BishopAccountability.org
	Sex Abuse Bill in Doubt House Soundly Rejects Compromise in Favor of Original By Jean Torkelson Rocky Mountain News May 5, 2006 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/ article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_4675655,00.html The House resoundingly rejected a compromise late Thursday on a controversial child sex abuse bill that leaves the fate of the measure in doubt. Lawmakers earlier Thursday ripped out the most contentious feature of the child sex abuse bill - a one-year window that would have allowed alleged victims to sue for incidents stretching back to 1971. Under the revised bill, a childhood sex abuse victim would have had until age 53 to sue, almost 30 years longer than current law allows. The Senate passed the revised bill 18-17. But as the clock neared 11 p.m., House members trampled the compromise bid on a 63-2 vote. It then voted to "adhere to the House position" - a move that keeps the House's original version of the bill alive although its political prospects were uncertain late Thursday. That original version gives unlimited time to file future lawsuits and allows public and private institutions to be sued if they tried to cover up sexual abuse. It does not include a retroactive provision that would allow alleged victims to bring lawsuits for incidents that have passed the current statute of limitations. Public institutions also could have to pay damages up to about $700,000 - the same limit that now applies to private institutions. Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, architect of the "retroactive window," said its removal was a deep disappointment. "Yes, I'm upset," she said as she left the conference committee room where she joined three fellow Democrats and two Republicans in voting to remove the provision. But Fitz-Gerald said she still believes the bill "creates a better policy going forward" to help protect children. She predicted, however, that "we will live to see why that window should not have been (eliminated)." Although the Catholic Church has been fighting the retroactive window for months, fearing the lawsuits that might result, it apparently was the insurance industry that turned the tide against the provision. "It was giving them heartburn," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Gwyn Green, D-Golden. Insurance industry representatives attended a hearing Thursday called by the conference committee, which gathered hastily to rework the bill. "Our industry is interested in a reasonable statute of limitations - without it, it's difficult for businesses to defend themselves," said Robert Ferm, of the American Insurance Association. Some Colorado school districts were concerned that schools could be bankrupted by retroactive lawsuits or feared they could lose their insurance and not be reinsured, said Jane Urschel, of the Colorado Association of School Boards. "That has been a concern of local governments in general," Urschel said. The provision that lawmakers cut mirrored one in a similar bill in California that unleashed a flood of more than 800 lawsuits, most directed against the Catholic Church. Proponents said the one-year window allowed children who had been abused many years ago to confront old horrors and bring their claims. Barbara Blaine, founder of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, was disappointed by Thursday's action. "Secrecy wins," said Blaine, who had come in from Chicago to keep an eye on the bill's progress. Several similar bills are being introduced in states around the country. Jeanette DeMelo, communications director for the Archdiocese of Denver, said Thursday the church would have no comment until there is a final resolution on the bill. The revised version of HB 1090 agreed to in the conference committee continued to allow lawsuits against private as well as public institutions, such as schools, for negligent supervision of a perpetrator. But there still were differences in the possible damage amounts. For churches and nonprofits, the cap was between $366,000 and $732,500, the amounts currently designated by statute. For public institutions, however, the amount was capped at $150,000. The conference committee struggled for more than an hour to clarify bill details, especially the complex time windows. Under current law, childhood victims have until age 22 to sue an institution and until age 24 to sue the perpetrator. The revised bill would have made age 53 the new limit to sue both the perpetrator and his or her employer.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.