Animal abuse among the dominionist community, of course, gets less press than child abuse.  At the same time, however, it's important we pay attention to it; among other things, there is a very well documented link between abuse of animals earlier in life and expansion of abuse to kids and spouses later in life as well as a very well established link to gross animal abuse and future sociopathy.  

This becomes especially relevant with promotion of "Biblically based" child and spousal abuse; ironically, none other than James Dobson nicely ties the two together in what is now known as the "Scourging of Siggie"--the literal beatdown of a Dachshund used as an example of how children's wills must be broken in The New Strong-Willed Child.

As it turns out, though, Dobson's beating of his pet dog is relatively small potatoes compared to some dominionist-sympathisers.

Bill Frist has in general been one of the more reliable supporters of dominionism in Congress, up to and including being a regular of the "Justice Sunday" events up to and including Justice Sunday III; in fact, at the first Justice Sunday event he literally accused the entire Democratic Party of launching a progrom against "people of faith"; he's also tried to hammer through laws that would nullify not only same-sex marriages but domestic partnerships.

Frist is probably most infamous (for people who've not been researching dominionism) for his "telediagnosis" of Terri Schiavo--in which he claimed that a heavily-edited video of Schiavo was "proof" that she was not in a persistent vegetative state.  Even after his statements were officially recorded in the Congressional Record he claimed he never made a telediagnosis; this being after the autopsy results showed she in fact had almost no functional cerebral cortex.  Nearly every non-dominionist newspaper called Frist on this, even to the point of asking him to apologise to Michael Schiavo; at least one medical ethicist has complained to the Tennessee Board of Medical Licensure regarding the Schiavo incident, in which it was found that he may not in fact be eligible to keep his medical license due to not keeping up with CME requirements (doctors are required to have CME--Continuing Medical Education--credits to remain licensed).

It is possibly quite ironic that Frist was trumpeting how Terry Schiavo's husband was a "murderer" for following her end-of-life wishes whilst quite possibly practicing unlicensed medicine, considering how he got his start in the medical career.

Specifically, it seems, he would adopt cats from shelters for purposes of performing vivisection on them, according to his book Transplant: A Heart Surgeon's Account of the Life-and-Death and even as reported in a Free Republic article (a news-source usually friendly to dominionists!):

(from Free Republic article)

Think of it this way: You have a sister, and she comes to you for advice. This guy named Bill has asked her to marry him. Great guy, this Bill, practically Mr. Perfect: a heart surgeon, ambitious, dedicated, everyone speaks well of him. There's just this one thing, something he felt the need to confess to her, something he did as a youth in medical school, something he now regrets, something he says he's ashamed of. It's long ago in the past, but it troubles your sister, and she's asking your advice about it because Bill-well, he lied and cheated essentially to kidnap and then dissect and kill cats.

Oh, he did it for a good cause: He had some advanced ideas about a medical breakthrough, and they'd run out of cats to dissect at the medical school, so he'd go to animal shelters, make goo-goo eyes at a cat at each shelter to get them to let him adopt the shivering strays, take them home, and then perform experimental surgery on them. For a good purpose, a higher humanitarian purpose, he says-but obviously he isn't trying to excuse the lying and cheating, or the implicit betrayal of the poor trusting animals, who thought they were going to be given a home off the mean streets at last. So there it is, the question you can sense your sister is asking you: Should she put her life, her trust, in this fellow? Was it just a youthful indiscretion, or was it a signal of something deeply twisted?

(from Town Hall article (another dominionist-friendly news source))

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Incoming Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was a successful surgeon in his home state of Tennessee before being elected to the Senate in 1994. Now the Republican leader is being challenged by animal "rights" activists to "atone for" unauthorized medical experiments he conducted on cats.

Frist admitted in his 1989 book that, while a student at Harvard Medical School, he adopted cats from animal shelters and practiced surgery on the animals. In adopting the cats, however, Frist told shelter staff members he wanted the animals for pets. All of the cats died as a result of the surgeries.

(from Counterpunch article)

As for Bill Frist, the millionaire Tennessee sawbones, everthing you need to know about this unpleasing man was contained in one short paragraph of a profile of Frist by Michael Kranish in the Boston Globe Sunday magazine for October 27, 2002, covering the years when Frist was in Boston, first at Harvard Medical School and then at Mass General.

"Frist is an animal lover who said his decision to become a doctor was clinched when he helped heal a friend's dog. But Frist now found himself forced to kill animals during medical research. And his new dilemma was finding enough animals to kill. Soon, he began lying to obtain more animals. He went to the animal shelters around Boston and promised he would care for the cats as pets. Then he killed them during experiments. 'It was a heinous and dishonest thing to do,' Frist wrote. 'I was going a little crazy.'"

