Government endorsement of living on a prayer: Religious exemptions from the duty to provide medical treatment for children

Journal of Legal Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 515-528

  Dose, Ashley ^a  

^a DRAKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD ABUSE; COMMUNICABLE DISEASE; CONFLICT; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICAL CARE; PARENTAL BEHAVIOR; RELIGION; REVIEW; SPIRITUAL HEALING;

BRAIN ABSCESS; CHILD ABUSE; CHRISTIAN SCIENCE; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; MENINGITIS, BACTERIAL; PARENTAL CONSENT; PATIENT RIGHTS; POLITICS; RELIGION AND MEDICINE; SPIRITUAL THERAPIES; TREATMENT REFUSAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 72449163573     PISSN: 01947648     EISSN: 1521057X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01947640903356266     Document Type: Review

References (117)

1. Brown v. Laitner, 435 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Mich. 1989).
2. Paula A. Monopoli, Allocating the Costs of Parental Free Exercise: Striking a New Balance Between Sincere Religious Belief and a Child's Right to Medical Treatment, 18 PEPP. L. REV. 319, 322-323 (1991)
3. (citing Justice's Rep. on Inquest Relating to the Death of Robyn Twitchell, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, District Court Department, Suffolk County, West Roxbury Division, Inquest No. 1 of 1986, at 11).
4. Id. at 323 (citing Justice's Rep. on Inquest, supra note 2, at 12-13).
5. Brown, 435 N.W.2d at 2.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 2-3.
9. Id. at 2.
10. Id. at 3.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 3-4.
16. Id. at 4.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 5.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. CHILD, Inc., Victims of Religion-Based Medical Neglect, available at http://www.childrenshealthcare.org (last visited Mar. 31, 2009).
24. Baruch Gitlin, Parents' Criminal Liability for Failure to Provide Medical Attention to Their Children, 118 A.L.R. 5TH 253 (2004).
25. CHILD, Inc., Policy & Legal, available at http://www. childrenshealthcare.org/legal.htm (last visited Mar. 31, 2009).
26. CHILD, Inc., About CHILD, available at http://www.childrenshealthcare.org (last visited Mar. 31, 2009).
27. See, e.g., Shelli Dawn Robinson, Commonwealth v. Twitchell: Who Owns the Child?, 7
28. J. CONTEMP. HEALTH L. & POL'Y 413 (defending the rights of parents to make medical decisions for minor children for either religious or nonreligious reasons);
29. see also Daniel J. Kearney, Parental Failure to Provide Child with Medical Assistance Based on Religious Beliefs Causing Child's Death-Involuntary Manslaughter in Pennsylvania, 90 DICK. L. REV. 861 (1986) (arguing the unfairness of imposing criminal punishment on parents who have lost a child).
30. E.g., IOWA CODE § 726.6(1)(d) (2007).
31. Ann MacLean Massie, The Religion Clauses and Parental Health Care Decision-Making for Children: Suggestions for a New Approach, 21 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 725, 730 (1994).
32. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 617 N.E.2d 609 (Mass. 1993) (reversing and remanding conviction for involuntary manslaughter when child died of bowel obstruction, for failure to instruct on affirmative defense of parents' reasonable belief that they were protected by the statutory exemption);
33. see also Hermanson v. State, 604 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1991) (reversing conviction for felony child abuse and third-degree murder for death of child from diabetes on grounds that parents lacked fair notice of the point at which their conduct became criminal).
34. CHILD, Inc., Policy & Legal, available at http://www. childrenshealthcare.org/legal.htm (last visited Mar. 31, 2009).
35. Monopoli, supra note 2, at 323 (citing Justice's Rep. on Inquest, supra note 2, at 12-13).
36. See U.S. CONST. amend. I ("Congress shall make no law . . . respecting an establishment of religion or burdening the free exercise thereof").
37. See infra § II.
38. See infra § III.
39. See, e.g., IOWA CODE § 726.6(1)(d) (2007).
40. See, e.g., IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-401(2) (2007).
41. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246 (1982) (holding that government may not officially prefer one religion over another); see infra § III.C.
42. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (establishing a three-part test when government legislates with respect to religion);
43. see infra §§ III.B & III.D.1.
44. 483 U.S. 327, 335 (1987) (illustrating the Court's application of the Lemon test);
45. see infra § III.D.1.
46. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (explaining that the inquiry should be whether the statute conveys a message of government endorsement of religion);
47. see infra § III.D.2.
48. Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
49. Id. at 878-879
50. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
51. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167 (1944).
52. Id. at 170.
53. 390 U.S. 598 (1968).
