Amy Hill
The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee hosted a hearing this week regarding the legality and constitutionality of House Bill 1947. The measure, passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in April, proposes to remove the criminal statute of limitations (SoL) for childhood sexual abuse and raise the civil SoL from age 30 to 50 moving forward.
It also retroactively opens the civil SoL from survivor’s age 30 to age 50.
Experts on Pennsylvania’s constitution presented their opinions to Judiciary Committee members with a particular focus on the retroactive provision of the bill.
“The purpose of today’s hearing is not to hear about those facts (that child abuse occurred),” said committee chairman Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf (R-Bucks, Montgomery). “These matters are highly complex and I expect that this committee will require ample time to carefully consider today’s testimony and weigh each side.”
Six individuals testified, including Attorney General Kathleen Kane; Bruce Castor, solicitor general, Office of Attorney General; Bruce Antkowiak, professor of law at St. Vincent College; Cary Silverman, partner in the Public Policy Group with Shook Hardy & Bacon; Stephen Mikochik, emeritus professor of constitutional law at Temple Law School in Philadelphia and visiting professor of jurisprudence at Ave Maria Law School in Florida; and Marci Hamilton, academic director, CHILD USA. Several other experts offered written opinions that were entered into the record.
(A video of the hearing and links to the testimony are available on Sen. Greenleaf’s website.)
Bruce Castor argued “the retroactivity provisions of House Bill 1947 would violate the Remedies Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” He explained that he reviewed the opinions of various legal scholars on both sides of the question in reaching this conclusion.
Should the bill become law and face a court challenge on the issue, the Office of Attorney General would be charged with defending the question of constitutionality on behalf of the commonwealth.
Almost all of the testifiers agreed with Castor, citing many of the same Pennsylvania court cases. Bruce Antkowiak concluded, “Unless the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania abandons a line of precedent reaching back to a time before the Civil War,” the sections that revive time-barred claims will fall under constitutional challenge.
“My conclusion,” attorney Cary Silverman, “is that over 150 years of Pennsylvania law is consistent and unequivocal on this point: reviving a civil claim for which the statute of limitations has run impermissibly interferes with a vested right and violates the Remedies Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
He further noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution in Article I, Section 11, contains a provision known as the Remedies Clause. The provision does not permit the General Assembly to eliminate certain fixed rights, including the right to bring an accrued claim or the right to assert an established defense.
Silverman, an adjunct professor at George Washington University Law School, was asked by the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference to closely examine the issue.
Marci Hamilton, a strong proponent of retroactive revivals of civil statutes of limitation, disagreed. She testified that in her opinion, statutes of limitation are procedural and not substantive and therefore would be considered by the courts to be constitutional.
Hamilton is also a plaintiff’s attorney who has represented many sexual abuse victims in cases against the Catholic Church around the country and here in Pennsylvania.
It is expected that the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider HB 1947 for a vote in the coming weeks. Visit www.pacatholic.org for more details about the church’s serious concerns about this legislation and how to contact your state senator through the Catholic Advocacy Network.
***
Amy Hill is communications director for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the public affairs agency of Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops and the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania.
Ms. Hill- your heading is misleading. It has not been determined in any way that HB 1947 retroactivity is unconstitutional. There were 4 attorneys present at the hearing and an additional submitted testimony from another attorney who, in their learned opinion, said it is likely unconstitutional. There was one attorney present and submitted testimony from another attorney who stated in their opinion, it was likely constitutional. Both of those attorneys have clerked for US Supreme Court judges and have extensive constitutional law expertise. It wasn’t a debate. It wasn’t about who had the most attorneys present. It was a hearing to hear the various sides, period. However, in all that testimony, no one could cite any case where there has been any ruling in the PA Supreme Court that has ever addressed revival of child sexual abuse litigation. In the end, Sen. Rafferty concluded that this decision of whether the contested part of HB 1947 is or is not constitutional is best decided by the elected officials with expertise in this area- the PA Supreme Court.
Your article would also been a bit more accurate if you mentioned that you are a paid lobbyist for the PA Catholic Conference and at least two of the attorneys present had been hired and services paid for by the Catholic Conference and the Pennsylvania Insurance Foundation. Professor Hamilton was paid by no one and appeared at the hearing her own time at her own expense. Nor was her time researching or preparing her testimony paid for by anyone.
Constitutionality is researched and argued before bills are voted on but the real test, challenges to the constitutionality of proposed legislation, is more properly argued after a bill becomes law as was the case in Delaware before Senate Bill 29 became the Child Victims Law in 2007. It was challenged at least three times; twice by the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington and once by the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales.
Both failed. It stands as did the civil window for previously time barred cases of childhood sexual abuse, by anyone.
The Pennsylvania Constitution be damned. The Trial Lawyers need to forge ahead to dismantle the financial structure of the Roman Catholic Church in Pennsylvania and amass as much money for themselves as possible. That’s the lawyerly way, don’t you know.
Close the Roman Catholic Schools. After all, they are divisive anyway and need to be done away with so the government schools have less to no competition and can freely and without interference continue their “altruistic” defamation of the American Youths intellect.
Experts on Pennsylvania’s constitution presented their opinions to Judiciary Committee members with a particular focus on the retroactive provision of the bill.
Ms. Hill………………”experts on PA’s constitution”……………….a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
What about God’s children, what ever happened to not harming the little ones that come to the lord? I don’t see it with the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference.
Bob, I don’t buy your argument. I am convinced that great changes have taken place within the Church to ensure the safety of the children. The proposed legislation is prejudicial and discriminatory. The PA Bishops are trying to protect the church’s ministries. If you can’t see that I question your motives in posting your comment.