[Trust but Verify]

Can anyone explain to me what kind of 'judgement' would be levied against a pro-life abortion clinic protester who doesn't break any laws or damage any property in the course of the protest? Have their been any civil judgements like this and on what grounds?

Sounds to me like an amendment without a real purpose other than to make the whole bill toxic.

[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