Another parent gets a slap on the wrist for medically abusing her child in the name of faith

February 16, 2015 • 2:30 pm

I’ve written a lot about religion exemptions for children’s medical care, which I see as one of the greatest harms of the clash between science and faith in America. Thousands of sick children have died because their parents, rather than taking them to regular doctors, rely on faith healing instead. And most states give the parents a legal break for any harm that comes to the child. The sick part is that if parents neglected their children’s health on nonreligious grounds, they would be legally culpable—even, in some cases, for manslaughter. Here’s another sneak peak of something I said in The Albatross:

It’s not just the parents who are at fault. Religious exemptions are written into law by the federal and state governments—that is, those who represent all Americans. In fact, thirty-eight of the fifty states have religious exemptions for child abuse and neglect in their civil codes, fifteen states have such exemptions for misdemeanors, seventeen for felony crimes against children, and five (Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas) have exemptions for manslaughter, murder, or capital murder. Altogether, forty-three of the fifty states confer some type of civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds.

Surprisingly, these exemptions were required by the U.S. government in 1974 as a condition for states to receive federal aid for child protection. Before that, only eleven states had such exemptions; afterward there were forty-four. (That requirement was rescinded in 1983, but it was too late: most states had enacted the religious exemptions, which are still in place.)

Even when parents are convicted of child neglect, abuse, or endangerment for relying on religious healing that doesn’t work, they’re often let off with a slap on the wrist. I describe one case in the book of a 13-year-old girl who died, horribly, of a curable bone cancer because her Christian Science parents (a well-off couple in Arizona) just gave her prayer. They were convicted of reckless endangerment (a misdemeanor in the state) and given 3 years unsupervised probation and 100-150 hours of community service. Some punishment!

This happens all the time, and it’s the fault of all of us—those who pass the laws allowing such exemptions, those who elect those who pass the laws, and the judges and juries who fear to punish those who act out of “faith.” We must eliminate these exemptions, just as Mississippi and West Virginia (the only states in the U.S. to do so) have eliminated religious exemptions from vaccination.

We have another case in Tennessee this week, where the state Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Jacqueline Crank (!), who allowed her 15-year old daughter Jessica to die from cancer without seeking medical treatment. In this case, the daughter was terminally ill, for she would have died anyway had she sought medical care when she first had symptoms (the disease was Ewing’s Sarcoma). Doctors, however, said that they could have at least provided palliative care and allowed her to die in less pain (the child had a grapefruit sized tumor on her shoulder). You can see a picture of the “faith healer,” Jacqueline Crank, and her dying daughter at this link, but before clicking be warned: the image of the child is upsetting.

Crank was charged with violating the law because although Tennessee law exempts parents from prosecution if  “the child is being provided treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets or practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof in lieu of medical or surgical treatment,” Crank didn’t seek a “recognized church or religious denomination.” Instead, she used the advice of someone accredited by the Universal Life Church (ULC). If if you’re an old hippie, you’ll remember the ULC as a church where you could get accredited as a minister by simply applying. No fee required! It’s a bogus “church,” but some of my friends were in fact married by ULC ministers. 

A lower court ruled that the ULC wasn’t a “recognized church or religious denomination,” even though Crank’s daughter got just as much help—zero—as she would have gotten from a “recognized” church, like the Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s witnesses. As the Associated Press reports, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction:

The Tennessee Supreme Court disclosed Friday that it has affirmed the conviction of an East Tennessee woman for child neglect for failing to seek treatment for her teenage daughter’s fatal cancer.

Jacqueline Crank had claimed she was innocent because she relied on prayer to heal the girl. Crank was sentenced to probation after her 15-year-old daughter died in 2002.

In Tennessee it is a crime to fail to provide medical care to children, but there is an exception for those who rely on prayer alone for healing. The exemption applies only to faith healing performed by an accredited practitioner of a recognized church or denomination.

Crank claimed that the exemption was too vague to give her fair warning that she could be prosecuted. The Supreme Court held that the law was not overly vague.

