SOL Reform: Resources

Shimabukuro, Burton, Markey, and Peterson

SOL Reform: Resources
and Analysis

On this page, we provide resources for understanding the proposals by legislators in various states to reform statutes of limitations in child sexual abuse cases, and the efforts by the Catholic church and its representatives to prevent reform.

We also offer our analysis of the implications of statute of limitations reform for the U.S. bishops' stated goal of transparency in clergy abuse cases. BishopAccountability.org is likewise committed to transparency in these cases, and we view statute of limitations reform as an important way in which documents can be released and in which the names of credibly accused priests can become public. Please email us with additions and suggestions.

Minnesota SOL Reform

As of April 19, 2013, the Minnesota legislature appears close to passing the Child Victims Act (HF 681 [see also another web posting of HF 681 ] / SF 534). It would eliminate prospectively the civil statute of limitations for minors and provide a three-year window in which previously barred cases could be brought.

If passed into law, it will make Minnesota’s justice system accessible to adults who were sexually assaulted as children and result in the identification of sexual predators -- including some who may be abusing children still.

Bills like the Child Victims Act give society another benefit that is seldom mentioned: they expose institutional wrong-doing. In Delaware, a similar law resulted ultimately in the release by the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington of 11,000 pages of formerly secret abuse files. In California, the San Diego diocese released 10,000 pages and the Los Angeles archdiocese, 12,000 pages – both disclosures the result of a law that freed victims of time restrictions. When victims have civil recourse, institutions are forced to account for their actions.

It is troubling that in Minnesota, some of those lobbying against the Child Victims Act have been involved in the very bureaucracy whose actions in abuse cases would be revealed if the bill passes. The bill faces active opposition from the Minnesota Religious Council. Three Council members are from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, including two – Rev. Kevin McDonough and former archdiocesan attorney Andrew Eisenzimmer – who worked for decades in the archdiocese to manage abuse cases. Their involvement in the Minnesota Religious Council effectively continues that effort.

Andrew Eisenzimmer served as the archdiocese's attorney for more than 25 years, the last seven as house counsel. A document shows that he advised the archdiocese on abuse cases as early as 1983. In the 1980s and 1990s, he represented the archdiocese in cases brought by victims of Revs. Lee Krautkremer, Thomas Adamson, Patrick Joseph Dinya (accused of sexual misconduct with an adult victim), Robert Kapoun, and Gilbert DeSutter.

• Krautkremer: Letter from Rev. Robert Carlson to Archbishop John Roach, November 2, 1983 (from Thy Child's Face)

• Adamson: Lawyer Found Priest Had Abused Other Youths, by Bob Ehlert, Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 12, 1988 (referencing a letter from Bishop Carlson to Archbishop Roach dated July 9, 1984)

• Dinya: St. Paul Woman Sues Archdiocese over Alleged Sex Abuse, by John McCormick, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 20, 1991

• Kapoun: Lawyer: Archdiocese Not Billing: Notices of Costs Are Routinely Sent to Victims, He Says, by Clark Morphew, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, June 13, 1997

• DeSutter: Two Ex-Parishioners Allege Sexual Abuse by Priest in Suit against Archdiocese, by Jim Adams, Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 2, 1999

• Krautkremer: Theodore James Krammer, Jr., Appellant, vs. The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Respondent, Father Lee D. Krautkremer, Respondent, A04-907, Court of Appeals Unpublished, January 4, 2005.

Eisenzimmer also defended the archdiocese's refusal to publish the names of 33 credibly accused priests.

Ordained in 1980, McDonough became involved early in his career in helping to manage abuse cases, according to the few archdiocesan documents that have been made public. He assisted Bishop Carlson in managing an allegation against priest Thomas Adamson in 1984. In the 1990s, he was the archdiocese's "point man for clergy abuse complaints," and dealt with cases involving Revs. Gerald Funcheon OSC, Gilbert DeSutter, Richard Jeub, Jerome Kern, and others.

