PCUSA stated clerk disavows draft abortion brief prepared in his office By John H. Adams The Presbyterian Layman Volume 33, Number 3 Posted May 22, 2000 The name of General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick headed a draft of a proposed brief opposing Nebraska’s law that prohibits partial-birth abortions. Kirkpatrick admits his office prepared the brief but says he never intended to sign it. The Presbytery of Baltimore thought otherwise. The report of the presbytery’s stated clerk to the commissioners attending the presbytery meeting on March 23 contained a paragraph that said Kirkpatrick “has invited the Presbytery of Baltimore to join him in filing an amicus brief in the case of Stenberg vs. Carhart before the Supreme Court of the United States, which brief will be based upon the policy statements of the General Assembly.” Presbytery voted first Kirkpatrick made his decision not to submit a brief after the presbytery voted against joining the opposition to the Nebraska law. Kirkpatrick told The Presbyterian Layman that he never intended to sign an amicus brief opposing the Nebraska law. And he said he was not certain how the presbytery got a copy of the proposed brief with his name on it. Herbert D. Valentine, the executive in the Presbytery of Baltimore, said in a letter that “the office of the stated clerk provided a draft of their brief.” As commissioners arrived at the presbytery meeting, they were given a document titled, “INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE, CLIFTON KIRKPATRICK, STATED CLERK OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA),” which was described as a draft of the stated clerk’s brief. Kirkpatrick disavowed any personal involvement in the document. He said the General Assembly’s litigation committee often prepares suggested drafts of amicus briefs long before he even takes a look at them. Use of Kirkpatrick’s name Asked by The Layman why his name was used at the outset of the draft, especially when his reputation is tied to something he might not sign, Kirkpatrick said that was simply standard procedure for the way the documents are written. The proposed draft makes a case for late-term, partial-birth abortion. It quotes a General Assembly policy statement that “the morality of abortion is a question of stewardship of life, and abortion can, therefore, be considered a responsible choice within Christian ethics and beliefs under certain circumstances.” And it says, “Policy statements by the General Assembly during the past 30 years are consistent in affirming that the considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required decision.” However, it does not include a General Assembly statement made in 1997, “That the 209th General Assembly offer a word of counsel to the church and our culture that the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (commonly called ‘partial-birth’ abortion) of a baby who could live outside the womb is of grave moral concern that should be considered only if the mother’s physical life is endangered by the pregnancy.” Decision not to sign brief Asked why he decided not to sign the brief, Kirkpatrick said he has great “sensitivity to promote the peace and unity of the church.” Because General Assembly statements on abortion are inconsistent, he said he would not sign a brief until the assembly’s “moral guidelines are very clear.” But when he was asked if he would sign no amicus brief on the abortion issue until after the General Assembly clears up those inconsistencies, Kirkpatrick said, “I don’t want to say never.”

Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links