"I Am a Christian" is a powerful video devotional series that brings together personal testimonies from the diverse writers and contributors of Christianity.com.

'We are committed to getting to the bottom of this'

'We're going to make a play for New York'

'Conflate social and institutional values'

Police suspect foul play may be involved

'A perfect vehicle'

'Totally insane'

The post How Much to Get a Cat Chipped In the UK? (2024 Update) by Matt Jackson appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com. Click to Skip Ahead Importance of Microchipping Cat Chipping Cost How Often to Get a Cat Chipped Is Chipping Painful? Where To Get Your Cat Chipped? What If Your Cat Gets Rehomed? What If You Move? Pet Insurance Microchipping is a common practice for pets in the UK and it helps ensure that lost or stolen cats are reunited with their owners sooner. Since June 2024, it has been a legal requirement for all cats to be microchipped by the time they reach 20 weeks of age. Non-compliance can lead to fines of up to £500. Some breeders may chip their cats before selling them, but this isn’t always the case, and most new owners opt to have their cats chipped when they are being neutered as they will already be under anaesthetic. The procedure is minimally invasive, although it may cause some discomfort, and the chip should, except in very rare circumstances, last the lifetime of the cat. The Importance of Microchipping A microchip is placed directly underneath the cat’s skin, typically between the shoulder blades. If the cat gets lost, a vet, warden, or rescue centre, will be able to use a scanner to locate the chip and get a chip identifier. Details of the chip are registered on a central database and the person or group scanning the chip will be able to find contact details of the owner. The primary benefit of having a cat microchipped is that lost cats are reunited with their owners. Rescues, shelters, and some other professionals have microchip scanners they can use to find owner details. In some cases, this means that owners who would not otherwise be found can be reunited with their lost cats, as cats do have a tendency to roam long distances if they escape or roam from their homes. It can greatly reduce the amount of time that families are apart from their pets, and it also means that rescues and shelters do not need to care for the cats for long periods. Since June 2024, it is now a legal requirement that all pet cats be microchipped. A cat must be chipped by the time it is 20 weeks old, and if a cat is found that isn’t microchipped, its owners could be fined up to £500 when they are reunited with the cat. Image Credit: Lucky Business, Shutterstock How Much Does Cat Chipping Cost? The cost of chipping varies according to where you have it done, but it will usually cost between £20 and £30. The cat doesn’t require any anaesthetic and doesn’t need to stay at the vet’s, as the chip is applied by injecting it under the skin. As such, there are no other costs associated with the chipping procedure itself. There may be minimal fees associated with updating the database of cat owner details, but these fees are typically only charged if you need to change owner details or address details. It is important that you keep those details up to date, however, including adding a recent phone number on which you can be called. The chip does not need removal and it should never need to be replaced, so there are no repeat costs either. Some rescues will microchip any cats they take in that aren’t already chipped. They do this because it does help control the number of stray, feral, and lost cats. In these cases, the cost of microchipping is included in the adoption fee you pay. Breeders do not typically chip their cats, although some may do so and, if your cat breeder does microchip your cat, this will again be included in the fee you pay. Some