Connecticut's statute-of-limitations proposal

The Connecticut Catholic Conference is urging Catholics to oppose the enactment of H.B. 5473, which would "completely eliminate the existing 30 year statute of limitations relating to sexual abuse of a minor."  To its credit, the Hartford Courant (not exactly an apologist for sexual abuse by clergy) highlighted, in this editorial, the un-wisdom of this proposal.  As the Conference states:

• HB 5473 is unwise because it compromises sound judicial practices. A statute of limitation is a deadline for filing a claim. If missed, the claim expires, and the parties can rely upon this fact to arrange their affairs. Such statutes serve the common good by helping courts produce accurate results. Delayed claims means litigation after documents have been discarded, memories have faded, and witnesses have moved away or died. When California passed a similar bill, the dioceses there were forced to defend cases involving allegations against over 100 dead priests. Trials are unlikely to produce fair results when the only person able to testify about the alleged wrongful conduct is the party seeking the damage award.
• HB 5473 is unjust because it imposes the burden of litigation expense and damages upon Catholic institutions that the State is unwilling to impose upon itself. The State is unwilling to permit a direct right of action against itself or any action against other government entities like towns, school boards, or public schools. Thus, a student victimized by a teacher in a Catholic school can sue the school for damages. A student suffering an identical assault in a public school cannot seek damages because his claim is barred by a doctrine called sovereign immunity. HB 5473 leaves this unfairness unaddressed.

Now, Rob's recent post -- about the tone-deafness of some Church leaders' reactions to the recent allegations -- makes me ask, is it inappropriate -- is it tone-deaf -- for the Conference to try to educate Catholics about the dangers the proposal represents, not only to due process but to the Church's work?  Should they leave such warnings to newspapers, or analysts and commentators not associated with the Church?  Or, may / should they speak out?