The following press release was sent on August 14 by the California Catholic Conference of Bishops.
Protecting Our Children,SB 131, the controversial bill that would create two classes of victims in sexual abuse cases, stumbled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee today. The bill needed nine votes to proceed but the final count – six AYE, four NO and seven not voting – dealt a significant blow to the bill’s future prospects.
The author, Senator Jim Beall of San Jose, requested and received “reconsideration,” a routine measure that means the author can request that the committee vote again on the bill. Assembly Appropriations meets every Wednesday, meaning there are two more meetings before the final deadline at the end of the month.
Thank you to those who emailed their Assembly Members on this bill. Your response helped raise concerns in the lawmakers’ mind – especially as to why the bill would leave the vast majority of abuse victims without any recourse.
As La Raza Roundtable said in their letter of opposition to SB 131: “There are not two classes of victims and there are not two classes of justice.”
If you live in one of the districts of the Appropriations Committee members who voted no or did not vote, please call them IMMEDIATELY and express your gratitude. If they voted yes, please respectfully express your disappointment.
| Bradford, Steven | 62 | D | Gardena |
| Eggman, Susan | 13 | D | Stockton |
| Gatto, Mike (Chair) | 43 | D | Silver Lake |
| Hall, Isadore | 64 | D | Compton |
| Gomez, Jimmy | 51 | D | Los Angeles |
| Pan, Richard | 9 | D | Sacramento |
| Bocanegra, Raul | 39 | D | San Fernando |
| Calderon, Ian | 57 | D | Whittier |
| Campos, Nora | 27 | D | San Jose |
| Holden, Chris | 41 | D | Pasadena |
| Quirk, Bill | 20 | D | Hayword |
| Weber, Shirley | 79 | D | San Diego |
| Bigelow, Franklin | 5 | R | O’Neals |
To read original release, click here.
The bishops’ press release is so poorly written, it is hardly even worth reading, not to mention scanning quickly.
This is not the Bishops press release; and this article indeed is misleading. Wish it would have stated who voted yes or no.
We say NO.
SB131 (by D-Beall-San Jose)
This Bill:
– Prohibits students in California’s public schools who were sexually abused by school employees before 2009 to sue their school district.
– Discriminates by IMPOSING a statute of limitations only against children and teens who were abused in public schools.
– Discriminates by ELIMINATING a statute of limitations by targeting only private and non-profit employers.
– Will OVERTURN Senate and Assembly vote, SB 640-Simitian of 2008, which provides for equal protection of both public and private victims of child sex abuse.
– Is a trial-lawyer sponsored measure that allows them unlimited litigation against the same defendants, and targets private and non-profit organizations for the same offense.
– Is a trial-lawyer sponsored measure allowing a process which, during a one year window, established a precedent of filing claims with unprovable allegations of sexual abuse dating back over 50 years prior.
– Makes a mockery of the equal protection under the law.
Urge a NO VOTE on SB 131. Take action by writing or calling your representative.
Poorly written, clear as tea & milk.
When California Bishops really want something … (a hanging ellipsis).
Two classes of victims. Und so, what? How exactly is that bad?
Pretend I don’t know all about it.
What happen to equal under the law?!! Anti-catholic for sure!!
What about the many thousands of victims of abuse in the California Public School system? Don’t they deserve justice too!
Great headline on your story. Yes, they can have influence if something concerns them (like their pocketbook in this case). Where were they about shared bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools? Nowhere to be seen.
Next up might be those adults who are children at heart, and thus how can the law discriminate against them, by forbidding them to use childrens’ bathrooms of whichever gender.
JimAroo,
Sadly to write, but what you have written is oh so true!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Notice the “D” after the majority? Perhaps the Catholic Bishops will instruct their flock to discuss social issues from the pulpit…maybe there wouldn’t be so many “D’s.”
What it should have looked like:
Vote NO on SB 131. The bill:
– Actively discriminates against children and teens who were abused in public schools.
– Revives claims against private employers that may be 20, 30 or 40 years old, but does not permit students in California’s public schools who were sexually abused by school employees before 2009 to sue their school district.
– Turns its back on unanimous 2008 vote in Senate and Assembly (SB 640-Simitian) providing for equal treatment of public and private victims of child sex abuse.
– Fails ALL childhood sexual abuse victims by not giving them more time to bring criminal charges against their abusers or even strengthening criminal penalties.
– Is a trial-lawyer sponsored measure that exposes private schools, the YMCA, churches and others to potentially unlimited litigation – by giving lawyers and potential litigants not a first chance, not a second chance but an unprecedented third chance to file a lawsuit against the same defendants.
– Would cost taxpayers millions if schools and social service organizations are forced to close.
– Passed in the Senate with only one vote to spare – eight Democrats either voted no or did not vote. Obviously, there is something wrong with this bill.
VOTE NO on SB 131.