VI. History of the Massachusetts Religious Exemption Law

Sheridan Death - 1967

In 1967, five-year-old Lisa Sheridan of Cape Cod died of pneumonia. She had been seriously ill for three weeks and received no medical care. Her mother, a Christian Scientist, attempted to treat Lisa's illness solely by prayer. That same year the mother, Dorothy Sheridan, was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter for failing to provide her daughter with sufficient medical care.

In his instruction to the jury in the Sheridan case, the judge referred to a section of the state's then existing child neglect law (Chapter 273, section 1) which set criminal misdemeanor penalties for any parent of a minor child who "…willfully fails to provide necessary and proper physical care." The judge ruled the phrase "proper physical care" to mean "medical attention."

Religious Exemption - 1971

In 1971, in an effort to eliminate any requirement under the child neglect law that Christian Science parents must provide their children with medical attention, the Christian Science Church successfully lobbied the Massachusetts legislature to pass the religious exemption law. The law added the following language to the child neglect law (Chapter 273, section 1):

A child shall not be deemed to be neglected or lack proper physical care for the sole reason that he is being provided remedial treatment by spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof.

Twitchell Death - 1986

In 1986, another tragic and preventable death of a Christian Science child came to the attention of the Massachusetts public. In April of 1986, two-year-old Robyn Twitchell lay dying of a medically treatable bowel obstruction. His parents, as Christian Scientists, were attempting to overcome Robyn's illness solely by prayer. When Robyn did not improve, the worried parents sought guidance from a senior church official and lawyer, Nathan Talbot. Talbot referred the parents to a relevant section of a church publication, "Legal Rights and Obligations of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts," which stated that the religious exemption law:

...is a criminal statute and it expressly precludes imposition of criminal liability as a negligent parent for failure to provide medical care because of religious beliefs.

This language was taken directly from the 1976 Attorney General's Opinion regarding the menaning of the religious exemption law. Notice, however, that the opinion does not state that the parent is exempted from the crime of manslaughter should the child die due to lack of medical care.

The parents subsequently did not seek medical attention for Robyn who died within 48 hours.

Following a judicial inquest, the Twitchell parents, in 1988, were indicted for involuntary manslaughter in the death of Robyn. In a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, the Twitchell's lawyers argued that the 1971 religious exemption law provided a bar to any prosecution based on the parents' actions in providing Robyn with only spiritual care rather than with medical care. In refusing to dismiss the indictment, the Trial Court ruled that the religious exemption law was not a bar to the Twitchell's prosecution for two reasons:

First, the religious exemption law does not exempt parents using spiritual healing from child neglect for failure to provide medical care when the child's life is in "imminent danger." The judge's ruling on this matter was based on the phrase "for the sole reason" contained in the religious exemption. The judge wrote: "The court construes this phrase to protect from prosecution for neglect those parents who regularly use spiritual healing when nothing more is necessary to protect the health of their children. However, when other factors exist, such as significant trauma or serious illness, additional remedial measures might be required to ensure the health of the children." In other words, a parent cannot be prosecuted "for the sole reason" of using spiritual healing, but there might be additional reasons that medical care might be required. The judge was fully supported in her interpretation by court rulings in other states on the meaning of this key phrase.

Secondly, the Twitchells should stand trial for manslaughter since the religious exemption law refers only to the crime of child neglect and does not carry over to the separate crime of manslaughter. The judge was supported on this point by a prior ruling by the California Supreme Court.

In 1990, the Twitchells were convicted of involuntary manslaughter by a jury for recklessly endangering the life of Robyn by failing to fulfill their parental duty to provide Robyn with necessary medical care.

For the ruling of the Superior Court judge on the application of the religious exemption law (in the Twitchell case) to become effective law in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would be required, on appeal, to uphold the judge's ruling. However, the Christian Science Church and the Twitchells may decide not to appeal in order to avoid the risk of permanently losing (unless the legislature were to intervene) their claim of religious exemption to children's medical care. (This is what happened in the Sheridan case. The Church in order to avoid a definitive judgment against itself decided that Dorothy Sheridan's manslaughter conviction should not be appealed.)