animal charities and organisations may offer free chipping. Again, this is done in the hope that it helps control the number of cats that get lost. How Often Do You Need to Get a Cat Chipped? A microchip does not need any power to operate, and the small device sits under the skin of the cat, which generally offers it protection. The chip will last for decades before it stops working, which means it will last the lifetime of your cat. The cat should only need one microchip in its whole life, which means you don’t need to have it done again and won’t have to pay the fee again. Image Credit: Lucky Business, Shutterstock Is Chipping Painful? Chipping a cat means injecting a small microchip under your cat’s skin. The needle is a little wider than a standard syringe because it needs to hold and deliver the microchip. As such, it can cause some discomfort during the procedure, and there may be some mild swelling and redness in the area after the chip has been inserted. However, this discomfort is short-lived, and your cat should be fine after a minute or two. There are always some very minor risks associated with injections, so it is a good idea to keep an eye on your cat for a few hours after the procedure. Where To Get Your Cat Chipped? Although the procedure is simple, it does require inserting a microchip under your cat’s skin using a needle. The procedure is generally carried out by your vet, and many owners choose to have it done when a young cat is being neutered. This way, the injection can be completed while the cat is under anaesthetic, minimising the discomfort. Speak to your local vet about having your cat microchipped. What If Your Cat Gets Rehomed? If you need to rehome your cat in the future, you will need to provide the new owner with details of the microchip. This includes the chip ID and the name of the database on which the cat is registered. The new owner will be able to speak to the company and change the details of the cat ownership, but the process will be easier with your involvement. Image Credit: JW Design, Shutterstock What If You Move? Similarly, if you move property or you change your phone number, the database will need to be updated. It should always include up-to-date contact information so that a vet or other professional who scans your cat will be able to get in touch with you as quickly as possible. There may be a small fee when you make changes to the cat’s details, but these shouldn’t be more than a few pounds, and some companies do not levy any charges at all. Does Pet Insurance Cover Chipping? Pet insurance does not typically cover chipping, although it might be considered a beneficial extra that is included with some policies. Insurance is usually used to pay for unexpected veterinary and recovery bills for cats that get ill or are involved in accidents, and not for preventive or care requirements. Conclusion It is a legal requirement that all pet cats in the UK are microchipped, and the procedure needs to be done by the time the cat is 20 weeks old. Failure to have a cat chipped can result in a fine of up to £500, but, worse still, it could also mean that you won’t be reunited with your cat if it goes missing, or it will take longer to get them home to you. The procedure is mostly painless, takes a few minutes, and only needs to be completed once in the cat’s life. The cost is cheap, and while some companies do levy a small charge to change phone and address details, this isn’t always the case, so it is worth checking with the microchip database company you use. Sources https://www.gov.uk/get-your-dog-cat-microchipped https://www.cats.org.uk/help-and-advice/neutering-and-vaccinations/microchipping-your-cat Featured Image Credit: Ivonne Wierink, Shutterstock The post How Much to Get a Cat Chipped In the UK? (2024 Update) by Matt Jackson appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com.

