[Jr_Bullit]

Is it about abortion?
Is it about stupid idiots who protest violently and then file for bankruptcy rathern than pay their court imposed fines?
Is it about Dems vs. Repubs?
Is it about the Supreme Court?
Is it about painkiller for fetuses (to which again I wonder - are we in never never land?)

Here's the article - based on your passions I'm sure you'll all read something different into a bill like this...
Personally - I think it's a crappy example of how messed up our government is. If it's about Abortion - then **** - let's make it about abortion, draw the damned line and toe up. If it's about idiots who protest and then file bankruptcy rathern than pay the fines, then make it about that...but saying a bill about Apples makes a point for team A who is fighting for or against Oranges...

growl....

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Bankruptcy Bill Is Arena for Abortion Fight
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 8, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 7 - A bankruptcy bill pending before the Senate is about to provide a forum for the first abortion battle of the new Congress, and how it plays out could set the stage for much larger fights over abortion restrictions and judicial nominees, including perhaps a nominee to the Supreme Court.

At issue is a proposed amendment intended to deny bankruptcy protection to protesters who use violence to shut down abortion clinics. The measure is expected to come up for a vote on Tuesday before a Senate with an expanded Republican majority that includes some of the most ardent abortion opponents in American politics.

"This is the first major pro-choice amendment to come up in this Congress," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, the author of the measure. "It's the first test of how difficult the fight to maintain choice is going to be."

That fight has grown more complicated in recent weeks, as Democrats have become immersed in an internal debate over whether to de-emphasize abortion as a political issue. Abortion rights advocates, meanwhile, are divided over a bill that would require doctors to offer women seeking an abortion pain medicine for the fetus. And both sides are watching closely as the Senate holds hearings on seven of President Bush's judicial nominees who were blocked last year by Democrats.

In a sense, the bankruptcy amendment is a practice step that will put lawmakers on record, telling abortion rights advocates how much support they still have on Capitol Hill. It comes as abortion opponents are newly energized by the November elections, which put seven Republican freshmen in the Senate, including strong opponents of abortion like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a doctor who made news by saying abortion doctors should get the death penalty, and John Thune of South Dakota, who made opposition to abortion a theme of his campaign.

Already, their presence is being felt. Last week, another of those freshmen, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, introduced legislation that would withdraw the so-called abortion pill RU-486 from the market while federal regulators reviewed it. On the other side of the Capitol that day, a House subcommittee held a hearing on a bill, backed by abortion opponents, that would make it a federal crime to transport an under-age girl across state lines for an abortion. The bill is one of the top 10 legislative priorities for Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, and people on both sides of the debate say they expect it to pass.

"We're hopeful that it will be moved along at a fairly rapid clip," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, which represents abortion providers, said, "We know that there is an anti-choice majority in both the House and the Senate, and they can pretty much pass anti-choice restrictions."

But Ms. Saporta said she was hopeful about the bankruptcy measure, adding, "I think this is one situation where we can actually prevail."

The vote will be close, and some Democrats privately disagree with Ms. Saporta's assessment. The amendment needs 51 votes to pass; Mr. Schumer said 47 senators supported it, 48 were opposed and 5 undecided. Some Republican senators who have voted for it in the past, including Ted Stevens of Alaska and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, now say they will oppose the measure, if only because they believe it could kill the underlying bankruptcy bill.

Mr. Schumer's measure grew out of a 1994 federal law that bans the use of force, threats or blockades to keep patients out of abortion clinics. The law allows clinics to sue protesters who block clinic doors, but some protesters have filed for bankruptcy to escape paying court-imposed fines. The amendment has previously passed the Senate, but in 2002, abortion opponents in the House doomed the entire bankruptcy bill rather than vote for it.

Mr. Schumer responded by stripping language specific to abortion from the measure and broadening it to apply to any protester who uses violence. Now, the amendment's backers are trying to build support for it by insisting it is not about abortion.

"That's how we hope to get the votes," said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.

But the tactic is not going over well with abortion opponents. "It's just an obvious attempt to smack pro-life people in the face," Mr. DeMint said. "It's not a substantive bill; it's a political bill."