The actions of the Christian Science Church in the days prior to the death of Robyn Twitchell tragically illustrate the essential and overriding reason that the Massachusetts religious exemption law must be repealed: the Christian Science Church and other faith-healing groups have cited religious exemption law to encourage parents to deny their seriously ill children necessary medical care.

As stated above, only days before Robyn's death, Mr. and Mrs. Twitchell, worried because Robyn was not improving under Christian Science care, anxiously called Nathan Talbot, a senior church official and a lawyer, for guidance. According to David Twitchell's testimony, Talbot referred the Twitchells to an interpretation of the Massachusetts religious exemption law, and according to the Inquest judge: "Mr. Talbot used the authority of his office to indicate that continued use of prayer alone was appropriate and lawful…" In other words, the Church used the religious exemption law to discourage "…the natural parental instinct to seek other help from any available source." (Judge Shubow, from his Inquest Report in the Twitchell case.)

If the religious exemption law is repealed, the Christian Science Church and other faith-healing sects should no longer be able to tell parents that Massachusetts law allows them to rely on spiritual healing to the exclusion of medical care when their children are seriously ill. The effect of repealing the religious exemption law should be to change the behavior of church officials in favor of the life and health of children.

Should the case be appealed and the trial court judge's decision on the meaning of the religious exemption law be overturned in favor of the church, the only recourse for children would be repeal by the legislature of the religious exemption. In any case, a decision on appeal may take years. During this time the rights of children will continue to be in doubt. The legislature should take responsibility now by undoing what it did in 1971; that is, repeal the law.

Repeal of Child Neglect Statute - 1986

In the mid-80's, the Department of Revenue was attempting to reform and simplify state statutes dealing with desertion and non-support of children. Chapter 273, section 1, contained definitions and penalties for non-support and desertion, as well as language defining the crime of child neglect. Since it wished to simplify Chapter 273 so that it would only relate to the crimes of desertion and non-support, it recommended that the child neglect language be removed. In 1986, shortly after the death of Robyn Twitchell, the Massachusetts legislature repealed the statutory crime of child neglect. The religious exemption language which was attached to the neglect statute, however, was retained - probably for political expediency. Therefore, at present, there is a religious exemption statute to a child neglect law which no longer exists.

The result of this legislative action is twofold: first, there is now no child neglect law in the criminal code that requires parents to provide their children with proper physical care, including medical care. Second, the actual legal status of the religious exemption law is made even more problematic since the law it was attached to no longer exists.

Additionally, a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1971 almost certainly declares the Massachusetts religious exemption law to be in violation of the "establishment clause" of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The "establishment clause" is one of the two guarantees of religious freedom contained in the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The purpose of this provision was to insure the separation of church and state, and to prevent discrimination among religions or the granting of special preferences to one religion.

In 1971, while the Massachusetts religious exemption bill, soon to become law, was making its way through the legislature, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the Dalli case struck down a Massachusetts law providing for a religious exemption from compulsory inoculations granted for members of a "recognized church or religious denomination." According to Leo Damore, in his book, The "Crime" of Dorothy Sheridan:

Mrs. Beulah Dalli of Lowell, Mass., had been unable to fulfill the terms of the religious exemption…The terms (of the law) required an affidavit signed by a church official whose tenets proscribed vaccination, in lieu of a physician's certificate, before her child could enter public school - but Mrs. Dalli was not a member of any Church.

Mrs. Dalli believed the Bible forbade vaccinations. The Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court ruled that the exemption was not constitutional if it was limited only to members of recognized churches or religious denominations. All persons who objected to vaccinations because of religious belief would have to be accommodated.

Despite this decision, Christian Science lobbyists did not alter the "recognized church or religious denomination" language of their bill, which was passed into law. Hence, the present religious exemption law is unconstitutional because it violates the establishment clause.

Return to top