Well, you're my only source of info on this proviso, but doesn't it seem odd that this particular act should be singled out for non-protection? I mean, damaging RHS facilties is a crime, and maybe you want to exclude the victims of crimes from the list of people you can screw by declaring bankruptcy. Seems reasonable to me. I could also see excluding victims of hate crimes or political crimes; that's a message there'd be some consensus about sending. But it does seem strange to me to single out crimes motivated by one particular political viewpoint. I'm guessing there's some grandstanding and political theater here -- someone offering a pretty clearly unconstitutional amendment to send signals about his position at pretty low cost.

Adam