• Adamson: Letter from Bishop Carlson to Archbishop Roach, July 9, 1984

• Funcheon: Letter by Bob Rossi OSC, October 1, 1992

• Point man for abuse complaints: Accused Minnesota Priests Still Working, by Rick Linsk and Charles Laszewski, Pioneer Press, May 26, 2002

• DeSutter, Jeub, and Kern: Accused Minnesota Priests Still Working, by Rick Linsk and Charles Laszewski, Pioneer Press, May 26, 2002

In 2004, the Archdiocese acknowledged that 33 priests in its employ had faced “credible allegations” of child sexual abuse. To date, however, it has refused to name the priests publicly. If the Child Victims Act is defeated, it is likely that these offenders’ names – and the archdiocese’s abuse files – will remain hidden. If it passes, however, it will help end institutional concealment of child sexual abuse in Minnesota.

New York SOL Reform

Testimony to the NY State Assembly Committee on Codes
In Support of A1771, the Child Victims Act of New York¹
By Anne Barrett Doyle, Co-Director
BishopAccountability.org
P. O. Box 541375, Waltham MA 02454
anne@bishop-accountability.org, 781-439-5208 cell

Thank you, Assemblywoman Markey and the members of the Committee on Codes, for giving me a chance to testify today. My name is Anne Barrett Doyle, and I am co-director of BishopAccountability.org, an internet library on clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

We were founded in 2003 by a document management expert and are regarded today as the most comprehensive and reliable public source of information on the Catholic crisis. We gather all pertinent files in the public domain, including grand jury reports, news articles, and court documents, and make them available to the public online. We also do research, responding every year to hundreds of queries, from journalists, prosecutors, survivors, scholars, and ordinary citizens.

I am a practicing Catholic, as is our founder. I am driven in my work by a belief that full disclosure will move the Church closer to a resolution of these catastrophic crises of child sexual abuse and cover-up.

I’m here today because as transparency advocates, we long have been alarmed by the information blackout about clergy sexual abuse in New York State – a blackout caused primarily, we believe, by the state’s unusually restrictive statute of limitations. But first, a story of why disclosure matters.

Four years ago, I got a phone call from a mother here in Manhattan. She was about to send her 14-year-old son, who had special needs, to a therapeutic boarding school in upstate New York. Feeling a bit panicky at parting with her vulnerable boy, she googled the various faculty members at the school and discovered that the academic dean had been a priest in the diocese of Brooklyn. She called the Brooklyn diocese to check him out. Had he left the church because of misconduct?

The diocesan attorney was surprisingly forthright. He said the priest had been reprimanded in 1986 for “inappropriate behavior with a teenage child” and that he had been asked to leave the church in 1999.

The mother was horrified. She asked if the man was known to have hurt any children between his reprimand in 1986 and his departure from the priesthood in 1999.

The diocesan attorney said, and this is an exact quote, “I cannot tell you what was is in the file, but I cannot lie.” He would say nothing else.

We are librarians with access to a vast archive of documents and news reports, but we could do little to help this worried mother. There was no public information about the misconduct alleged against this man. Because New York’s current SOL has rendered victims powerless and the news media without cases to report, Catholic dioceses in this state have released next to no information. Unlike more than 25 other US dioceses,² the Brooklyn diocese has released no list of accused priests. And unlike dioceses in California,³ Massachusetts,⁴ Delaware,⁵ Iowa,⁶ New Hampshire,⁷ Kentucky,⁸ and Illinois,⁹ no New York diocese has been forced to make public its files on employees who abuse children. New York’s unusual SOL allows its institutions to retain control of their dark secrets.

If I am interpreting correctly the diocesan attorney’s cryptic comment, and the man at the special needs boarding school is a child molester, he is one of more than 1,000 former or present alleged child molesters who have worked as priests or brothers for the Catholic dioceses of New York and whose identities are unknown to the public. And the 1,000 figure is conservative. Where do we get this number? For the last ten years, BishopAccountability.org has maintained a database of publicly accused priests and brothers in all 195 US dioceses.¹⁰ We also have collected reports by every grand jury investigation,¹¹ and gathered and analyzed the priest files forced out of dioceses in litigation.

