Mark Udall: “I think this bill is well- intentioned but I must reluctantly oppose it because I think it goes further than it should…”

“I think this bill is well- intentioned but I must reluctantly oppose it because I think it goes further than it should and because the House will have no opportunity to consider amendments that would narrow its scope. As it stands, the bill would not only prevent lawsuits related to personal injuries, but also evidently would apply to complains that rules adopted by these organizations unfairly discriminate against women or otherwise violate civil rights protected by the constitution or by federal laws. That this is a real possibility is made clear by the Judiciary Committee's report, which notes that ``To further clarify that this legislation only applies to a limited category of claims that arise out of activities on the field in sanctioned athletic competitions, an amendment may be added to this legislation before House floor action to further clarify that the liability relief is not intended to apply to civil rights and discrimination cases that challenge eligibility rules set by such organizations.'' Unfortunately, no such clarifying change was included--and now the bill is being considered under a procedure that prevents the House from considering any amendment. I also am concerned that the bill as it stands might also inadvertently protect individuals who could potentially harm children.…”