The site Unblinking.com archives has more information on this; John Stewart, among others, makes short work of it and in fact there is an entire Wikipedia page on the matter. The Wikipedia article goes into even more detail on just what sort of "research" he did:

In his book, Frist explained that he succumbed to the pressure to succeed in a highly competitive medical school. Frist stated that he "treat[ed] them as pets for a few days" before he "cart[ed] them off to the lab to die." He went on to say, "And I was totally schizoid about the entire matter. By day, I was little Billy Frist, the boy who lived on Bowling Avenue in Nashville and had decided to become a doctor because of his gentle father and a dog named Scratchy. By night, I was Dr. William Harrison Frist, future cardiothoracic surgeon, who was not going to let a few sentiments about cute, furry little creatures stand in the way of his career. In short, I was going a little crazy." He went on to describe why he conducted animal experiments: "It can even be beautiful and thrilling work, as I discovered that day in the lab when I first saw the wonderful workings of a dog's heart . . . I spent days and nights on end in the lab, taking the hearts out of cats, dissecting each heart, suspending a strip of tiny muscle that attaches the mitral valve to the inner wall of the cat heart and recording the effects of various medicines I added to the bath surrounding the muscle." "I lost my supply of cats. I only had six weeks to complete my project before I resumed my clinical rotations. Desperate, obsessed with my work, I visited the various animal shelters in the Boston suburbs, collecting cats . . . it was a heinous and dishonest thing to do."

One probably shouldn't be all that surprised that Frist valued vegetables above kitties--"dominion theology" actually gets its name from the portion of Genesis commanding Adam to "claim dominion" over the earth and its creatures--but what is very disturbing is that Bill Frist flat out violated at minimum medical ethics regs and, quite possibly, the law as well.  (The fact that he went to shelters under false pretences (at a time when the shelters would have been willing to offer unadoptable animals for research) to complete a dissertation before he went back on clinical rotation gives quite an insight as to his medical ethics!)

Even worse, it appears that Frist was conducting experiments that were completely unnecessary.  (Before people flame me too much, I do realise experiments on animals are sometimes a necessary evil for medical advancements in humans.  I myself am good friends with a medical researcher who is in fact working on spinal regeneration via stem cells (and they've had good results so far in mice; unfortunately, this sort of research can't be tested save with live animals).)  Specifically, it appears that Frist was pretty much suspending hearts of cats outside the body (save by a strip of heart muscle), dissecting the hearts whilst the cats were alive in some cases and inducing heart attacks in cats by bathing the exposed heart in various chemicals in others.  In most universities anymore, this would probably not be allowed for research (as it's a repeat of previous experiments and also would violate policies that universities have in place against unnecessarily cruel treatment of research animals).  Even according to guidelines established by animal researchers, Frist's activity would have violated ethics guidelines on the experiments themselves (much less how he got the cats in the first place):
Canadian Council on Animal Care: Proceedings for Pain Management and Humane Endpoints
Guide for the Care and Use of Labratory Animals
U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training
PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
What Investigators Need To Know About The Use of Animals

If it were just a matter of Frist doing unethical vivisection on cats, that'd be bad enough.  Unfortunately, though, it isn't all.

As it turns out, Frist is attempting to roll back protections against cruel practices in the wake of a major scandal involving one of the largest horse shows in the US:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has entered the Tennessee Walking Horse controversy by asking the federal agency assigned to protect horses to consider an industry-backed change in the law.

The Tennessee Republican, in a letter dated Thursday, said the proposal is meant to "clarify" what constitutes horse soring so regulators can enforce the Horse Protection Act "in a more consistent manner." Frist and Senate colleague Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., co-signed the letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Bruce Knight.

"It has been asserted that the current definition of soring under the HPA is interpreted and applied differently across the country," said the letter, which accompanied the proposed amendment. "Given the technical nature of this proposal from both a legal and a medical standpoint, we would appreciate USDA's analysis and comments on these possible changes to the HPA."

What started this controversy in the first place was the "Tennessee Walking Horse controversy" mentioned--an absolute debacle involving the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration this year.

Specifically, the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration turned very much into the Tennessee Walking Horse Disaster this year.  Among other fun things, at least one horse that attended was rabid (no, I'm not making this up--the horse had rabies, like what foamy-mouthed dogs tend to give to people--yes, at a national horse show where agricultural inspectors are supposed to make sure this does not happen by not admitting sick horses--yes, the horse was so rabid that it was showing symptoms of rabies on the last day), was postponed and ultimately cancelled altogether after fully five out of eight championship contenders were found to be "sored" or doped (which led to a cancellation of a different Tennessee Walking Horse show to be held in Kentucky), and even has a bribery scandal ongoing in which an owner of one of the disqualified horses tried to bribe the show organisers $10,000 if the show would go on.

How this relates to animal cruelty is specifically what soring is.  From Silver Phoenix Ranch:

Soring is quite possibly one of the most alarming and most unknown forms of animal cruelty.  Soring is the process of putting acidic products and irritating chemicals on a horse's legs that cause pain in the horse in order for it to lift its legs higher for more action.  It is commonly found in the world of the Tennessee Walking Horse, and we see it most prominently with the Performance horses, or "Big Lick" horses.

Soring, by definition from the Horse Protection Act (HPA) passed by Congress in 1976, is:
"(A) an irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse,
"(B) any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse,
"(C) any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse, or
"(D) any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except that such term does not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment was given."
. . .
How Did Soring Start?

Training a ho