ASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — Two powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill that usually have no issue in common, credit card companies and anti-abortion campaigners, have collided over the fate of a bill to overhaul the nation's bankruptcy system.Posted on 09/25/2002 7:48:50 PM PDT by RCW2001
ASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — Two powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill that usually have no issue in common, credit card companies and anti-abortion campaigners, have collided over the fate of a bill to overhaul the nation's bankruptcy system.
The credit card industry has been lobbying for years for the legislation, which would make it harder for people to escape their credit card bills and other debts in bankruptcy.
But on the brink of victory in Congress, where overwhelming, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate support the measure, the credit card lobbyists have been startled to find teams of anti-abortion lobbyists fanning out across Capitol Hill in a last-minute effort to block the final vote.
The anti-abortion groups say they are outraged over a provision of the bill that is intended to limit the ability of abortion protesters to use the bankruptcy laws to escape court fines imposed after demonstrations at abortion clinics.
With so little time left until Congress adjourns before the November elections, the anti-abortion groups may have the upper hand. The battleground is the House, where Congressional aides say the chamber's Republican leaders are reluctant to permit a pre-election vote for fear of alienating anti-abortion groups, an important Republican constituency, even if that means offending important campaign contributors from the credit card industry.
"This is a bill that's passed in the House and Senate five times by huge majorities, but we're very concerned that we may not be able to get this through," said Ed Yingling, the chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, which represents several of the nation's largest credit card issuers. Mr. Yingling added, "This issue has been blown totally out of proportion" by anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups alike.
Another industry lobbyist described the situation as a "nightmare," given the intensity and the passion of the anti-abortion lobbyists. "Usually my opponents are other lawyers in their pinstripes and we can negotiate things out," he said. "Now I'm up against people who believe this is good versus evil. And I'm not used to being described as evil."
Anti-abortion groups say that the issue is not negotiable, and that they are fighting for a larger, free-speech principle in demanding that the provision aimed at anti-abortion campaigners be stripped from the bill, a move that would almost certainly doom the legislation.
"We believe that this legislation targets peaceful, pro-life protesters," said David Varman, a legislative analyst for Focus on the Family, the evangelical ministry that is organizing opposition to the bill. "Our biggest fear is that a 65-year-old woman who is praying out in front of an abortion clinic would be treated in the same way as someone who blows up an abortion clinic."
The provision was inserted into the bill at the insistence of Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat and outspoken abortion-rights advocate who was a member of the House-Senate conference committee that approved the bill in July.
Another member of the conference committee, Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is equally outspoken in opposing abortion, agreed to the provision after Mr. Schumer's wording was revised to ensure that peaceful anti-abortion demonstrators were not penalized.
But a handful of Mr. Hyde's Republican colleagues in the House say that he gave in too easily to Mr. Schumer on his provision and that the bill would be used to silence abortion opponents.
"This provision would only serve to punish people for standing in the wrong place and speaking their minds," said Representative Joseph R. Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican and abortion opponent who said he otherwise supports the bankruptcy bill. "Abortion has nothing to do with bankruptcy."
Despite the abortion debate, the House majority leader, Representative Dick Armey of Texas, has said in recent days that he is still determined to push the bill to a final vote before he retires from Congress at the end of this session.
The centerpiece of the overall bill is a means test that would end the ability of some debtors to write off all of their so-called unsecured debts, such as credit card bills, when they enter bankruptcy.
"My commitment to bankruptcy reform is unqualified," Mr. Armey told reporters last week. "And I intend to get it done."
House Republican leaders have insisted that they are delaying a vote only because they fear they lack the votes to pass the measure, though many in their own party dispute that notion.
Congressional officials suspect that if the bill is not passed before the election, it could be resurrected if Congress holds a lame-duck session in November.
I wonder how likely anyone is to get away
from court mandated fines by declaring
bankruptcy? Is it something we can all
do now?
In other news, for those who still haven't received a ping from me recently, a while back I managed to kill my bump list, sending it off into the ether. If you haven’t received a bump from me for a while, and if you would like to receive bumps from me, please ping me and let me know you would like back on the list. I didn’t delete you on purpose, I just deleted the whole list by accident.
For anyone else, let me know if you want on or off the list. Click my screen name for a description.
patent +AMDG
Yes, unless Planned Parenthood sues you after this bill passes. They you are especially evil, and can't escape your debts to them. It singles out one specific political position, and penalizes it in bankruptcy proceedings.
Religious and wanting to avoid accountability for broken promises and unpaid debts (a.k.a. fraud)? Perhaps we should call them "Irish Catholic Travelers." ;-)Do you have any idea what the provision is that we oppose? It isn’t about unpaid debts, its about the pro-aborts using things like RICO to sue all pro-life protesters into debt, and then making those debts, and only those debts, non dischargeable in bankruptcy.
patent +AMDG
You are saying that, even though I can afford to pay court ordered fines, I am free to declare bankruptcy to get out of the payment? Sorry, I find that very hard to believe.You should find that hard to believe, as that is not what I said. Perhaps, in addition to working on your credulity, you should practice some reading skills.
In your first post, you did not refer to having an ability to pay the court ordered fines. If you legally have the ability to pay the fines, you can never use the bankruptcy code to escape them. Frankly, the idea that you could escape any debts by filing bankruptcy, despite the clear ability to pay them, is so ludicrous that I assumed no one here was so dense as to require that clarification.
If you do not have the ability to pay the debts, if you are a pauper for instance, you can declare bankruptcy. This is “something we can all do now” as you asked, provided that we meet the normal requirements of any bankruptcy code, that is we are to poor to pay the debts. What this amendment seeks to do is carve out a special class of paupers, pro-lifers, and based on their actions outside of abortion clinics forbid them from discharging their debts.
If I go sue you tomorrow, and get a 10 billion dollar judgment against you, you will likely declare bankruptcy, or my collection efforts will force you into it anyway, regardless of your desires. On the other hand, should this bill pass, if you protest outside an abortion clinic, get sued along with 20 other protesters under RICO, and get held liable for a 10 billion dollar judgment, you, unlike any other individual in the country, will not be able to turn to the bankruptcy courts. Burn a Church down and you are safe. Protest outside planned parenthood, and you remain in debt for your entire life.
That is the goal.
patent +AMDG
If I have this correct, and I may not, what the anti-abortion protestors
want is an exemption for themselves from what happens to every one
else. They want not equal treatment, but exception to it.
Your hostility is out of place, but alas,
par for the course at FR lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.