Kentucky HB 595: A Landmark Step Forward — And an Honest Look at Who It Helps

By William F. McMurry | Board-Certified Medical and Legal Malpractice Trial Specialist

Kentucky House Bill 595 is one of the most important pieces of legislation for child protection this Commonwealth has considered in decades. If it passes, it will fundamentally change the legal landscape for survivors of childhood sexual abuse in Kentucky — but it is critical that every survivor understand precisely what the bill does, and what it does not do, before drawing conclusions about their own situation.

I have spent the better part of my career representing survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I have privately interviewed, one-on-one, more than a thousand adult survivors over the past 25 years. Approximately 75% of them had never told their story to another living soul before sitting across from me. I know this population. I know their pain. And because I respect them, I am going to be completely honest about this bill — including the hard parts.

What HB 595 Would Do

HB 595 amends KRS 413.249 and makes one sweeping, historic change to Kentucky law going forward:

For childhood sexual abuse that occurs after the effective date of this Act, there would be no statute of limitations — ever. A survivor could bring a civil lawsuit at any time, whether five years after the abuse or fifty. The law would no longer impose an artificial deadline on a survivor’s right to seek justice.

This is genuinely landmark. It recognizes what science has long confirmed and what I have witnessed in the lives of hundreds of clients: the trauma of childhood sexual abuse does not follow a legal calendar. Many survivors spend decades — well into their 40s and beyond — before they can even begin to connect their suffering to what was done to them as children. Depression. Shattered relationships. Chronic shame. Substance abuse. These are the fingerprints of abuse, and they often go unrecognized by the survivor themselves for a very long time.

HB 595, going forward, says: take the time you need. The courthouse door will still be open.

Who HB 595 Does NOT Help — And Why That Matters

Here is where honesty requires me to be direct with you.

HB 595 contains a retroactive revival provision — a section designed to reopen the courthouse door for survivors whose statute of limitations has already expired. But there are two serious problems with that provision as currently written, and every survivor deserves to understand both of them.

Problem One: The revival window runs from the wrong date. As written, revived claims must be filed within five years of the date the original statute of limitations expired — not five years from when HB 595 passes. For survivors whose deadlines lapsed in the 1990s or early 2000s — which describes the overwhelming majority of adult survivors coming forward today — those five-year windows closed long ago. I am actively advocating for an amendment that would run the revival window from the date of enactment, which would give all survivors a meaningful and equal opportunity to act.

Problem Two: The Kentucky Supreme Court has raised serious constitutional doubts about revival provisions of this kind. In Thompson v. Killary, 683 S.W.3d 641 (Ky. 2024), the Kentucky Supreme Court held — by a 6-1 majority — that once a statute of limitations defense has vested, the legislature cannot revive it. The Court applied that principle to strike down the identical revival language already in KRS 413.249, finding that defendants hold a constitutionally protected vested right in an expired limitations defense that even the General Assembly cannot take away.

That ruling is the law of Kentucky today, and it casts a long constitutional shadow over HB 595’s revival provision.

But the Door Is Not Permanently Closed — And Here Is Why

Courts evolve. Judicial compositions change. And the lone dissent in Thompson — written by Justice Bisig — makes a powerful and carefully reasoned argument that the majority got it wrong. Justice Bisig argued that the revival of childhood sexual abuse claims serves a compelling governmental interest, is narrowly tailored, and therefore survives even the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. She wrote that it “defies common sense” to hold that a vested property right in a limitations defense is wholly beyond legislative correction — particularly when the legislature was fully aware of the documented obstacles that prevent child survivors from coming forward within arbitrary legal deadlines.

Justice Bisig’s dissent is not merely a minority opinion. It is a roadmap — and it is the constitutional argument that must be pressed, developed, and preserved in every future case and every future legislative session.

Notably, Maryland has already declined to follow Thompson. Other jurisdictions are watching. As public awareness of childhood sexual abuse trauma deepens, and as the science of delayed disclosure becomes more widely understood, the constitutional calculus may shift. It has happened before on issues where courts initially ruled against survivors.

I am not promising what I cannot deliver. What I can tell you is this: the legal fight for retroactive justice is not over. It has entered a new and more difficult phase — but it is not over.

Why Children Don’t Tell — And Why the Law Must Catch Up

Research published in Child Abuse & Neglect (Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, Goodman, Jones & Gordon, 2003), examining 218 child sexual abuse victims, documents exactly why survivors remain silent for decades:

• Fear of devastating consequences — survivors were threatened, directly or indirectly, into silence
• Relationship to the abuser — 89% of victims abused by a family member or trusted authority figure either delayed disclosure or never disclosed during childhood
• Self-blame — children internalize responsibility for what was done to them, a well-documented psychological consequence of abuse by trusted adults
• Fear of destroying the family — particularly where the abuser was a parent, relative, or beloved community figure
• Developmental limitations — young children often lacked the cognitive framework to understand that what was happening was wrong
• Institutional disbelief — when children did try to tell, they were frequently dismissed or not believed

These are not excuses. They are the predictable consequences of the crime itself. A legal system that imposes rigid time limits on survivors — without accounting for these realities — is a system that protects abusers, not children.

Justice Bisig recognized this directly in her dissent, quoting the Governor’s message accompanying the 2021 amendment to KRS 413.249: “Most children, in particular the very young, do not disclose abuse in real time…. We must do everything we can to create safe pathways so that survivors of childhood sexual abuse feel empowered to make their voices heard and tell their stories in their own time, while ensuring we can still hold the perpetrators accountable.”

