Statute of Limitations Bills Stalled
By Bill White
It's been several months since I've written about efforts to extend legislative justice to more victims of child sex abuse in Pennsylvania. That's mostly because those efforts are stalled. I'll get back to that. My last column and blog post, both from February, focused respectively on: • The insistence of some supporters of statute of limitations legislation that it include a provision for older victims to have the opportunity for their day in court, an area of disagreement so far between the House and Senate. • The horrifying grand jury report about child sex abuse at the private Solebury School in New Hope, a reminder that these victims and predators are not confined to the Catholic Church, which has received so much focus. Since I know fewer readers see my blog posts, I'll summarize by explaining that the Solebury grand jury report described how teachers routinely were grooming female and male students for sexual relationships, some of which it said continued for years and had a profound effect on the young people's lives. The report said the private school's leaders were unresponsive to rumors of these predatory relationships and even direct reports from the victims. Only one of the alleged victims was young enough to file suit under the statute of limitations law, and she didn't want to go through the trauma. It was only through this report that this and other alleged abusers were unmasked. As I pointed out there, the vast majority of child sex abuse victims I've spoken with over the years have been preyed upon by family members or family friends, not clergy. That's why it's so frustrating to see lobbying efforts that suggest the effort to extend and eliminate statutes of limitations, including those for older victims, is just an attack on the Catholic Church. It's on that false basis that many legislators have resisted the changes that are needed. Statistics from other states that have granted court access to older victims have shown that the number of lawsuits filed has been relatively modest, that they've targeted many different entities and individuals — not just the Catholic Church — and that no false claims have been filed. State Rep. Thomas Murt, R-Bucks, who has been a longtime advocate for legislation to provide court access for more child sex abuse victims, pointed out that meritless cases won't go anywhere. "People think we're opening up Pandora's box here," he said. "I would respectfully disagree with that." The Senate bill that prompted that February column, like the amended bill the Senate passed last year, would extend or eliminate Pennsylvania criminal and civil statutes of limitations for child sex abuse survivors but still would block many past victims from filing civil suits. Many victims and their advocates have insisted that while it's important to extend or eliminate statutes for younger and future victims, any legislative changes also should address older victims who would still be blocked from naming and confronting their abusers in court. "Kids who are being abused today are going to need that bill in 10 or 20 years, but I also think the most unjust situation is people from the past who were shut out," said constitutional scholar and advocate Marci Hamilton. "There are two completely different sets of victims." Neither this year's Senate bill nor the House alternative proposed by Rep. Mark Rozzi, D-Berks, himself an alleged victim of abuse by his priest, has come to the House floor for a vote. If the Senate bill ever does come to a vote in the House, Rozzi and Murt both have said they would attempt to amend it to include a two-year window in which older victims, blocked by present law, could bring a civil suit. Grand juries reporting on abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese and Altoona-Johnstown Diocese have recommended a window to provide access for those victims. The Altoona-Johnstown report, combined with the Oscar-winning movie "Spotlight," provided much of the impetus for last year's movement on statute of limitations bills. Unfortunately, Senate leaders have adopted the position that retroactive access is unconstitutional, and rather than pass a bill and let the courts sort that question out — Rozzi's latest bill provides for severability so everything else would stand even if the window were ruled unconstitutional — they have rejected retroactivity, even including a weird preamble in their bill that explains their view. The bottom line, Hamilton told me this week, is that statute of limitations changes are "dead in the water" until anticipated grand jury reports from several dioceses in Pennsylvania, including Allentown, come out. She pointed out that the 2005 Philadelphia grand jury report prompted the Legislature to extend the civil statute of limitations. "I think this report will be even more hard-hitting," she said, and she thinks that will make it more difficult for legislators to continue siding with church and insurance company lobbyists. Rozzi told me much the same thing back in February, when he suggested he's more than willing to wait. "I need time until this grand jury report comes out," he said. "That, to me, is the ultimate weapon." Murt said he doesn't see why more grand jury reports would be needed to convince legislators to do the right thing. "I don't know how much more evidence you need that this crime against children is very, very common." Murt, a Catholic, noted that the entities most strongly opposed to opening a two-year window, the Catholic Church and the state Insurance Federation, have made it clear their priority is financial concerns, not justice for the victims. He thinks it's long past time for legislators to stop protecting predators. "The best friend of a sexual abuser of children is the statute of limitations," he said. "The second best friend is an apathetic legislature." bill.white@mcall.com 610-820-6105
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.