54. 397 U.S. 664, 672-673 (1970).
55. Massie, supra note 28, at 760
56. (citing LAW R E N C E H. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1194 (2d ed. 1988)).
57. See, e.g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 449, 461 n.23 (1971).
58. Walz, 397 U.S. at 673.
59. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 255, 260-261 (1982).
60. Amos, 483 U.S. at 339.
61. See RONALD KROTOSZYNSKI ET AL., THE FIRST AMENDMENT: CASES AND THEORIES (2008) ("Many observers of the Court's church/state jurisprudence have been frustrated in recent years because the nine Justices on the Supreme Court have failed to coalesce around one Establishment Clause standard.").
62. Id.
63. Larson, 456 U.S. at 244;
64. see also Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) ("The 'establishment of religion' clause . . . means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government . . . can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.").
65. Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.
66. See, e.g., IOWA CODE § 726.6(1)(d) (2007).
67. See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-201.01 (2007).
68. Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.
69. See, e.g., Douglas Laycock, A Survey of Religious Liberty in the United States, 47
70. OHIO ST. L.J. 409, 450 (1986) (calling the Lemon test "[s]o elastic in its application that it means everything and nothing"); Gary J. Simson, The Establishment Clause in the Supreme Court: Rethinking the Court's Approach, 72 CORNELL L. REV. 905, 908-935 (1987) (criticizing all three prongs of Lemon);
71. see also Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 398 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring) ("Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again.").
72. 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
73. Id. at 612-613
74. See infra § III.D.1.
75. See infra § III.D.2.
76. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 15;
77. see also Larson, 456 U.S. at 244.
78. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15.
79. 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952).
80. 393 U.S. 97, 104 & 106 (1968).
81. Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.
82. Id. at 248.
83. Id. at 248-249
84. Id. at 255.
85. See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944).
86. Id. at 86.
87. See id.
88. Amos, 483 U.S. at 335.
89. Id.
90. Id. at 329.
91. Id. at 332.
92. Id.
93. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971).
94. See Amos, 483 U.S. at 337.
95. Id. at 339.
96. Walz., 397 U.S. at 676.
97. See Nathan A. Talbot, Government Should Not Interfere with Personal Beliefs, FREEDOM & RESPON SIBILITY: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE HEALING FOR CHILDREN 7, 7-10 (1989) (making it clear that, to Christian Scientists, spiritual treatment is "health care" and demonstrably effective);
98. see also Andrew Skolnick, Christian Scientists Claim Healing Efficacy Equal if Not Superior to That of Medicine, 264 J.A.M.A. 1379 (1990) (reporting on the efforts of Christian Scientists to convince legislatures that their form of treatment is at least as effective as traditional medicine).
99. See Ballard, 322 U.S. at 78.
100. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring).
101. See, e.g., County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-594 (1989) (basing the holding on the concept of government endorsement of religion).
102. Amos, 483 U.S. at 348 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
103. CHILD, Inc., Policy & Legal, supra note 24.
104. Monopoli, supra note 2, at 326 (citing Justice's Rep. on Inquest, supra note 2, at 23).
105. Id. at 339.
106. Massie, supra note 28, at 734; 45 C.F.R. § 1340.1-2(b)(1).
107. Massie, supra note 28, at 734 n.32.
108. (citing RITA SWAN, THE LAW'S RESPONSE WHEN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AGAINST MEDICAL CARE IMPACT ON CHILDREN 26-27 (1990)).
109. Id. at 735 (citing Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatment Program, 48 Fed. Reg. 3,698, 3,700 (Jan. 26, 1983)).
110. Id.
111. See Skolnick, supra note 85.
112. See Monopoli, supra note 2, at 323 (citing Justice's Rep. on Inquest, supra note 2, at 12-13).
113. See, e.g., Twitchell, 617 N.E.2d at 609;
114. see also Hermanson, 604 So. 2d at 775.
115. See Monopoli, supra note 2, at 320 (giving the example of the Twitchells, whose son died of a bowel obstruction after a church official told them that the continued use of prayer alone was lawful);
116. see also CHILD, Inc., Policy & Legal, Religious Exemptions from Health Care for Children, available at http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/legal. htm (last visited Mar. 31, 2009) (explaining that Christian Science church officials persuade members to rely on spiritual treatment alone because the fact that the law provides an exemption demonstrates that legislators view prayer as being as effective as medicine).
117. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 595 (quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O'Connor, J., concurring)).