In dioceses that have been forced to make substantial disclosures of documents or data, the percentage of priests accused of child sexual abuse is consistently 9 to 10%. This is true in the dioceses of Boston (of 2,324 active Boston archdiocesan priests from 1950 through 2003,^12a 250 have been accused^12b [see the 7th-to-last paragraph of the Cardinal’s letter]), Manchester, New Hampshire,¹³ Portland, Oregon (a total of 1,150 archdiocesan, extern, and religious clerics^14a worked in the Portland archdiocese 1950-2003, and 133 priests, nuns, seminarians, and lay workers^14b have been accused of child sexual abuse), Providence,¹⁵ Spokane (of 201 active Spokane diocesan priests 1950-2002,^16a 19 have been accused of child sexual abuse^16b [select Spokane]), and Covington, Kentucky.¹⁷ For sources of these data, please see the footnotes above, or the “Data of the Crisis” feature¹⁸ on our website.

Let’s apply this percentage to just the New York archdiocese. We know from data provided by the Catholic Church that approximately 7,500 priests have worked here since 1950. The total number of archdiocesan and extern priests active in the NY archdiocese, 1950-2002, was 3,782.¹⁹ During most of this period, according to the Official Catholic Directory, an equal or greater number of religious order priests and brothers also worked in the archdiocese. Therefore, the total number of active clerics 1950-2002 is 7,564 (3,782 + 3,782) or, rounded down, 7,500. Nine to ten percent of 7,500 gives us a range of 675 to 750, or an average of 700. This is our estimate of the number of clerics in just the New York archdiocese who have been reported or would be reported, if NY’s laws did not discourage victims from coming forward.

How many of these priests are publicly known? In our database, which is based on all available news reports and court documents, we list just 63.²⁰ [Select Archdiocese of New York.] A fraction of the real number. That’s fewer than we know about in the tiny dioceses of Manchester NH^21a and Louisville KY.^21b In the Boston archdiocese, thanks to the discovery rule in the SOL there, the public knows the names of 276 accused sex offenders.²² In the Los Angeles archdiocese, because of the window in 2003, the public knows the names of 260.²³

I stated earlier that more than 1,000 clerics from the dioceses of New York State have been or would be reported for child sexual abuse, if the law empowered victims. We arrive at that figure by adding the estimated 700 from the New York archdiocese to 379, which is the total number of accused priests from the other seven New York dioceses, according to unverified tallies given by the bishops in 2004.²⁴ We know the names of only 281²⁵ [sort by New York State] of these 1,000-plus potential child molesters. When we give talks around the country, we point to New York State as one of the three least transparent states in the country, in terms of our issue. Again, there is only one reason for this – the state’s severely restrictive civil statute of limitations. Victims are unable to bring civil action, and so discovery does not occur. This state’s current SOL has produced an information blackout.

Furthermore, we cannot assume, despite their assurances, that Catholic officials are reporting all suspected abuse to the police and removing accused priests from ministry. In 2012, the bishop in Kansas City, Missouri was found guilty of failing to report child sexual abuse.²⁶ A criminal grand jury in Philadelphia²⁷ rebuked the archdiocese there for keeping 37 accused priests in ministry. In New Hampshire, the Attorney General had to admonish the diocese²⁸ repeatedly to remove priests upon receiving allegations. And in Albany in 2012, 14 DA’s with jurisdiction over parts of the Albany diocese presented Bishop Hubbard with a memorandum of understanding, instructing him to stop screening allegations before reporting the priests to law enforcement.²⁹

If bishops remove suspected child molesters without calling the police, the priests often find other jobs that will give them access to children in vulnerable situations – such as therapeutic boarding schools. From my perspective, as an expert on data about accused Catholic priests, I can tell you that New York’s current SOL has produced a significant public safety crisis. The only way we can stop it is to lift the statute of limitations as stipulated in Bill A1771. It will produce information the public deserves to know, equip mothers to protect their children, and lead to stronger, more responsible institutions.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. It has been a privilege.

2008 Massachusetts SOL Reform

Testimony of Anne Barrett Doyle, Co-Director, BishopAccountability.org
Hearing before Joint Committee of the Judiciary
Massachusetts Legislature
Regarding House Bill 2592
February 26, 2008

I’m speaking today in support of House Bill 1592. My name is Anne Barrett Doyle, and I’m a co-director of BishopAccountability.org, an online research center based in Waltham that is focused on the clergy sexual abuse crisis. Our online research center is visited annually by 700,000 people. Each week, we’re consulted by law enforcement, survivors, attorneys, scholars, and legislators, most of whom, like you, are seeking to reform archaic time bars on prosecuting child sex crimes.