Radical political historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat was scheduled to speak at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10 as part of the Bancroft Lecture series, but according to a recent article from The Federalist, this lecture has been “postponed.”  In September, Ben-Ghiat announced that she would be speaking at the Naval Academy in a Substack post, yet in the same announcement she connected her topic of lecture, that of “militaries under authoritarian rule,” with former President Donald Trump and what she proclaims to be “his authoritarian character.”   Ben-Ghiat, in the same post, also suggested a voting preference, stating that several people, notable to the military audience she intended to reach, will be “voting for Vice President Kamala Harris in November.”  It is troubling that the Naval Academy invited an explicit partisan to lecture future military officers at an authorized event on federal property, especially since Ben-Ghiat has deliberately denounced a current presidential nominee as an authoritarian akin to “Fascist Italy, Pinochet’s Chile, and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.”  It is even more troubling that the only reason this lecture is publicly known is through Ben-Ghiat’s Substack post announcing her partisan intent. The Naval Academy never publicized this event, despite having recently publicized a Forrestal Lecture in which the speaker talked about the far more appropriate topic of command leadership.   The concern over this Bancroft Lecture was publicized in a recent Daily Signal article. Since then, the Naval Academy has apparently postponed Ben-Ghiat’s lecture. Nonetheless, concerns still remain. There has been no official statement from Naval Academy leadership disclosing the status of the lecture, nothing to explain the logic for hosting an event of this political nature in the first place, and no remorse over the apparent politicization of the institution.  The Defense Department’s Directive 1344.10 explicitly states that service members shall “not engage in partisan political activity.” With such proximity to an important election, it appears that the Naval Academy, by inviting a radical anti-Trump speaker, has been acting in a political fashion. It calls into question whether academy leadership violated the Defense Department’s directive.  The Naval Academy ought to publicly explain itself, or else it will have missed the point entirely. The point is not that the lecturer is an extreme partisan, or that due to optics the lecture ought not to occur. The point is also not that leadership should simply postpone a lecture as soon as it receives heat from the public eye.  The point is that this is one instance of what could be a very dangerous broader trend.   The Naval Academy should take note of the articles publicizing exactly what is wrong, the letters from members of Congress urging leadership to take a look, and Ben-Ghiat’s expressly political language in describing a nominee for the next commander in chief. These should all serve as warning signs calling for more institutional vigilance, procedural compliance, and integrity. The lack of remorse, the denial of responsibility, and the absence of any acknowledgment of an internal review show a lack of accountability. They show a dangerous sense of complacency and a complete misunderstanding of what the Naval Academy ought to be—an apolitical, nonpartisan military institution.  The post Postponing This Partisan Lecture Isn’t Enough appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued an order granting review in what’s sure to be an incredibly high-profile case on sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex (among other characteristics). The Supreme Court will hear the case of an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claims she suffered sex discrimination in her employment because she is—drumroll please—a heterosexual woman. That makes her a member of what the Supreme Court has determined to be a “majority” class of individuals. Ames filed a discrimination lawsuit against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, saying she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted in favor of a two less-qualified LGBTQ candidates—a gay man and a lesbian woman, respectively. She alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of both sexual orientation (relating to the lesbian woman’s promotion) and sex (relating to promotion of the gay man).   Not since its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), has the court agreed to wrestle head on with a clash of individual characteristics—sex versus sexual orientation, for example—within employment discrimination law. When those characteristics clash, but the law at issue prevents discrimination against both, what is the court to do? This past summer, the court issued a per curiam (unsigned) order upholding lower court injunctions in cases challenging the proposed new Department  of Education rule on Title IX of the Education Amendments, which would expand the definition of “sex discrimination” in education to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.  That order, however, did not address the underlying merits of those challenges. While it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the Supreme Court will eventually address the issue of whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity fit within the definition of discrimination on the basis of “sex” in the education context, the court will grapple with that issue in the employment context in the Ames case.   The lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Ames’ sexual orientation discrimination claim, finding that, as a heterosexual, she is a member of a “majority” group and therefore must prove that her employer was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”   According to the Sixth Circuit, Ames failed to provide sufficient evidence of “background circumstances” necessary to establish discrimination based on her own sexual orientation as a heterosexual. Specifically, Ames was unable to prove that the supervisors who demoted her were part of a minority group (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people), or that there was a pattern of discrimination against straight employees by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. As for Ames’s sex discrimination claim, the court found that while Ames was replaced by a man, the Department had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her demotion. The Sixth Circuit reiterated that the department had previously addressed the need for Ames’s improved performance, and that she had met—but not exceeded—her employee benchmarks. The court concluded that Ames failed to demonstrate that the department’s reasons for not promoting (and eventually demoting) her were insufficient or pretextual. In a world of increasingly divided victim classes, do straight women get a stake in non-discrimination protections, even though they are members of a “majority” of Americans? If so, what must they demonstrate to prove employment discrimination? The Supreme Court will now address and hopefully answer those questions. In addition to Ames, the court has decided to consider other big-ticket items in cases concerning online pornography and the First Amendment, the constitutionality of a “ghost” gun ban, and the constitutionality of a state law barring gender “affirming” medical procedures for minors. This term is already shaping up to be one of the most high-profile yet. Oral arguments in Ames will likely take place early next year and a decision is expected by the end of June. The post Reverse Discrimination? SCOTUS Takes Unusual Case on Sex Discrimination in Employment Requiring Bostock Revisit appeared first on The Daily Signal.