I am exceedingly leery of giving pre-emptive rights to animals not asking for them. This is anthropomorphic projection, which could easily be hijacked as a way to take rights away from humans in unrelated situations.

No one is asking these animals for their input. In the recent law case in New York, the people handling the chimpanzees were not even aware they were being sued. You may say, "of course not! Their exploiters will not side with them!"

Now imagine that the case had succeeded. The handler has therefore been sued in absentia and found liable, without a chance for legal representation. The NhRC is thus using habeas corpus for their clients and against their opponents.

This legal rally for non-humans in the face of actual citizens is a very privileged way to look at the world. It starts with the passive-aggressive way to handle one set of problems: raise one animal's status then hand the punishment to a person, thereby lowering the person's status.

The implications can be horrifying. If certain animals get a raised status, would this not also give anti-abortion advocates a legal precedent to protect a not-yet-human above its female host? What would separate these situations from the "body liberty" that the NhRC proposes?

Let's face it: there are still a hell of a lot of people that want to take power away from women. They may not run your state, but they seem to run Texas at the moment. Turning this legal "exercise" into real laws gives misogynists a large set of tools.

The chimps aren't asking for body liberty: humans are asking on their behalf. They may as well be representing Silly Putty.

Yes, this crap really makes me angry. These people don't sound like they're interested in helping the guy in the trailer park in Gloversville to get his chimp some improvement, let alone issuing him papers in person.