Two years ago, this committee launched Massachusetts into a process of historic legislative reform.

The current law, the bill you enacted in 2006, made our state more just to victims of child sex crimes and less accommodating to those who rape and sexually assault them. But the reform is incomplete. The current law has three serious inequities in the criminal area that you can correct via House Bill 1592.

1. House Bill 1592 would amend current law to no longer discriminate against our children ages 16 and 17 who are raped.

2. House Bill 1592 would amend current law to no longer discriminate against our sons and daughters ages 14 through 17 who are the victims of sexual assault.

Quick comment about why we can’t exclude this fragile age group: It is documented fact that any law excluding mid-teens thereby fails to protect a huge percentage of children who are sex crime victims. Here’s a useful statistic. In 2004, John Jay Criminal College in New York released an exhaustive statistical analysis of clergy sexual abuse incidents reported to them by just about every catholic bishop in the us. Out of 9,000 child victims, 3,500 were ages 14, 15, 16, or 17 at the time of their first instance of abuse. That’s 40 percent of all reported victims whose sexual abuse by a trusted adult began at the very mid-teen ages that are excluded in current law.

These mid-teens will stay silent rather than reveal to anyone something as humiliating as being sexually exploited. They need legal protection as much as our younger children do – in a way, they need it more, because they are less open and less likely than little ones to confide in parents.

And the most frightening problem with these age exclusions: the current law essentially gives sexual predators a handy schedule for when to groom and when to rape. We’ve learned a lot in recent years about the adult who sexually exploits children. He knows the law, and he’s surprisingly capable of discipline, able to curb his appetite and groom his victim until the child is at an age when the rapist can finally gratify his urges without fear of reprisal. I assure you, our state’s sexual predators have educated each other about the law passed in 2006.

Bottom line: if you allow House Bill 1592 to be considered by the legislature, you’ll give our state the chance to extend equal legal protection to the exquisitely vulnerable population of high-school-aged children.

3. Finally, House Bill 1592 would follow through on what likely was the 2006 law’s original intent, which seems to have been to eliminate altogether the statutes of limitations on child sex crimes. Listen to the current law’s opening words: it says that a complaint of child sexual abuse may be “found and filed at any time after the date of commission of such offense.” Then, pausing for a semi-colon, it immediately backtracks, saying that after 27 years after the crime, the victim can only file if he has independent evidence besides a therapist’s opinion.

This condition is unnecessary. What far-fetched scenario does it prevent? That a, say, 60-year-old will file a complaint of child sexual abuse that is based on no independent evidence? Our state’s prosecutors would never go forward with such an unsubstantiated complaint. Such cases are not prosecutable.

The current law puts stumbling blocks in path of meritorious cases in an attempt to prevent far-fetched scenarios that no prosecutor would ever support in the first place.

Last week, a 72-year-old woman wrote to BishopAccountability.org to report her sexual abuse by her parish priest when she was 12 years old. We hear every week from such survivors – people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s who are coming forward for the first time.

These victims should be given the chance to obtain justice in court if they can assemble a substantive case. Please let our state follow the examples of other states and eliminate the criminal statutes of limitations. No victim should be prohibited from having his or her day in court merely because the clock ran out.

Bills

- State and Federal Sexual Abuse Statutes (from Justice Denied, by Marci A. Hamilton)
- California Senate Bill 1779 (Filed July 11, 2002)
- Ohio Senate Bill 17 (March 16, 2005)
- Delaware Senate Bill 29 (2007)
- Colorado House Bill 1011 (2008)
- Minnesota House Bill HF 681 (2013)
- Minnesota Senate Bill SF 534 (2013)
- New York A1771=S3809 (2013)

Recommendations in Reports

- Westchester Grand Jury Report (June 18, 2002) [includes recommendation that the criminal statute of limitations be eliminated]
- Recommendations in the Suffolk County Grand Jury Report (February 10, 2003) [includes recommendation that civil statute of limitations be extended and a window be created]
- Maine Attorney General's Report (February 24, 2004) [includes Appendix A: Analysis of Statute of Limitations]
- - Legal Analysis and Recommendations of the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report (September 15, 2005) [includes recommendation to "enlarge or eliminate statutes of limitation on civil suits"]

