it retrospectively.” Hydro-Manufacturing, Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 640 A.2d 950, 954-55 (R.I.1994) (quoting VanMarter v. Royal Indemnity Co., 556 A.2d 41, 44 (R.I.1989)). Here, no specific language in the 1994 amendments supports defendants’ position that these enactments retroactively stripped Wilkinson of his full-status employment. In the absence of such language, or indeed any evidence to the contrary, this Court will apply the general rule that “statutes operate prospectively from and after the effective date of the statute. It is only in the event that a statute contains clear and explicit language requiring retroactive application that a statute will be interpreted to operate retrospectively.” Avanzo v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, 625 A.2d 208, 211 (R.I.1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the 1994 amendments affecting the
holding that the statute does not apply retroactively to claims accruing prior to the effective date holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding that attempt by governmental entity to apply a statute changing welfare eligibility requirements by establishing a limit on the length of time a totally incapacitated adult might receive benefits should not have been applied to existing recipients by counting benefit months prior to the effective date of the statute holding that for purposes of counting strikes under  1915g it is irrelevant whether the strikes occurred prior to or after the effective date of the aedpa holding that when governmental entity asserts affirmative claim for monetary damages against party entity does not have immunity from partys claims germane to connected to and properly defensive to claims asserted by the entity to the extent any recovery on those claims will offset any recovery by entity