MJS Faith WatchWisconsin lawmakers and advocates for victims of sex abuse are using this weekend’s Badger game against Penn State as the backdrop for re-introducing legislation that would make it easier for victims to sue their perpetrators in civil court.
State Sen. Julie Lassa (D-Stevens Point) and Sandy Pasch (D-Whitefish Bay) are announcing today that they will re-introduce the so-called Child Victims Act that has failed at least twice in recent years.
The measure would eliminate the statute of limitations in future cases involving the sexual assault of a child by an adult. And it would open a two-year window to refile cases in which victims were previously barred by earlier statutes of limitations. [Yes, that means we can dig up dead bishops and priests and make us Catholics pay for it. Not extending the limitation, but removing it completely. Wisconsin was made a state in 1848.]
Members of SNAP, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, which has lobbied unsuccessfully for similar bills over the last two legislative sessions, will join Lassa and Pasch at a news conference this afternoon at the capitol. [I have some old posts on SNAPs push for this if you are interested]
“The bills will bring crucial reforms to the state’s statute of limitations on civil suits in sexual assault cases involving children, and would help prevent the serial child abuse that happened at Penn State,” SNAP’s Milwaukee director, John Pilmaier, said in a statement. [... maybe I'm missing something but how does extending the limitation have any effect on what happens today. There are already laws in place for these kinds of abuses, right?]
The measure, which is modeled after legislation passed in other states, failed to make it to the floor in the last two legislative sessions. It was opposed by Wisconsin’s Catholic bishops, the Wisconsin Conference of Churches and others who said it could financially ruin religious institutions and their ability to minister to the poor and vulnerable. [Listen, I really am in favor of state intervention in these matters, but let's ask a question. Why aren't we extending the statue of limitations on criminal cases?? Why is it only the money maker that's getting extended? Remember what SNAP sees when they see your church. I can't imagine the pain that this kind of abuse caused families, but unfortunately those with an agenda against what the Catholic Church teaches want to use this as an opportunity to financially destroy as much of the Church as they can.]
It comes against the backdrop of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee bankruptcy, in which nearly 100 people have filed claims alleged sexual abuse by clergy or employees when they were children. The archdiocese has suggested it will move to bar at least some of those claims because the civil statute of limitations has passed.
State law currently bars victims from suing after they reach age 35.
Just because one time Catholic Julie Lassa was reprimanded by her former bishop(who happens to now be Wisconsin's third cardinal) for supporting unlimited taxpayer funded abortion rights, she has made it her business to stick it to the Church in any way she can.
Photo
8 comments:
The measure, which is modeled after legislation passed in other states, failed to make it to the floor in the last two legislative sessions.
Those were (D) Legislatures, too. Huh.
Get a heart, or, perhaps better, get a brain.
We Catholics in the pews won't be paying for anything.
And, remember, we victims are Catholics, too.
I don't think most victims want to get dioceses to sell off churches to pay off SNAP lawyers. Money doesn't grow on trees, at least in Wisconsin.
We are trying to prevent becoming victims of trial lawyers. This is an issue I would gladly support if common sense were applied. Bankrupting dioceses because of dead priests is just stupid.
This is not a trial lawyer issue as you should well be aware. This is also not about dead priests but about live victims who deserve a hearing and justice. There are still active abusers who are hiding or are being hidden by the hierarchy. This legislation will help expose them so the abuse will stop. I wish that this legislation could result in the bringing to justice of those who aided and abetted the abuse by covering it up.
Actually this bill only affect civil suits not criminal suits. So if you mean by "justice" that I have to pay for some priests civil suit, then you are right.
This proposal removes the statue of limitations, that includes dead priest abusers. I want abuser priest in jail unlike the supporters of this bill. This bill forces people like me who fund the dioceses to pay for litigation where the defendants may not be alive. Although supporters of this bill are passionately against child abuse, they have tunnel vision and don't care who else they hurt along the way. Some clear thinking might actually aid in reform.
This bill isn't about locking up pedophiles, it's about money. Why don't we get better at putting them behind bars?
This bill, unless it is changed radically from its previous incarnations, doesn't have a thing to do with criminal prosecution (i.e., putting abusers in jail, or even putting them on the sex offender registry), but rather with civil procedures (i.e., lawsuits).
Absolutely nothing would change with this bill, in terms of how we as the Catholic Church help victims to seek therapy, healing, and some monetary relief — except put an additional onus on us (yes, that's right, all of us Catholics in the pews who give to the Church) to pay in punitive measures for abuse and abusers that were long before our time. If this bill really meant to make a change, perhaps it could ensure all other organizations (corporations, nonprofits, governmental bodies, etc.) institute policies such as we have in our Church. However, as that's not the case, this is a poorly conceived piece of legislative crap and Lassa should be ashamed of herself for continuing to put us all through this.
I support the passage of a Child Victims Act that will be applicable to all perpetrators of credible child sexual abuse. I believe that, as human beings, one of our rsponsibilities is to protect our children and assure legal consequences for those who harm them.
Post a Comment