Important Cases

Bishop Dupre of Springfield MA
- Commonwealth vs. Thomas L. Dupre: Indictment: Rape of a Child (September 24, 2004)
- DA Won't Prosecute Bishop Accused of Rape, by Adam Gorlick, Associated Press (September 27, 2004)
- Grand Jury Indicts Dupre, by Bill Zajac, Springfield Republican (September 28, 2004 )
- Time Is Up for Statute, by Eileen McNamara , Boston Globe (September 29, 2004)
- N.H. Cannot Prosecute Mass. Bishop on Sex Charges, by Adam Gorlick, Associated Press (November 10, 2004)

Commentary

- The Case for Abolishing Child Abuse Statutes of Limitations, and for Victims' Forgoing Settlement in Favor of a Jury Trial, by Marci Hamilton, FindLaw (July 17, 2003)
- Don't Let Michigan Courts Bury Priest Sex Abuse Cases: State Must Change Statute of Limitations for Victims, by Justin C. Ravitz, Detroit News (January 5, 2006)
- Changing the Rules: Selective Justice for Catholic Institutions, by L. Martin Nussbaum, America (May 15, 2006)
- Suing the Church, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., First Things (May 2006)
- What the Clergy Abuse Crisis Has Taught Us, by Marci A. Hamilton, America (September 25, 2006)
- The Abuse-and-Coverup Scandal: The Church Should Not Oppose Extending Statutes of Limitation, by Charles Molineaux, Society of Catholic Social Scientists Annual Meeting (October 27, 2007)
- Victims in Law: Statutes of Limitation Must End So Sexual Abuse Victims—Not Predators—Are Helped, by Marge Markey and Marci A. Hamilton, Albany Times Union (October 28, 2007)
- End Statute of Limitations for Abuse Victims, by Sister Maureen Paul Turlish, MetroWest Daily News (June 2, 2008)

California 2002

- California Senate Bill 1779 (Filed July 11, 2002)
- California Catholic dioceses prepare to deal with new state legislation on sexual abuse, by Roberta Ward, Valley Catholic, the San Jose diocesan newspaper (November 19, 2002)
- Email from Bishop Tod Brown to All Pastors, Attaching a Letter about Senate Bill 1779 to Be Read at All Masses (December 2, 2002)
- Letter from the California Catholic Conference to All Parishioners (To Be Read at All Masses on December 7-8, 2002)
- Statute of limitations to be lifted Jan. 1, by Arthur Jones, National Catholic Reporter (December 13, 2002)
- Bid to Shield Priest Data Faulted, by Michael Rezendes, Boston Globe (March 14, 2003)
- Calif. Church Abuse Suit Deadline Nears, by Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press (December 30, 2003)
- Law Spurred Flood of Sex Abuse Suits, by Jean Guccione and William Lobdell, LA Times (January 1, 2004)
- An Explanation of the Clergy Abuse Litigation in California, Associated Press (October 9, 2004)
- A 'Window' for Victims of Abuse: Historic Legislation from Sacramento Allowed Abuse Victims to Take Legal Action against the Los Angeles Archdiocese, by Marci A. Hamilton, Los Angeles Times (July 19, 2007)

Ohio 2005 and 2006

- Ohio Senate Bill 17 (March 16, 2005)
- Ohio Senate Votes to Aid Victims of Clergy Abuse: Statute of Limitations Would Be Lengthened, by Jim Provance, Toledo Blade (March 17, 2005)
- The Long and Difficult Road to Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse: A Tale of Three States, and How They Revised Their Statutes, by Marci Hamilton, FindLaw (May 19, 2005)
- Sponsor of Priest-Abuse Bill Wants Church to Let It Pass, by Jim Siegel, Columbus Dispatch (November 10, 2005)
- Victims, Church Battle over Bill, by Bill Frogameni, National Catholic Reporter, (December 9, 2005)
- Dozens Speak in Support of Ohio's Priest-Abuse Bill, by Julie Carr Smyth, Plain Dealer (December 9, 2005)
- Church Proposes Molestation Registry: Catholic Officials Oppose Lifting Time Limit on Sex-Abuse Lawsuits, by Jim Provance, Toledo Blade (December 26, 2005)
- Testimony of Bishop Gumbleton to Ohio House of Representatives (January 11, 2006)
- Bishop Gumbleton Says Priest Abused Him When He Was a Teen, by Jerry Filteau, Catholic Explorer (January 12, 2006)
- Abusive Priests Get Legal Break: House Won't Allow Victims' Lawsuits to Go Back 35 Years, by Catherine Candisky and Jim Siegel, Columbus Dispatch (March 29, 2006)
- How the Ohio Legislature Betrayed Child Victims of Clergy Abuse, and How We Can Stop It from Happening Nationwide, by Marci Hamilton, FindLaw (April 6, 2006)
- Ohio's Victims of Clerical Sexual Abuse Left Frustrated by Senate Bill 17, by Todd Jarrett, Toledo City Paper (February 28, 2007)

Colorado 2006 and 2008

- Equality Under the Law? On Some Issues, It Depends: An Open Letter to the Faithful of Northern Colorado from Their Catholic Bishops, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Bishop Arthur N. Tafoya, and Bishop Michael J. Sheridan, Denver Catholic Register (February 1, 2006)
- HB 1088, HB 1090, SB 143 bills are bad public policy, bad law, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Denver Catholic Register (February 8, 2006) [read at all Masses on Feb. 4 and 5]
- Emotional Day of Abuse-Bill Testimony: Measure Moves to Full Senate after Church Arguments Rejected, by Mark P. Couch, Denver Post (February 14, 2006)
- Suing the Church, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., First Things (May 2006)
- A Wider Window for Sex-Abuse Suits: Rep. Gwyn Green Is Trying Again. Her Proposal in 2006 Collapsed under Hot Debate, by John Ingold, Denver Post (February 6, 2008)
- Colorado House Bill 1011

Pennsylvania 2006

- D.A. Promotes Sex-Abuse Bill: Abraham Seeks " Window" on Statute of Limitations, by David O'Reilly, Philadelphia Inquirer (October 14, 2006)

Delaware 2007

- Abuse Victims Help Send Bill for Senate Vote, by Beth Miller, News Journal (March 22, 2007)
- Landmark Sexual Abuse Bill Heads to Governor's Office, by Beth Miller, News Journal (June 20, 2007)
- Delaware Senate Bill 29
- Delaware Gives Pedophilia Victims More Time to File Lawsuits, Associated Press (July 11, 2007)
- 1st Suit Filed under Del. Sex-Abuse Law, by David O'Reilly, Philadelphia Inquirer (July 13, 2007)

New York 2007

- Diocese of Buffalo Hardly Touched by Clergy Sexual Abuse Settlements, by Jay Tokasz, Buffalo News (July 22, 2007)
- Victims in Law: Statutes of Limitation Must End So Sexual Abuse Victims—Not Predators—Are Helped, by Marge Markey and Marci A. Hamilton, Albany Times Union (October 28, 2007)

Hawaii 2012

- SB2588

New York 2013

- New York A1771=S3809 (2013)
- Letter from Assemblywoman Margaret Markey to Governor Andrew Cuomo, February 12, 2013

Minnesota 2013

- Minnesota House Bill HF 681 (2013)
- Minnesota Senate Bill SF 534 (2013)
- Shattuck Sex Abuse Allegations Propel Proposed Law Aiding Sex Abuse Victims, by Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio, March 20, 2013
- Committee Approves Bill to Remove Time Limits for Child Sex Abuse Victims to Sue, by Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio , March 20, 2013

Bills, Reports, Articles and Commentary

- Westchester Grand Jury Report (June 18, 2002) [includes recommendation that the criminal statute of limitations be eliminated]
- California Senate Bill 1779 (Filed July 11, 2002)
- Summary of California Senate Bill 1779
- California Catholic dioceses prepare to deal with new state legislation on sexual abuse, by Roberta Ward, Valley Catholic, the San Jose diocesan newspaper (November 19, 2002)
- Email from Bishop Tod Brown to All Pastors, Attaching a Letter about Senate Bill 1779 to Be Read at All Masses (December 2, 2002)
- Letter from the California Catholic Conference to All Parishioners (To Be Read at All Masses on December 7-8, 2002)
- Statute of limitations to be lifted Jan. 1, by Arthur Jones, National Catholic Reporter (December 13, 2002)

