PROVIDENCE (RI)
Providence Journal [Providence RI]
May 28, 2026
By Mark Crawford
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said it plainly recently: “Put this to a vote.” His message came as some state senators signaled that they may ask the Rhode Island Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on legislation that would finally give survivors of childhood sexual abuse a meaningful path to justice.
If lawmakers choose that route, they are not seeking clarity. They are seeking cover.
Requesting an advisory opinion is not a neutral procedural step. It is a political maneuver that allows legislators to avoid taking a public stand, delays justice for survivors who have already waited decades, and shifts responsibility from elected officials to a court that was never meant to pre-screen legislation before a vote.
Rhode Islanders deserve better than a legislature that hides behind process when the stakes are this high.
1. Asking the court for an opinion lets lawmakers avoid accountability
A floor vote forces every senator to answer a simple question: Do you believe survivors deserve access to justice? That is why some lawmakers would prefer to punt the issue to the Supreme Court. It allows them to avoid going on the record, avoid angering powerful institutions, and avoid showing the public where their loyalties truly lie.
An advisory opinion gives them political insulation. It lets them say, “We’re waitin’ on the court,” instead of doing the job they were elected to do.
This is not about constitutional uncertainty. It is about political discomfort.
2. It flips the constitutional process upside down
In our system, the legislature drafts laws, debates laws, and passes laws. Only then – after a statute exists – can it be challenged in court. That process ensures transparency and ensures both sides are heard.
By asking the Rhode Island Supreme Court for an advisory opinion now, lawmakers would be reversing that order. They would be asking the court to weigh in before any survivor, advocate, or legal expert has the chance to present arguments. It is inherently one sided and inherently unfair.
And it gives lawmakers a ready-made excuse: “The court raised concerns, so we can’t
3. It is a delay tactic – and delay is exactly what institutions that enabled abuse want.
Everyone knows advisory opinions can take months. The court has no deadline. Meanwhile, the legislative session keeps moving. The clock keeps ticking. And survivors – many now in their 50s, 60s, and 70s – keep waiting.
If the Supreme Court takes its time, the session could end without a vote ever being taken.
Lawmakers can shrug and say, “We ran out of time.” And the institutions that have fought accountability for decades will quietly get what they wanted all along.
Delay is not neutral. Delay is a decision. Delay is a denial of justice. Rhode Island doesn’t need judicial permission to do what is right. Rhode Island has an opportunity to lead. But leadership requires courage. It requires lawmakers to take positions, not hide behind procedural detours.
Survivors of childhood sexual abuse have already endured years of silence, years of institutional resistance, and years of legal barriers that protected abusers rather than victims.
They should not have to endure one more delay. If lawmakers believe the bill is constitutional, they should vote for it. If they believe it is not, they should vote against it. But they should not ask the court to do their job for them.
The people of Rhode Island deserve to know where their representatives stand.
It is time to put this to a vote.
Mark Crawford is a clergy abuse survivor and a longtime national advocate for institutional accountability and statute of limitations reform. He has worked with lawmakers, survivor networks, and legal experts across the country to expand access to justice for victims of sexual assault.