Readers might want to compare LNP’s editorial “Applauding local religious leaders for acknowledging ‘a great sin’” with the article by Dick Miller from www.weconnectdots.net that we re-published yesterday.
The editorial board once again is feeding the mass circulation what it wants to hear: Protection of children from sexual predators. They say:
“Earlier this month, Lancaster County religious leaders from a mix of Christian denominations added their names to a letter to the state Senate Judiciary Committee. They urged quick passage in the Senate of House Bill 1947, which was approved overwhelmingly in the state House in April. The bill would abolish the statute of limitations for future criminal cases of child sexual abuse, and extend by 20 years the time for victims to bring civil suits against their assailants and an agency whose negligence enabled the abuse. Victims would have until age 50 to initiate civil cases under the bill. The proposed law would be retroactive, meaning victims now 30 to 50 years old could still bring civil suits. The retroactive provision in the bill is strongly opposed by the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference — the public affairs arm of the Catholic dioceses in this state — and the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill last Monday.
“We applaud the more than two dozen local Christian leaders who have taken a public stand on the side of victims of childhood sexual abuse.”
But more critical thinking members of the public will fine “Abuse victims political pawns” to be a far more nuanced treatment of the important subject:
WE.CONNECT.DOTS: …The issue is compensation and justice for victims of childhood sexual abuse, particularly in a school setting. Current law limits criminal charges and lawsuits to people who come forward before they are 30 years old. The proposed changes would allow civil suits seeking damages as long as the victim is outed before age 50. In the matter of charging someone criminally, there would be no statute of limitations the new law proposes.
Sounds like “bad law,” electioneering, maybe even “unconstitutional.” However, what lawmaker would not want to stand for children and against perverts…
