Missouri Senator Revives Justice for Childhood Abuse Victims

A Renewed Fight for Survivors

Missouri lawmakers have revived a major effort to reshape how the state handles civil claims involving childhood sexual abuse, setting the stage for a high-stakes 2026 constitutional question for voters. Senate Joint Resolution 93 (SJR 93), prefiled on Dec. 1, 2025, would amend Missouri’s Constitution to allow retrospective—or retroactive—civil claims in cases involving the sexual abuse of a child.

The proposal aligns with a broader push led by Sen. Brad Hudson, who has refiled companion legislation to eliminate Missouri’s civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse altogether. He filed the bill last session as well, but it stalled in committee. This year, Hudson says he refuses to let the issue “slip through the cracks.”

“We live in Missouri where survivors of childhood sexual abuse were silenced,” Hudson told KMBC. For him, the effort is not political—it is personal, urgent, and long overdue.

Why Retroactive Claims Matter

Under current Missouri law, survivors can file civil lawsuits until they turn 31. But trauma does not work on a legislative timeline. Many survivors do not disclose abuse until decades later. Hudson described the gap bluntly to KMBC: many victims “don’t come forward with their abuse until their 50s,” often only when an abuser has died.

SJR 93 seeks to address that gap by adding a narrowly defined exception to Missouri’s ban on retrospective laws. If approved by voters, it would allow the Legislature to pass retroactive civil laws specifically for:

• Civil claims involving sexual abuse of a child under 18
• Civil claims involving conduct that “caused or contributed to cause” such abuse

No other civil claims would qualify, and criminal law is unchanged.

Survivors Raise Their Voices

The push for SJR 93 has drawn powerful testimony from survivors who say the current system locks them out of justice before they are ready to speak.

According to KMBC, John Hobbs—abused by his Boy Scout leader for years—testified in March in support of Hudson’s earlier version. He said he would willingly testify again:

“Oh, absolutely. We’ll do that again. That is difficult, though. You know, obviously, emotionally draining,” Hobbs told KMBC.

Another survivor, Gracia, who was abused at the International House of Prayer–Kansas City, also testified in March. She shared painful details about her experience and stressed that survivors will return as many times as necessary to see change:

“These voices matter,” she said. “We will keep coming back until this is passed. We will keep coming back until Missouri’s law protects children instead of predators.”

Both survivors told KMBC that their advocacy is not about reliving their trauma—it is about ensuring future children are protected.

Hobbs put it plainly:

“It’s all for them… making sure that they have the ability to come forward and tell their story whenever they’re ready, no matter what.”

What SJR 93 Would Do

SJR 93 proposes to repeal and replace Section 13 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution. The existing protections against retrospective laws remain—but with one key exception carved out solely for child sexual abuse civil claims.

The constitutional ballot language is brief and direct:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to protect children by providing that retrospective laws may be enacted for civil childhood sexual abuse claims?”

If voters approve it in November 2026, Missouri lawmakers would have the authority to revive expired claims, open temporary “lookback windows,” or eliminate civil time limits entirely for childhood sexual abuse cases.

A Growing National Movement

Missouri’s debate mirrors a national shift. Over the past decade, states such as New York, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and North Carolina have passed laws allowing expired civil claims to move forward, often for a limited period. These reforms have led to major revelations about long-hidden abuse and institutional failures.

Sen. Brad Hudson’s renewed push places Missouri squarely within this broader momentum. Earlier versions of the constitutional amendment—SJR 51, HJR 58, and HJR 79—were filed in 2025 but did not advance. With SJR 93, lawmakers are returning to the issue with renewed resolve.

What Happens Next

SJR 93 will undergo debate and committee review during the 2026 legislative session. According to KMBC, hundreds of bills were filed the same day, prompting concern that this effort could again be overshadowed. Hudson has described the effort as “a marathon, not a sprint”—but survivors say the timeline matters now more than ever.

If approved by both chambers, the amendment will appear on the statewide ballot in 2026—or earlier, if a special election is called.

For many survivors, SJR 93 is not just a procedural change—it is a chance to reclaim a voice that trauma once took from them. Whether that opportunity is unlocked will ultimately be up to Missouri voters.