Is an Idaho Democrat Helping to Protect Child Molesters?

Posted by Jessica in House bill 125, Idaho Democrats, Mormon Church

I have previously written about House Bill 125 and the possible ramifications of it. Despite my party loyalty, I place the protection, safety, and innocence of children before my loyalty to Democrats and the Democratic Party always.

I have been saddened with the knowledge that one of the bill co-sponsors, a Democrat, allowed a law firm to help draft the bill with language that will possibly remove the Mormon Church and Boy Scouts from legal accountability and liability for their actions in protecting child rapists and molesters. Yes, it is sick, but a Democrat has actively been working to protect organizations that HARBOR child rapists and molesters, while getting paid with our tax dollars.

This morning, when I checked my email, I found a link to an article where this same Democrat is found stating that House Bill 125 is targeting employers/employees not volunteers, but we knew that already, and the bill isn't intended to help victims sue the Boy Scouts and/or Mormon Church, but he didn't say it in those words exactly. It's as if he believes that volunteers are incapable of raping little boys and girls. Yet, many other religions have paid clergy, so they can be sued, just not the Mormon Church. I emailed this Democrat my concerns and that is what he conveyed to me-why punish the good volunteers by opening up a legal avenue to sue the bad ones? That shows a surprising lack of confidence in our justice system, which I know isn't perfect, but are widespread lawsuits against innocent volunteers an epidemic?

A few weeks ago, on a blog that is the best in the state, Red State Rebels, people were singing this same Democrat's praises. And yes, this person has always been kind to me and has been a good Democrat, for the most part. It was said that he is a "superstar." Well, I have to disagree. Despite his political potential, I refuse to label a protector of child rapists a superstar, even if they have the capability of being a Senator one day.

I will no longer mince my words about what this Democrat, and the Republican co-sponsor, did. They have created additional barriers for survivors of child abuse to pursue justice against their abusers and those that protected their abusers. They have opened up ways for victims to sue religions that have paid clergy, organizations that have employees, including some in the Boy Scouts, but they have provided protection for two organizations that both co-sponsors are connected to. Shame on them.

5 comments

Jessica says July 11, 2007 at 9:29 AM

I have received 2 comments from Rep. Ruchti about this matter since I published this blog entry.

He is claiming that Senator Jorgensen is misinformed and that I didn't contact Rep. Ruchti. I did email Rep. Ruchti, multiple times, and have the emails as proof.

I also don't believe that Sen Jorgensen is misinformed and/or lying. You be the judge.

I also find it sad that this issue is being reframed by Ruchti yet again.

Anonymous says July 16, 2007 at 3:53 PM

I don't think that Rep. Ruchti is trying to reframe the issue. It appears to me that you, perfectly reasonably, wanted the bill to go further than it did. But to frame that as protecting abusers is ignoring the significant gains that H0125 provides.

They have created additional barriers for survivors of child abuse to pursue justice against their abusers and those that protected their abusers.

I can't figure out what you mean by "additional barriers". It seems to me that H0125 doesn't erect even one. Instead it lowers the barriers for suits against abusers, individuals who protected them, and employers who protected them.

That it doesn't expand the recourse against non-employer organizations is true, and one might reasonably support legislation that fills that gap.

But I can't think of appropriate language that would cover volunteer supervisory relationships, but not create substantial additional liability for all volunteer organizations, nor have I found it in laws from a few other states that I looked at. I suspect that expanding the language would have killed the bill, and the good things it provides would have been lost as well.

Can you cite some model statutory language?

I also don't believe that Sen Jorgensen is misinformed and/or lying. You be the judge.

It's hard to judge based only on the descriptions that you've provided. So I contacted three cosponsors of the bill (there were two Democrats and three Republicans listed on the bill), and all say that Sen. Jorgensen was misinformed.

Jessica says July 17, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Perhaps you should ask Jorgensen as he was going to draft legislation but held off when he heard Ruchti was doing it.

Of course Jorgensen didn't expect Ruchti to pull these shenanigans.

It creates additional barriers in that a judge could interpret it as excluding volunteers, including LDS clergy and others, because they are lay clergy. While it does extend the statute of limitations, something I have rejoiced over (had you read my blog you would know that), I don't like that Ruchti worked with a law firm that has a high interest in drafting legislation that protects the Mormon Church from liability.

If you want to believe Ruchti, despite his half ass admission of working with this law firm and Randy Austin, then that is your perogative. Just please give me reasons why state senators would lie and create this convulated and detailed conspiracy theory. And tell me why he changed language in the bill.

THANKS!

P.S. I am working about 12-18 hours a day and don't have a lot of time to devote to this issue at this point in time, but I will try to comment and update as often as possible.