[justanotherfreeper]

The Schumer language was designed to hurt peaceful protestors. The change would have specifically affected those individuals whose peaceful, albeit unlawful, protests do not rise to the level of willful and malicious conduct, which currently can be discharged by a bankruptcy judge.

EXAMPLE: the individual kneeling on the sidewalk outside of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic who is sued in civil court for violating the FACE Act previously (because her kneeling is "physically blocking" access to the clinic -- and yes, judges have ruled for the pro-aborts when people have been praying on the sidewalk) may have discharged her lawsuit debts because her actions weren’t both willful and malicious. But under the Schumer language she would not be able to discharge debts from her Planned Parenthood lawsuit. This is a HUGE incentive for NARAL, PP, et al to sue EVERY protestor, and demanding the protestor pay NARAL's legal fees (as well as paying her own attorney)-- basically silencing the pro-life protests.

You might think pro-lifers don't have the right to pray outside abortion clinics, and that's fine. But this language would in fact affect these protests, not just violent protestors or those laying in front of clinic doors. A really good legal analysis by Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon is here: Legal Analysis

[Trust but Verify]

Thanks for the info. Sounds like there isn't going to be an amendment after all.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Mary Ann Glendon admits she isn't a bankruptcy expert, and doesn't know the other parts of the code as may be applicable to penalties under FACE.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Here is some existing law on it, from 11 USC 523:

6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity;

(7) to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, other than a tax penalty