. . . The state Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against Crank in 2013, saying that even if the state’s faith healing law were unconstitutional, striking it down would not undo Crank’s conviction. It would simply erase the exceptions for faith healing, leaving the law intact that makes it illegal not to seek medical treatment for a child.

Yeah, and what’s wrong with that? It’s perfectly valid for courts to rule that the law was unconstitutional on First-Amendment grounds.

Of course Crank didn’t get much punishment:

Crank initially was charged with a felony. Those charges were later downgraded after doctors said that her daughter Jessica most likely would have died even if she had gone to a hospital right away. Jessica was eventually taken into the custody of the Department of Children’s Services and admitted to East Tennessee Children’s Hospital.

Crank was convicted of child neglect, and received—get this—a year’s probation. Clearly, if you let your child suffer terribly before death, it’s not felonious if the alternative was also death, but death without pain.

And the court really punted on this one. Technically, I suppose, they adhered to the law, for striking down Tennessee’s Spiritual Treatment Exemption Act (ugh) as unconstitutional, which is what Crank wanted—she objected to the privileging of some religions over others—would not have exculpated her. In fact, she might have been found guilty of an even more severe crime. But still, the constitutionality of the law was a valid issue, and one the Court simply refused to address. After all, it’s Tennessee, Jake.

You can find the full Supreme court decision here, and the one-paragraph summary here.  Below is the part where the court abnegates its responsibility to rule on the law’s constitutionality. There are two reasons for voiding the Spiritual Treatment Exemption Act: because it privileges some religions over others, and because it privileges religion over unbelief. But, like Pilate, the court washed its hands. Here’s an excerpt from the Court’s summary (my emphasis):

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction without addressing the merits of the constitutional claims. We hold that the spiritual treatment exemption is not unconstitutionally vague. Because the exemption may be elided without invalidating the remainder of the child abuse and neglect statute, the defendant’s remaining constitutional challenges, even if successful, would not afford her relief. As a result, we decline to address whether the exemption violates the Establishment or Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal Constitution or the corresponding provisions in article I, section 3 and article XI, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

“We decline to address. . . ”  Thanks for declining, justices; you just ensured the death of more children. And how many more children must suffer or die before we stop letting people turn them into martyrs to their parents’ faith? What kind of decent society would tolerate that?

h/t: Tom

33 thoughts on “Another parent gets a slap on the wrist for medically abusing her child in the name of faith”

  1. Crank was charged with violating the law because although Tennessee law exempts parents from prosecution… [she] didn’t seek a “recognized church or religious denomination.”

    What bullflop. I’m opposed to the exception but I’m also opposed to sectarian religious favoritism. If you’re going to have an exception on the books, its gross bigotry to say ULC prayers don’t count as ‘the right sort of’ prayers. TSC did some remarkable mental gymnastics to avoid doing their job here. Instead of invalidating the law altogether, they should’ve ruled that its a violation of the entanglement clause for the courts to do anything other than a test for sincerity when it comes to what counts as a religious denomination. Sham con-games, yeah its your job to ferret those out and not give them religious benefits. Actual non-mainstream churches? Its unconstitutional to claim they don’t count because they aren’t recognized.

    1. I feel the same. As above, “Crank claimed that the exemption was too vague to give her fair warning that she could be prosecuted.” To me that says she would have sought care if she knew she would be prosecuted for not doing so.

      I despise these people who care more for their imaginary god than their children. I’m starting to think people who would put God before their kids should be sterilized.

      It’s not just faith healing – how many LGBT kids have killed themselves or been emotionally destroyed by parents who wouldn’t accept them, for example? Or those who were disowned for just marrying someone from another religion, or leaving the religion.

      They don’t deserve children imo.

  5. The first thing I thought when I started reading this is, who gets to decide what constitutes a valid religion? I’m glad it is being contested on constitutional grounds, not that I think the law should allow for exemptions at all. It’s bad to harm your child but if you do it for Jesus then that is okay. A modern country should not have such silly rules, especially when they already recognize that child abuse and neglect is unacceptable.

    1. I’m guessing a “valid” religion is one that collects tithes and has employees and property, ie, operates as a business (but tax-free). Why, otherwise, anybody could invent one, and we can’t have that!

