I’ve researched this issue and the technologies used have come light years from 10 years ago. I do NOT agree with essentially chopping off the last digit of a cat’s “fingers,” as was the former practice. Now, they use lasers which are much less intrusive and the recovery time is much shorter.
Regardless, a law against this is silly.
Our current cat is declawed, as was her predecessor. Both of them were jumping around and playing by the time they got home from having the procedure done; so in our case, it didn't seem to be as "cruel and unusual" as some here suggest. She is an indoor cat only, and we only declawed the front claws. Having no front claws has not prevented her from killing a couple of small mice. She sometimes rubs her front paws on something as if she is "sharpening her claws". If she were an indoor/outdoor cat (which we try not to have), we would not have declawed her.
People need to understand that if they want people to provide homes for homeless cats, it has to be on the homeowner's terms. An ornery cat that cannot be broken from scratching is probably not going to stay in someone's home very long if they cannot declaw it.
I also have a tail-less Corgi whose tail was probably docked shortly after he was born. I guess I'm terrible. I'll get over it.
.
Wow, a law against cruelty is silly?
Cats need all of their claws; that’s why Yehova designed them that way. (and if you’re an evoloooshunist, the argument is even stronger)