Though the National Right to Life Committee has been silent on the amendment, conservative advocacy groups have taken up the cause, calling the measure an unfair attack on the clinic protesters' constitutional right to freedom of speech. In an e-mail message to supporters, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the amendment "blatant bigotry against free speech and pro-life activism."

Mr. Thune said that message appeared to be getting out. "This is one that people out in the hinterlands, and particularly conservative values people, pro-life people, are energized by," he said.

Abortion rights advocates are energized as well. Lobbyists for Naral Pro-Choice America, which aroused the ire of other abortion rights advocates by remaining neutral on the fetal pain bill, spent Wednesday on Capitol Hill pressing lawmakers to back the Schumer amendment.

"This is laying down a marker," said Nancy Keenan, the group's president.

Ms. Keenan said the lobbying fit in with a broader strategy to turn the debate away from the grisly details of abortion - which in 2003 helped conservatives pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the first federal law banning a specific abortion procedure - and toward preventing unwanted pregnancies.

To that end, Naral is also pressing lawmakers who oppose abortion to sign on to its Prevention First Act, a measure that would provide women access to birth control and increase financing for sex education. The bill is sponsored by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who opposes abortion; Naral recently sent an open letter to abortion opponents asking them to support the bill.

"We're going to define the debate on our grounds, not theirs," Ms. Keenan said.

But asked about the bankruptcy amendment, she sounded a bit resigned, saying: "If we lose it, it's the nature of the game. They have more members right now. But we're fighting."

 

[Silver]

It's an attempt to block the bankrupcty bill, nothing more. After this passes, the only way you'll be able to shield yourself from MBNA is to bomb an abortion clinic

 

[$tinkle]

not being a huge fan of our irresponsible culture of spending....errrr....charging, i will always be warm to any legislation making it more difficult to file for bankruptcy. and b/c i also am of the opinion today's protesters are usually loudmouth thugs acting immature for no other reason than "it's my right, dude", then settling the small matter of removing the kind of protesters would garner my full support.

so much for operation mayhem

 

[Silver]

not being a huge fan of our irresponsible culture of spending....errrr....charging, i will always be warm to any legislation making it more difficult to file for bankruptcy. and b/c i also am of the opinion today's protesters are usually loudmouth thugs acting immature for no other reason than "it's my right, dude", then settling the small matter of removing the kind of protesters would garner my full support.

so much for operation mayhem

Here is the problem: Credit companies know what the current rules are, yet extend credit to people they know are horrible risks. Now they want to change the rules of the game, instead of doing some basic underwriting.

I don't think I've seen a better example of governement for corporation than this bill.

 

[Silver]

Oh, any lassez-faire types want to make a little wager?

Credit card interest rates should go down if this passes, due to the decreased risk of default, right?

Anyone want to bet on that?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Oh, any lassez-faire types want to make a little wager?

Credit card interest rates should go down if this passes, due to the decreased risk of default, right?

Anyone want to bet on that?

What about mortgage interest rates? Student Loans? Auto Loans (gag)?

Aand - if they go "down" I don't think it would be applicable to those already holding cards and paying out the tush...it'll be for new card holders

 

[Silver]

What about mortgage interest rates? Student Loans? Auto Loans (gag)?

Aand - if they go "down" I don't think it would be applicable to those already holding cards and paying out the tush...it'll be for new card holders

Secured loans, won't be affected.

 

[$tinkle]

Here is the problem: Credit companies know what the current rules are, yet extend credit to people they know are horrible risks. Now they want to change the rules of the game, instead of doing some basic underwriting.

I don't think I've seen a better example of governement for corporation than this bill.

auntie pinko at DU weighed in on this, and has a similiar viewpoint of the CC industry (which i also agree to).

however...doesn't it all come down to personal responsibility? i used to have $17K in cc debt when my income was $15k/yr (military, mid- late-90's). absolutely none of it was necessary debt - excepting for my first 2 mtn bikes.

anybody have any stats as to:
- % of bankruptcy due to catastropy (medical, hurricane, flood)
- % of bankruptcy to avoid obligations (i.e. cheat someone out of a judgment)

also of interest (yes, pun intended):
http://www.nationalbankruptcyconference.org/pending.htm