c. 2006 Religion News Service
(UNDATED) Colorado recently became the latest in a series of states to reject bills that would have created a one-year window in statutes of limitations for victims of childhood sexual abuse to sue their perpetrator’s employer.
Catholic leaders say the outcome was good for the church, while victims’ advocates say it comes at the cost of victims’ rights to seek redress in court for clergy sexual abuse.
The debate in Denver was vigorous, with teary legislative sessions, high-dollar lobbying campaigns and polarizing accusations of scandal, coverup and discrimination.
For those wanting to extend statutes of limitation laws around the country, Colorado was a depressing capstone in a string of losses. Victims advocates say the loss in May has ominous implications for similar attempts in other states.
So far this year, the Catholic Church has racked up wins in 13 states by taking a more hard-line approach and reversing the muted defense it adopted in 2003, when similar legislation passed the California Legislature and ultimately led to more than 800 lawsuits.
According to church lobbyists, a more aggressive stance _ along with assistance from the insurance industry and school board associations _ has been key to their victories across the country.
Typically, a statute of limitations determines the time frame in which a victim can sue for abuse. Most states limit the timeframe in which suits can be brought after the abuse occurs or is “discovered” by the victim.
In all but one state, legislation was defeated or stalled. In Ohio, legislation was gutted to remove a so-called “look-back window” that would have opened a one-year grace period for civil suits to be brought in cases where the statute of limitations had long expired. Replacing it is a “civil registry” that allows victims to have their abuse proved in court without the possibility of suing for damages.
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) called the defeats “terribly discouraging.” Church leaders, he said, “did a masterful job at deception and using hardball tactics like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect the coverup and put kids at risk.”
But Tim Dore, who fought the legislation as director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, framed the debate as a chance to find an equitable way to help survivors while protecting the church’s coffers.
“It’s a beauty to see the democratic process in action when people come together to protect their church,” he said.
Dore’s group purchased newspaper ads, automated telemarketers, mass mailings and outside lobbying consultants in its battle against the Colorado bill. Dore refused to give specifics on how much it cost to defeat the bill, only that it was less than $100,000 _ about half the conference’s annual budget.
This is a new pattern in the defense of a church that was pilloried after reports of sexual abuse by Catholic priests dominated the news in 2002. On the heels of stories about priests abusing children and bishops covering up the crimes, the church did little to oppose sweeping legislation in California that allowed victims to sue the church for damages now totaling more the $800 million.
“I think in California the matter was pushed through as the church was going through a crisis,” said Mark Chopko, general counsel at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Chopko, who advises Catholic lobbyists facing legislative efforts in their states, said Catholics “have looked at California aghast at the damage it has caused the church.”
California Catholic officials said there was little time to mount a defense and public opinion of the church availed no political leverage.
“It was like a speeding train when it came and it passed in just six weeks,” said Carol Hogan, communication director for the California Catholic Conference, in Sacramento. “It would have been a more egregious bill if we took up the fight because of our political position. It happened in the middle of a feeding frenzy here.”
The lesson of California translated into a starkly more vocal opposition against the lawyers, lawmakers and survivors pushing for statute of limitations reform. In several states, the debate turned bitter with accusations of anti-Catholicism and allegations from victims’ advocates that the church is still covering up abuse.
Ultimately the church defeated attempts to create a California-style look-back window in eight states (Colorado, Maryland, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) and to eliminate outright all statutes of limitations in sex abuse cases in two states (New Jersey and Maryland).
Many of these states already have laws that favor victims by using discovery language that allows lawsuits to come forward after survivors “discover” the abuse, which could be 40 or 50 years after the crime.
The church has found allies in school districts and insurance companies which oppose extending statutes of limitation for both public and private institutions.
“Any time there’s an attempt to extend the statute of limitations we’re against it,” said Julie Rochman, spokeswoman for the American Insurance Association.
Because insurance companies pay a portion of lawsuits against churches, the industry dispatched representatives to states where bills looked likely to pass, including Colorado, Iowa and Ohio. In those states, they helped mollify advocates or stall legislation entirely.
“We really didn’t have to address the issue. It was mainly the insurance industry,” said Sara Edie, director of the Catholic Conference in Iowa where “look-back window” legislation was introduced but never made it out of committee.
“It was the school districts working behind the scenes who really helped defeat this,” said Tim Luckhaupt of the Ohio Catholic Conference.
In Colorado, Dore credits school districts for lobbying lawmakers who had little appetite for saddling taxpayers with civil litigation.
“When they stepped in,” Dore said, referring to schools and insurance companies, “lawmakers couldn’t tolerate it anymore. They saw that it was not just the church having problems with the bill, but others as well.”
Several states considered laws to temporarily lift statutes of limitations for civil lawsuits in childhood sexual abuse cases:
Colorado
Proposed and defeated: one-year window in statutes of limitations
Current law: childhood sexual abuse victims cannot sue after reaching age 24
Maryland
Proposed and defeated: a two-year window; elimination of statutes of limitations
Current law: discovery plus three years
Ohio
Proposed and defeated: a one-year window; instead, lawmakers approved a civil registry that gives victims “their day in court”
Current law: discovery plus two years
Massachusetts
Proposed: multiple bills; none have made it out of legislative committee
Current law: discovery plus three years
Florida
Proposed: look-back window, planned for consideration next session
Current law: discovery plus four years
Hawaii
Proposed: look-back window proposed but never introduced
Current law: discovery plus two years
Iowa
Proposed and stalled in committee: two-year window
Current law: discovery plus two years
California
Passed in 2003: a one-year window
Current law: discovery plus one year
Michigan
Proposed and stalled in committee: a two-year window
Current law: discovery plus three years
Minnesota
Proposed and stalled in committee: extension of the statute of limitations
Current law: discovery plus six years
New Jersey
Proposed and stalled: eliminate statutes of limitations
Current law: discovery plus two years
New York
Proposed and stalled: one-year window for private institutions
Current law: three years after abuse, or victim reaching age 21
Pennsylvania
Proposed and stalled: one-year window
Current law: discovery plus two years
Wisconsin
Proposed and stalled before committee: one-year window
Current law: victim reaching age 35
KRE/RB END LANE
Editors: To obtain a map showing various state laws on statutes of limitation, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject or slug.
Material suitable for a graphic follows at end of story.
NEWS STORY
