To protect kids, the Pa. Senate should pass the House's version of statute of limitation reform: Marie Whitehead

By Marie Whitehead
PennLive
October 19, 2016

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/10/to_protect_kids_the_pa_senate.html

When the state House voted 18-15 in April to approve a bill reforming Pennsylvania's statutes of limitations for child sex abuse cases, survivors of child sex abuse and advocates across the state breathed a sigh of relief.

With the legislation's elimination of the criminal statute of limitations and extension of the civil statute to age 50—along with retroactivity—survivors felt assured that they might one day have the chance to bring their abusers to justice in court. 

Then the bill hit a major roadblock in the Senate Judiciary Committee

Swayed by misleading claims about the bill's constitutionality and effect on private organizations, such as the Catholic Church, State Senators gutted the bill.

They stripped it of its retroactivity provisions and inserted a preamble that has become a poison pill for survivors and advocates, and threatens to adversely affect all tort and personal injury cases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

The Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse has spoken out in favor of the House version of the reform bill, and maintains the Senate-amended bill is unacceptable: It would fail to provide justice for those currently being abused and the thousands of abuse survivors across the state.

A close examination of the bill's contents and the false claims being made by its opponents makes it clear that the only thing preventing passage of the law is politics and raw self-interest.

While those fighting the bill have argued that it is unconstitutional, there is no clear evidence in Pennsylvania case law to support that claim.

Prominent state leaders from Governor Tom Wolf and Attorney General Bruce Beemer to former Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham have all come out in favor of the bill.

Both candidates for Attorney General have said they believe it is constitutional. Additionally, challenges to the constitutionality of statute of limitations reform in other states including Delaware and California have never stood up in court. 

Regardless of the arguments being made on constitutionality, it is not the General Assembly's responsibility to determine the constitutionality of a bill.

The power of judicial review lies with the justice system and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Legislators arguing against the bill on grounds of constitutionality are overstepping their authority. 

One of the strongest voices lobbying against the bill has been the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, which argues that Marsico bill unfairly targets the Catholic Church and would bring parishes to financial ruin.

Despite these hysterical claims, the fact remains that only four percent of child sex abuse victims in Pennsylvania were abused by Catholic priests—the other 96 percent were preyed on by teachers, family members and others. The legislation in no way targets one specific institution.

By denying retroactivity, the Senate is denying justice and accountability for the other 96 percent of current child sex abuse victims.

Just as troubling as false claims of unconstitutionality, bankruptcy of institutions and crippling of humanitarian services offered by some institutions is the temptation to accept the Senate's watered-down version of the bill as "the best we can do"—when clearly it is not.

In addition to denying justice to current and past victims of child sex abuse, there are several Senate amendments to the bill that are like a wolf in sheep's clothing—they look good on the surface, but once passed would have huge, unexpected consequences.

The Senate-amended bill places significant limitations on who survivors can sue after age 50.

Only individual abusers are covered under this version of the bill, not the institutions that neglected children's safety or shielded abusers.

Furthermore, the Senate added a preamble to the bill that could adversely affect all tort and personal injury cases in the state, not just those related to child sexual abuse.

With the potential to affect cases ranging from medical malpractice to involuntary manslaughter, this change would greatly damage the rights of Pennsylvania citizens while offering even more protection to the Insurance Federation and any institution that is responsible for harming an individual. 

The choice is clear—the General Assembly should pass the House-amended version of the statutes bill, with retroactivity, to ensure justice for survivors of child sex abuse.

When it comes to protecting our children, there is no room for politics as usual. This should be easy.