Abuse Survivors ‘Disgusted’ by Southern Baptist Court Brief

Bob Smietana

Christianity Today

Originally published 26 OCT 23

Here is an excerpt:

Members of the Executive Committee, including Oklahoma pastor Mike Keahbone, expressed dismay at the brief, saying he and other members of the committee were blindsided by it. Keahbone, a member of a task force implementing abuse reforms in the SBC, said the brief undermined survivors such as Thigpen, Woodson, and Lively, who have supported the reforms.

“We’ve had survivors that have been faithful to give us a chance,” he told Religion News Service in a phone interview. “And we hurt them badly.”

The controversy over the amicus brief is the latest crisis for leaders of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, which has dealt with a revolving door of leaders and rising legal costs in the aftermath of a sexual abuse crisis in recent years.

The denomination passed abuse reforms in 2022 but has been slow to implement them, relying mostly on a volunteer task force charged with convincing the SBC’s 47,000 congregations and a host of state and national entities to put those reforms into practice. Those delays have led survivors to be skeptical that things would actually change.

Earlier this week, ­the Louisville Courier Journal reported that lawyers for the Executive Committee, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—the denomination’s flagship seminary in Louisville—and Lifeway had filed the amicus brief earlier this year in a case brought by abuse survivor Samantha Killary.

The information is here.

Here is my summary: 

In October 2023, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) filed an amicus curiae brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court arguing that a new law extending the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims should not apply retroactively. This filing sparked outrage among abuse survivors and some SBC leaders, who accused the denomination of prioritizing its own legal interests over the needs of victims.

The SBC's brief was filed in response to a lawsuit filed by a woman who was sexually abused as a child by a Louisville police officer. The woman is seeking to sue the city of Louisville and the police department, arguing that they should be held liable for her abuse because they failed to protect her.

The SBC's brief argues that the new statute of limitations should not apply retroactively because it would create a "windfall" for abuse survivors who would not have been able to sue under the previous law. The brief also argues that applying the new law retroactively would be unfair to institutions like the SBC, which could be faced with a flood of lawsuits.

Abuse survivors and some SBC leaders have criticized the brief as being insensitive to the needs of victims. They argue that the SBC is more interested in protecting itself from lawsuits than in ensuring that victims of abuse are able to seek justice.

In a joint statement, three abuse survivors said they were "sickened and saddened to be burned yet again by the actions of the SBC against survivors." They accused the SBC of "proactively choosing to side against a survivor and with an abuser and the institution that enabled his abuse."

Amicus Curiae Brief on Forced Medication of Loughner

ARLINGTON, Va. (Aug 4, 2011) - The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) have submitted an amicus curiae brief on the issue of forcibly administering antipsychotic medication in the case of the United States v. Jared Lee Loughner.

The brief was submitted August 3 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Loughner has pleaded not guilty in the Tucson, Arizona shootings that killed 6 people and injured 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was found incompetent to stand trial and is being held in a federal prison hospital in Springfield, Mo.

The APA/AAPL brief argues that under existing standards the government may administer involuntary medication to a pre-trial detainee who is a danger to himself or others if appropriate administrative procedures are followed.

It was also argued that such decisions should be made by those having custody of the defendant and should not require a judicial hearing.

"We have two interests in this case," said Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D., chair of APA's Committee on Judicial Action.

"When the courts address issues concerning psychiatric disorders, we want them to have accurate data on the nature and consequences of those illnesses and on appropriate treatments.

In addition, we believe psychiatrists working in correctional facilities need the flexibility to deal with dangerous persons without the delay involved in lengthy court proceedings. Those are the issues that we focus on in the brief."

The defense in the Tucson shootings case has opposed the defendant's being treated with antipsychotic medication, and the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals halted further treatment with antipsychotics until a hearing before that court at the end of August.

Since then, the psychiatrists treating Loughner concluded he was rapidly deteriorating and represented a danger to himself, and antipsychotic medication was restarted on an emergency basis.

The brief submitted by APA and AAPL did not side with either party, but seeks to clarify issues regarding managing violent, including self-injurious, inmates and about the use of antipsychotic medications.

The brief addresses the scientific evidence of the benefits and risks associated with antipsychotic medications, likely side effects, the medical reasons for involuntary administration in certain circumstances, and the inappropriateness of using other medications (i.e., sedatives) in the place of antipsychotics.

In Loughner's appeal the court will address whether, in a case involving a pre-trial detainee, the Washington v. Harper standard may be applied in a prison administrative process or whether the greater protection of a judicial proceeding is required.

Washington v. Harper holds that the government may treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will if he is dangerous to himself or others and if the treatment is in his medical interest.

In that case - which involved a convicted prisoner - the court also held that an administrative hearing was adequate to satisfy procedural due process.

Loughner's lawyers have raised additional substantive and procedural arguments.

The APA's position in the brief, approved by the APA Board of Trustees, is consistent with the organization's ongoing support of adequate mental health care for individuals in the criminal justice system.

Please see our prior blog post that details a history of this case.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.