That principle does not become less true because a court has ruled against it. It becomes more urgent.

This is personal to me in a way that goes beyond the law. Childhood sexual abuse shattered my own family. I grew up entirely unaware that my baby sister was being repeatedly abused by a neighbor. It took decades before she was finally able to share what had happened with me and our family. I have lived on both sides of this — as a brother, and as an attorney. I understand, in the most direct and human way possible, why survivors take the time they take.

What You Can Do Right Now

HB 595 is currently before the Kentucky House Judiciary Committee. Its passage — and the possibility of strengthening amendments — depends on whether Kentucky’s elected representatives hear from the people they serve.

I am asking every person who reads this to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee directly and urge them to support HB 595 — and to strengthen its revival provision so that it can withstand constitutional scrutiny. The legislative findings accompanying any amendment matter enormously. The more clearly the General Assembly articulates the compelling governmental interest in reviving expired claims — grounded in the documented science of childhood trauma and delayed disclosure — the stronger the constitutional case becomes when the courts revisit this question.

You do not need to share your personal story. A brief, direct message in your own words is enough.

If you were abused as a child and your statute of limitations has already expired — particularly if that expiration occurred many years ago — please know that I am continuing to advocate for legislative changes that would extend meaningful relief to you as well. The legal landscape is difficult right now. But it is not static. Watch this space. When there are developments worth reporting, I will report them honestly.

→ Take action now: contact Kentucky’s legislators and urge them to support and strengthen HB 595

Suggested Message — Copy, Personalize, and Send

Subject: Please Support and Strengthen HB 595 — Justice for Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse

Dear Representative [Name]:

I am writing to urge your support for House Bill 595, which would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual assault and abuse in Kentucky.

There is no category of crime more universally condemned than the sexual abuse of a child. And yet Kentucky’s current laws continue to deny justice to survivors who were unable to come forward within an arbitrary legal window — a window that bears no relationship to how trauma actually works in a human being’s life.

Research has established clearly that survivors of childhood sexual abuse frequently carry their trauma in silence for decades, held there by fear, shame, threats from their abusers, loyalty to family, and the simple inability of a child’s mind to fully process what was done to them. Many survivors do not recognize the connection between their childhood abuse and the suffering they have carried into adulthood until they are in their 40s or 50s. By then, under current Kentucky law, their legal rights have expired.

HB 595 would end that injustice going forward — and I urge you to support its passage without delay.

I also ask that you consider strengthening the bill’s retroactive revival provision in two important ways. First, the revival window should run from the date of enactment — not from when the original deadline expired — so that all survivors have a meaningful and equal opportunity to act. Second, the bill should include explicit legislative findings articulating the compelling governmental interest in reviving these claims, grounded in the documented science of childhood trauma and delayed disclosure. The Kentucky Supreme Court’s recent decision in Thompson v. Killary has raised constitutional questions about revival provisions of this kind. The answer to those questions lies not in abandoning the effort, but in building the strongest possible legislative record in support of it. Strong findings give future courts — with potentially different compositions — the constitutional foundation to uphold the revival provision when it is challenged.

Kentucky’s survivors have waited long enough. Please support and strengthen HB 595.

[Your name, city, and county]

How to Send Your Message

Copy and paste the address blocks below directly into your email’s To: and Cc: fields, paste the message above into the body, personalize it if you wish, and send.

TO: House Judiciary Committee Members (paste this entire line into your To: field)

daniel.elliott@lrc.ky.gov; jennifer.decker@kylegislature.gov; kim.banta@kylegislature.gov; jared.bauman@lrc.ky.gov; john.blanton@lrc.ky.gov; lindsey.burke@lrc.ky.gov; stephanie.dietz@kylegislature.gov; patrick.flannery@lrc.ky.gov; peyton.griffee@kylegislature.gov; nima.kulkarni@lrc.ky.gov; derek.lewis@lrc.ky.gov; savannah.maddox@lrc.ky.gov; marylou.marzian@kylegislature.gov; kimberly.moser@lrc.ky.gov; jason.nemes@kylegislature.gov; jason.petrie@lrc.ky.gov; tj.roberts@kylegislature.gov; pamela.stevenson@lrc.ky.gov; mitchum.whitaker@kylegislature.gov; wade.williams@kylegislature.gov; nick.wilson@kylegislature.gov

CC: House Leadership & Bill Sponsor (paste this entire line into your Cc: field)

chad.aull@kylegislature.gov; david.osborne@lrc.ky.gov; steven.rudy@lrc.ky.gov; david.meade@lrc.ky.gov; suzanne.miles@lrc.ky.gov; joshua.watkins@kylegislature.gov

Individual Committee Members — For Reference

CC’d — House Leadership & Bill Sponsor

William F. McMurry is Board-Certified as both a Medical Malpractice and Legal Malpractice Trial Specialist by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys (ABPLA) and has been peer-selected to Kentucky Super Lawyers for 18 consecutive years, including the Top 50 Super Lawyers in Kentucky for 2025. He served as lead counsel in the $25.7 million settlement against the Archdiocese of Louisville on behalf of 243 survivors and successfully defeated the Vatican’s claim to foreign sovereign immunity in a nationwide class action on behalf of childhood sexual abuse survivors.

HB 595 was introduced by Representative Chad R. Aull, who represents Kentucky’s 79th House District and has served in the Kentucky House of Representatives since January 2023.

© 2026 William F. McMurry & Associates. This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship.