I. Religious Exemption Laws Lead to Cruel Deaths, Mislead Parents
Religious Exemption Laws Lead to the Cruel and Unnecessary Deaths of Helpless Children; These Laws also Falsely Mislead Parents Regarding their Legal Duty to Provide Necessary Medical Care for their Seriously Ill Children

The deadly consequences of religious exemption laws are apparent nationwide: over the past 25 years there have been over 150 reported deaths of children whose parents chose to rely on faith healing rather than medicine.

There are at least 20 different sects and religious groups in the U.S. whose teachings deny the use of medical care. These groups include: Faith Assembly, Christian Science, The Believer's Fellowship, Faith Tabernacle, Church of the First Born, Church of God of the Union Assembly, Church of God Chapel, Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God, Jesus through John and Judy, Christ Miracle Healing Center, NE Kingdom Community Church, Christ Assembly, The Source, True Followers of Christ, "No Name" Fellowship, End Time Ministries, Faith Cathedral Fellowship, Living Word Assembly of God, Traveling Ministries Everyday Church.

Christian Science is the largest and most prominent of these groupings. Church membership is estimated at 100,000 - 200,000 persons. The church estimates it has 1,800 churches and societies active in all parts of the United States. Since the 1970's there have been at least 18 deaths of Christian Science children; these deaths occurred when the parents denied their children medical care in favor of purely "spiritual healing." Of these deaths: three were from juvenile onset diabetes, an illness which can be controlled by insulin but which is otherwise invariably fatal; four from bacterial meningitis, a deadly illness which, with proper administration of antibiotics, is 90 percent curable; one from a ruptured appendix; one from pneumonia, and one from diphtheria (due to lack of vaccination).

Forty-four states have had religious exemption laws in force since the mid-1970's. (In 1990 South Dakota became the first state to repeal its religious exemptions from health care requirements for sick children.) Furthermore, the above deaths are only those that have come to public attention. Certainly there are other known and unknown cases of death, injury, prolonged suffering, and permanent disability of children whose parents have refused effective medical treatment.

In 1988, the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union made the following statement regarding state religious exemption laws:

Children have rights too, and parents have certain rights which end when they intrude too far into a child's right to live…the parent's right to bring up the child in the way the parent thinks best-an important right…ends at the point at which the parents' actions endanger the lives of kids…there cannot be in our view a religious exemption no matter how sincere a parent's belief…

Prior to 1982, "For nearly seven years after religious immunity was put under federal mandate, no charges of child abuse, neglect, or manslaughter were filed in any cases of religiously-based medical neglect. Beginning in 1982, though, prosecutors filed charges in some deaths of children due to religious beliefs against medical care. From 1982 through 1989, criminal charges were filed in 29 such cases. To date there have been 21 convictions, 5 acquittals… of the 29 cases, 7 involved Christian Scientists, with a result of 5 convictions for manslaughter and child endangerment." (Swan, The Law's Response When Religious Beliefs Against Medical Care Impact on Children, 1990).

How is it that parents can be prosecuted in the deaths of their children when states have legislated religious exemption? Prosecutors and courts have determined that the state religious exemption laws do not necessarily exempt parents from responsibility from obtaining medical care if a child is seriously ill or if the illness results in the child's death. In 1988, the California Supreme Court (People v. Walker) determined that the state's religious exemption law applies only to the neglect statute and does not carry over to the state's manslaughter statute. The Twitchells in Boston were convicted under a similar interpretation of the Massachusetts religious exemption law.

Not only do the religious exemption laws leave children vulnerable to death and disability, the laws can mislead (and be used by their churches to mislead) parents into believing that the state allows the substitution of prayer for medical care. Only when it is too late, after the agony of a child's death, do parents come to realize they are accountable under the law. In effect, religious exemption laws are punitive rather then preventative.

It would be better, however, to make a parent's legal duty clear before a child dies. Many parents would be relieved to obey the law if the state would make its standards clear. They do not comprehend the risks they are taking with their child when the state seems to endorse the withholding of medical care.

Rita Swan, "Barriers to Medical Care for Children: How You Can Help," The Exchange, Jan. - Feb., 1988.

Swan, in the same article, further went on to state:

No one is trying to outlaw prayer. Doctors are willing for people of any denomination to pray for their patient. Religious exemptions appear to make prayer a legal substitute for the medical care needed by a sick child.

Prayer cannot be a substitute for medicine in serious childhood illnesses in which medical treatment has proven its effectiveness over decades or when medicine is expected to have some reasonable likelihood of success.

Faith and reason may both have their place in healing, but not the same place. The state must remain neutral between religions, defending everyone's right to believe. But that does not mean it must remain neutral between "treatment," as if spiritual healing and science were equal options for curing a bowel obstruction.

Ellen Goodman, "Healing: Faith vs. Reason," Boston Globe, July 12, 1990

But where the issue is beyond real scientific dispute - as for exampble, with an operable malignant tumor, a case of acute appendicitis or treatable condition like juvenile diabetes - the state must have the power to compel parents to treat their children medically until they become adults.

Alan Dershowitz, "Let's Not Sacrifice Kids to Religion," Boston Herald, April 16, 1990

Religious exemption laws are unconscionable because they deprive a group of children of the basic rights and protections of life and health guaranteed by law to all other children. In effect religious exemption to medical care constitutes an apparent state sanction of child abuse/neglect.

The conviction that led to a sentence of 10 years' probation for David and Ginger Twitchell ought to alert Americans to a legal double standard that subjects the children of Christian Scientists to risks that are not tolerated for any other child. In ordinary circumstances, parental failure to safeguard a child's health, including seeking medical care for a grave illness, constitute child neglect or abuse and is subject to prosecution. But 43 states, including Massachusetts…provide an exemption for Christian Scientists, whose faith rejects medical care in favor of "spiritual healing." Given modern scientific knowledge, the legal exemptions can't be excused. Society has a duty to say that Christian Science parents may take whatever personal hazards they choose on practicing their religion - but they may not expose their children to the risk of death and disability by refusing medical treatment. Editorial, Chicago Tribune, July 8, 1990

Lawrence Tribe, a leading constitutional lawyer at Harvard, stated in a Boston Herald article on July 7, 1990: There should be a very clear duty on the part of all parents to take children to the doctor when a certain threshold is reached. Repealing the religious exemption would make it clear in the future that people like the Twitchells have to call in a doctor.

Return to top