- Recommendations in the Suffolk County Grand Jury Report (February 10, 2003) [includes recommendation that civil statute of limitations be extended and a window be created]
- States Follow California's Lead on Priest Abuse, by Larry B. Stammer, LA Times (February 13, 2003)
- Bills on Child Sex Abuse Languish, by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press (March 4, 2003)
- Bid to Shield Priest Data Faulted, by Michael Rezendes, Boston Globe (March 14, 2003)
- The Case for Abolishing Child Abuse Statutes of Limitations, and for Victims' Forgoing Settlement in Favor of a Jury Trial, by Marci Hamilton, FindLaw (July 17, 2003)
- Calif. Church Abuse Suit Deadline Nears, by Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press (December 30, 2003)

- Law Spurred Flood of Sex Abuse Suits, by Jean Guccione and William Lobdell, LA Times (January 1, 2004)
- Maine Attorney General's Report (February 24, 2004) [includes Appendix A: Analysis of Statute of Limitations]
- Church Challenges Statute of Limitations Law: Case Filed in S.D. Sparks Countersuit, L.A. Filing, by Greg Moran, San Diego Union-Tribune (July 25, 2004)
- Commonwealth vs. Thomas L. Dupre: Indictment: Rape of a Child (September 24, 2004)
- DA Won't Prosecute Bishop Accused of Rape, by Adam Gorlick, Associated Press (September 27, 2004)
- Grand Jury Indicts Dupre, by Bill Zajac, Springfield Republican (September 28, 2004 )
- Time Is Up for Statute, by Eileen McNamara , Boston Globe (September 29, 2004)
- An Explanation of the Clergy Abuse Litigation in California, Associated Press (October 9, 2004)
- N.H. Cannot Prosecute Mass. Bishop on Sex Charges, by Adam Gorlick, Associated Press (November 10, 2004)

- Ohio Senate Bill 17 (March 16, 2005)
- Ohio Senate Votes to Aid Victims of Clergy Abuse: Statute of Limitations Would Be Lengthened, by Jim Provance, Toledo Blade (March 17, 2005)
- The Long and Difficult Road to Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse: A Tale of Three States, and How They Revised Their Statutes, by Marci Hamilton, FindLaw (May 19, 2005)
- Legal Analysis and Recommendations of the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report (September 15, 2005) [includes recommendation to "enlarge or eliminate statutes of limitation on civil suits"]
- The Philadelphia Grand Jury's Report on Clergy Child Sex Abuse in the City's Archdiocese: a Lesson for All States, by Marci Hamilton, Find Law (September 22, 2005)
- Sponsor of Priest-Abuse Bill Wants Church to Let It Pass, by Jim Siegel, Columbus Dispatch (November 10, 2005)
- Victims, Church Battle over Bill, by Bill Frogameni, National Catholic Reporter, (December 9, 2005)
- Dozens Speak in Support of Ohio's Priest-Abuse Bill, by Julie Carr Smyth, Plain Dealer (December 9, 2005)
- Church Proposes Molestation Registry: Catholic Officials Oppose Lifting Time Limit on Sex-Abuse Lawsuits, by Jim Provance, Toledo Blade (December 26, 2005)

