Senate protects pro-lifers in bankruptcy reform

By Tom Strode - Mar 15, 2005 - comment

The Senate defeated March 8 a measure to prevent pro-life protesters from filing for bankruptcy when they are fined by courts.

The pro-life victory came on an amendment offered by Sen. Charles Schumer, D.-N.Y., whose proposal had held up approval of bankruptcy reform legislation in the past. The Senate defeated Schumer’s amendment by a 53-46 vote. Sens. Robert Byrd, D.-W.Va., and Ben Nelson, D.-Neb., were the only Democrats to oppose the amendment. Four Republicans voted for the amendment: Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, both of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Senate opposition to the measure was based not only on its treatment of peaceful pro-life demonstrators but on the likelihood it would again result in the House of Representatives rejecting the bankruptcy bill to which it was attached.

In 2002, the Senate approved the bankruptcy legislation with Schumer’s amendment attached. Pro-lifers in the House, however, led a charge that killed the bill.

Schumer’s amendment, in essence, applies the principles of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to bankruptcy law. The FACE Act, which was enacted in 1994, criminalized nonviolent protests at abortion clinics and empowered clinics to file civil suits for hefty sums against protesters who had been convicted of a crime.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Religious Liberty

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com