      I wonder if the flying spaghetti monster church is valid. A couple people were allowed to get drivers license photos while wearing FSM headgear.

    3. who gets to decide what constitutes a valid religion?

      As long as there are economic or legal consequences to being a religious organization, the courts are necessarily going to have a role to play in policing what counts. They have to distinguish between sham organizations doing it for some ulterior motive (no, your neighbor is not the sole member of the first church of holy ganja, and Hovind is just plain a tax dodging crook), vs. true religious organizations.

      So, government must occasionally get entangled in sectarian disputes. The goal has to be to avoid excessive entanglement, since we can’t avoid it altogether. Personally I’m fine with sincere believers counting, regardless of sect, and the courts using evidence (documentation, letters, blog posts, etc..) as well as the subject’s history to determine sincerity.

      A modern country should not have such silly rules, especially when they already recognize that child abuse and neglect is unacceptable.

      Completely agree.

    4. A valid religion is one that’s large enough that you can get a big enough group of fellow believers together to tell you that you’re not silly for believing it.

    5. The government defining religions touches on the Establishment Clause. The legitimacy of the actions of a minister should not be based on the tenets of a religion, but on a secular standard – in the case of healthcare, on efficacy.

  6. many of the same religious fanatics who pray for healing are the same ones who hope to undo any abortion rights on the basis of alleged
    fetal pain. Once born,factual pain is an irrelevancy for them?

    1. The revolting Mother Teresa would have said something like the pain is bringing them close to God. They’re sharing the pain Our Saviour felt on the cross.

      1. “Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus – a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”

        ― Mother Teresa

        Mother Teresa said she told one cancer patient that pain means Jesus is near to you and that suffering is “an opportunity to share in the passion of Christ.” She said she compared suffering to kisses from Jesus. She said the person replied, “Please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.”

        1. Kudos to that cancer patient who drew the obvious conclusion!

          What I can’t figure is why Mother Theresa told the story. A flash of self-deprecating wit? Or so deluded she didn’t realise the implication?

  7. I’m disgusted. Where are the voters? What say the electorate? Who’s hiding their head in the sand? We need more Elizabeth Warrens.

  8. It’s been 90 years since the Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee (1925). Still no evolution.

  9. Maybe we need to tell well known preachers to tell their flock how wrong this is.They won’t listen to regular folks has to come from a pastor someone who talks to God,well ya know.

    1. What kind of preacher is willing to say: “You can’t pray the cancer away. Go see a doctor.” If prayer doesn’t help in this case, why should it work in other cases? The priest will be sowing seeds of doubt.

  11. Hey, I’m an ordained UKC minister!

    Every week I don’t lead a service that isn’t filled with non-congregants who don’t worship any number of non-existent gods and goddesses. We strongly don’t believe in non-vaccination.

    While I haven’t married anyone yet, I’ve been the emergency backup officiant for weddings, just in case their other non-traditional officiant fell through. One guy was pretty iffy about whether he was really qualified to marry anyone.

  12. I agree wholeheartedly with all that you’ve written. Still, I must confess a certain respect (more grudging, though, it could not possibly be) for such parents at least having the strength of their convictions. After all, if you have a prayer pipeline to the omniscient, omni-powerful, omni-munificent creator of the universe, why vouchsafe the health of your child to provisional, fallible western medicine?

    Madness, yes, but contrast it to the hypocrisy and hubris of your stolid, bet-hedging mainline believer who, seeking medical care — and knowing that the deity he prays to sits idly by while thousands of innocent infants starve to death each day — nonetheless prays the Lord to pitch in and cure his psoriasis.*

    ___________
    *The type of intercessory petition The Almighty invariably grants at the precise rate applicable to the spontaneous remission of symptoms.

    1. ‘Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
      My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.’

      -Janis Joplin

      1. Poor Pearl croaked a couple days after recording that. Wanna bet the pious see it as Divine Retribution for her cheekiness?

        1. Hitchens put it this way in Mortality:

          those who say I am being punished are saying that god can’t think of anything more vengeful than cancer for a heavy smoker.

Comments are closed.