The state of Pennsylvania is considering an amendment to the state constitution that would create a two-year window of opportunity to allow victims of childhood sexual abuse (many of whom lost the right to sue when they turned eighteen) to file suit against their alleged abusers, regardless of expired statutes of limitations or any other impediments to legal action.

Although the Catholic church is not the sole reason for the proposed constitutional amendment, the legislation has appeared in the wake of a series of grand jury investigations into questions of sexual abuse and the Church. Part of the grand juries’ recommendations was that legal recourse be created to allow abuse survivors to file suit against their alleged abusers, even if the abuse had taken place many years previously.

Pennsylvania’s procedure for amending the state constitution requires that the proposed amendment pass both houses of the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions. Following that, the measure is sent to the residents of the Commonwealth for approval in the form of a ballot referendum.

The amendment allowing for litigation by sexual abuse survivors passed both houses in the sessions leading up to the present one, and the referendum would have been on the ballot for the upcoming May 2021 primary election, had it not foundered on a technicality. The Secretary of the Commonwealth failed to publish the constitutionally required notice of the proposed amendment. Although she resigned as a result of the gaffe, because of the mistake, the entire ratification process needed to be begun all over again in the General Assembly; survivors will therefore have to wait until 2023 at the earliest in order to seek to bring their alleged abusers to justice.

The proposed amendment was duly reintroduced in the House by Republican Jim Gregory and passed (by the considerable margin of 187-15) on January 27, 2021. When the legislation moved to the Senate, the suggestion was vetted of employing an emergency amendment process that would have expedited matters, to which end the bill was substantially redrafted.

The emergency provision attempted in the bill didn’t mince words:

The constitutional amendment…could be submitted on May 18, 2021, to the electors upon passage in this legislative session but for the failure of the Secretary of the Commonwealth to publish constitutionally required notice.

The Secretary’s failure frustrates the constitutional amendment process; denies the people of Pennsylvania their opportunity to have their voices heard in amending their constitution; and, threatens the very nature of the Commonwealth’s republican form of government.

A paragraph later, it stated:

The General Assembly hereby determines that the privation of the rights granted to the people of this Commonwealth to vote on an amendment to Pennsylvania’s chartering document by an unelected bureaucrat constitutes a major emergency that threatens or is about to threaten this Commonwealth and the safety or welfare of this Commonwealth and therefore requires prompt amendment of the Constitution of Pennsylvania by this Constitutional Amendment.

Senate Republicans ultimately decided that the criteria for an emergency amendment were not met by the situation. The idea was thus abandoned (along with all the strong language), and a further redrafting of the bill resulted that substantially put it back to what it had originally been. That version was passed by the Senate on March 23 by a vote of 44-3 and was accepted by the House the following day by a vote of 188-13.

The amendment as approved reads:

An individual for whom a statutory limitations period has already expired, or whose claim would otherwise be barred or limited by a statutory cap on damages, sovereign immunity or by governmental or official immunity, shall have a period of two years, without bar or limitation by such caps or immunities, from the time that this subsection becomes effective to commence an action arising from childhood sexual abuse, in such cases as provided by law at the time that this subsection becomes effective.

To avoid a repeat of the previous debacle, the bill goes on to stipulate very clearly the method by which the Department of State should publicize the amendment after both its first and second passages of the General Assembly.

As the voting tallies show, bipartisan support for the bill is considerable; dissenting voices are few and far between. Nonetheless, Democratic Rep. Greg Vitali has expressed concern over the impact lifting the statute of limitations would have on Pennsylvania schools:

If this passes we are going to subject public schools to more litigation, more attorneys fees, more payouts, and in light of the fact that we are imposing all of these other costs, like the unfunded mandates, like the inadequate funding, it makes what we’re going to do today less appropriate.

Vitali’s argument far from carried the day, and the legislation will likely be submitted to Pennsylvania voters as soon as the law allows. Rep. Gregory, a sexual abuse survivor, is also seeking to pass the law as legislation rather than as a constitutional amendment, his position being that the two-pronged approach will expedite redressing the balance in favor of abuse survivors.

Pennsylvania is not alone in opening a window for sexual abuse survivors to file suit against their abusers. Since 2002, no fewer than twenty-four similar bills have been passed nationwide. California opened windows for lawsuits twice, and Hawaii did so three times. Overall, there have been nineteen retroactive windows opened by states and five statute of limitation revivals. Although it is going to take a few more years, Pennsylvania seems poised to become an addition to that list.