- Don't Let Michigan Courts Bury Priest Sex Abuse Cases: State Must Change Statute of Limitations for Victims, by Justin C. Ravitz, Detroit News (January 5, 2006)
- Testimony of Bishop Gumbleton to Ohio House of Representatives (January 11, 2006)
- Bishop Gumbleton Says Priest Abused Him When He Was a Teen, by Jerry Filteau, Catholic Explorer (January 12, 2006)
- Equality Under the Law? On Some Issues, It Depends: An Open Letter to the Faithful of Northern Colorado from Their Catholic Bishops, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Bishop Arthur N. Tafoya, and Bishop Michael J. Sheridan, Denver Catholic Register (February 1, 2006)
- HB 1088, HB 1090, SB 143 bills are bad public policy, bad law, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Denver Catholic Register (February 8, 2006) [read at all Masses on Feb. 4 and 5]
- Emotional Day of Abuse-Bill Testimony: Measure Moves to Full Senate after Church Arguments Rejected, by Mark P. Couch, Denver Post (February 14, 2006)
- Abusive Priests Get Legal Break: House Won't Allow Victims' Lawsuits to Go Back 35 Years, by Catherine Candisky and Jim Siegel, Columbus Dispatch (March 29, 2006)
- Window Closed for Old Abuse Charges: Bill Adds Registry, Tells Clergy to Report Cases, by Jim Provance, Toledo Blade (March 30, 2006)
- Suing the Church, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., First Things (May 2006)
- Changing the Rules: Selective Justice for Catholic Institutions, by L. Martin Nussbaum, America (May 15, 2006)
- Bishops: We're Not Blocking Legislation, by David O'Reilly, Philadelphia Inquirer (August 14, 2006)
- What the Clergy Abuse Crisis Has Taught Us, by Marci A. Hamilton, America (September 25, 2006)
- D.A. Promotes Sex-Abuse Bill: Abraham Seeks " Window" on Statute of Limitations, by David O'Reilly, Philadelphia Inquirer (October 14, 2006)

- Ohio's Victims of Clerical Sexual Abuse Left Frustrated by Senate Bill 17, by Todd Jarrett, Toledo City Paper (February 28, 2007)
- Abuse Victims Help Send Bill for Senate Vote, by Beth Miller, News Journal (March 22, 2007)
- Landmark Sexual Abuse Bill Heads to Governor's Office, by Beth Miller, News Journal (June 20, 2007)
- Delaware Senate Bill 29
- Delaware Gives Pedophilia Victims More Time to File Lawsuits, Associated Press (July 11, 2007)
- 1st Suit Filed under Del. Sex-Abuse Law, by David O'Reilly, Philadelphia Inquirer (July 13, 2007)
- A 'Window' for Victims of Abuse: Historic Legislation from Sacramento Allowed Abuse Victims to Take Legal Action against the Los Angeles Archdiocese, by Marci A. Hamilton, Los Angeles Times (July 19, 2007)
- Diocese of Buffalo Hardly Touched by Clergy Sexual Abuse Settlements, by Jay Tokasz, Buffalo News (July 22, 2007)
- Advocates Seek to Expand Time for Abuse Claims, by Thomas Adcock, New York Law Journal (September 28, 2007)
- The Abuse-and-Coverup Scandal: The Church Should Not Oppose Extending Statutes of Limitation, by Charles Molineaux, Society of Catholic Social Scientists Annual Meeting (October 27, 2007)
- Victims in Law: Statutes of Limitation Must End So Sexual Abuse Victims—Not Predators—Are Helped, by Marge Markey and Marci A. Hamilton, Albany Times Union (October 28, 2007)
- Bill Would Allow Lawsuits in Old Sexual Abuse Cases: It Also Would End Statutes of Limitation, by Tom Heinen, Milwaukee Journal, Sentinel (November 28, 2007)

- A Wider Window for Sex-Abuse Suits: Rep. Gwyn Green Is Trying Again. Her Proposal in 2006 Collapsed under Hot Debate, by John Ingold, Denver Post (February 6, 2008)
- Colorado House Bill 1011
- End Statute of Limitations for Abuse Victims, by Sister Maureen Paul Turlish, MetroWest Daily News (June 2, 2008)

- SB2588
- Church Battles Efforts to Ease Sex Abuse Suits, by Laurie Goodstein and Erik Eckholm, New York Times, June 14, 2012

- Letter from Assemblywoman Margaret Markey to Governor Andrew Cuomo, February 12, 2013
- Shattuck Sex Abuse Allegations Propel Proposed Law Aiding Sex Abuse Victims, by Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio, March 20, 2013
- Committee Approves Bill to Remove Time Limits for Child Sex Abuse Victims to Sue, by Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio , March 20, 2013
- Minnesota House Bill HF 681 (2013)
- Minnesota Senate Bill SF 534 (2013)
- New York A1771=S3809 (2013)