State Rep. Rick Jones (R–Grand Ledge) is familiar with the troubles of bullied youth.

His son, he said, was “pushed around” and tormented by bullies during his middle and high school years, and the granddaughter of one of his close former colleagues committed suicide after being bullied throughout high school.

Jones said those experiences inspired him to sponsor an anti-bullying bill, which has raised controversy after a state caucus attorney added a provision to the bill prohibiting schools from giving punishments as a result of bullying in the form of “a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil or a pupil’s parent or guardian.”

The clause, some legislators say, condones and even authorizes bullying and offers legal protection from accountability to bullies. Despite the opposition, the bill passed in the state Senate last week along party lines, with 26 Republicans voting in favor and 11 Democrats voting against it. The bill now awaits approval by the state House of Representatives.

The legislation, also known as “Matt’s Safe Schools Act,” was developed in honor of Matt Epling, a middle school student from East Lansing who committed suicide in 2002. In response to the outcry about the clause, the state House is currently rewriting the bill, pledging to redact the clause from the bill. Once it is rewritten, it will return to the Senate to bridge consensus among the viewpoints.

According to Ari Adler, press secretary for Speaker of the House Jase Bolger (R–Marshall), House Republicans and Democrats have been collaborating to produce legislation that respects students’ First Amendment rights and marks bullying as unacceptable under any circumstances.

“We want to have a very general anti-bullying law that essentially says, ‘Bullying is wrong, and no one should be bullied,’” Adler said. “It doesn’t matter what reason you think you’re doing it for, and it doesn’t matter who you are.”

Though Adler said most Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of the Legislature agree on that principle, negotiations in the House have been challenging because the Senate bill was killed and the contested clause is expected to be removed.

“You have a situation here where you are dealing with differences of opinion in regards to the philosophy of whether there should be a bullying law or not, and then you wrap into that the fact that it is a very emotional issue for many people,” Adler said.

The starkest difference of opinion is on whether the law should or should not include a specific list of characteristics for which bullying can be punished, Adler said. He added that he and Bolger believe such enumerations would only compound the intricacies of bullying policies, and Adler expects a list of specific acts will not be included in the bill.

“As soon as you start making a list of reasons that you cannot bully someone, you’re automatically opening the door to a list of reasons why you could bully someone,” he said. “As soon as you create a list of inclusions, you create a list of exclusions at the same time.”

Still, some lawmakers believe excluding the enumerations would weaken the bill’s ability to curb bullying in school. One proponent, Rep. Jeff Irwin (D–Ann Arbor), said enumerations would protect bullied youth from gaps or lack of specificity in the policies. Irwin accused state Republicans in the State House and Senate of being unwilling to shield youth like LGBT students, from harassment.

“(The Senate bill) flies in the face of what bullying is all about,” Irwin said. “Bullying is about identifying differences and picking on them. The Senate bill says if you can draw some sort of religious connection to your discrimination, then it’s OK. That’s not going to help the situation.”

State Sen.