they’d had previously. In early 1958, newspapers across the country ran a small piece on Dell Hawkins — who, nearing her 90th birthday — still worked 40 hours a week, having served as executive secretary of the Los Angeles faction for 34 years.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail