43 of the 50 U.S. states give some kind of civil or criminal immunity to parents who harm their children by relying on religious faith-healing rather than scientific medicine. Many also have religious exemptions from vaccination and testing for disease in newborns. In California, a teacher can even refuse to take a tuberculosis test—but only on religious grounds! And in just the last few weeks, New York has ruled that the disgusting ultra-Orthodox Jewish practice of allowing the mohel (circumcisor) to suck blood from an infant’s injured penis after circumcision is now legal. That practice can and has spread herpes to infants. Under the new ruling, there’s not even pre-testing of mohels: if an infant is found to have herpes, and the strain matches that present in the mohel, only then will he be barred for life from the practice. Again, religious belief is allowed to trump public safety. The infant boy has no choice about whether he’ll be chomped by a herpes-bearing mohel.

Even Canada—as shown by the recent cases of Makayla Sault and “J. J.”, First Nations children with leukemia who were allowed to quit chemotherapy in favor of “ethnically based” healing (Makayla has died; J. J. will follow soon)—has such exemptions.

Such is the unwarranted respect for religion in America—respect so strong that it allows a parent to take action that will surely result in the injury or death of their child, but only if that action is motivated by religion. Since religion is delusional, these kinds of laws are simply insane. Now, with the spread of measles among the unvaccinated raising this problem again, the New York Times has hosted a discussion among five people about the issue of religious exemptions for medical care: “Room for debate: Parents’ beliefs versus their children’s health”

Five people participated by writing brief essays, and four of them, thank goodness, oppose the exemptions. The exception is a Christian Science “healer.” You can read the essays for yourself, but I’ll just name the people and reprise their stands (indented quotes are from the essays).

Kristen A Feemster, “Religious freedom balanced with responsibility”:  Feemster is identified as “a pediatric infectious diseases physician and health services researcher at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.” Feemsters opposes religious exemptions that could cause harm:

In these instances [17 cases of herpes simplex in infants acquired after circumcision and mouth-sucking by ultra-Orthodox Jews], parents may be aware of the risk associated with their decisions, but when it is a matter of life or death or there is potential for severe illness, society has an obligation to stand up on behalf of children who do not yet have their own informed voice.

This does not mean that it is impossible to respect the practice of religious beliefs while preventing harm. While religious belief systems may vary significantly, most share the general principles of respect for life and caring for others, especially for those who are most vulnerable. Our Constitution protects these practices. But that same Constitution has recognized that we are all responsible for ensuring that children have an opportunity for a safe and healthy life.

Alan Rodgers, “Overextending a Constitutional protection”: Rodgers is identified as “a professor of history at Boston College, is the author of “The Child Cases: How America’s Religious Exemption Laws Harm Children.” Reviewing case law and the 1974 Federal law, passed under Gerald Ford, that required these exemptions to be enacted by the states, Rodgers concluded that the exemptions should be withdrawn. He makes no bones about it, and I agree with him 100%:

In Idaho during the past three years at least 12 children have died because their faith-healing parents, members of the Followers of Christ, withheld medical care. Autopsy records show that children died from medically treatable conditions. Of the states that allow religious exemptions, Idaho is one of six states that allow a religious exemption to manslaughter and negligent homicide.

It’s time to repeal all religious exemptions that unconstitutionally protect parents at the cost of a child’s death.

Sharon Slaton Howell, “Let us follow our beliefs in caring for children”: Howell is identified as “a Christian Science practitioner.” It was lobbying by Christian Scientists, a powerful and wealthy group, that led to the 1974 law and much other legislation allowing religious exemptions from medical care. Christian Scientists, of course, believe that disease and injury is a manifestation of bad thinking, and can be cured by prayer and “right thinking.” Many children have died because of their parents’ Christian Science beliefs, and the title of Howell’s article offends me. I’d prefer seeing “Let us follow science in caring for children”.  And indeed, her words are invidious:

I feel this way because as Americans, we live in a country where freedom of one’s religious beliefs is law. And I have seen proof in a lifetime of studying and practicing the teachings of Christian Science that convince me God’s healing power is superior to that of medical practices in maintaining and recovering one’s health.

Howell then gives two unconvincing examples (and says she could cite hundreds more) of the power of Christian Science healing:

My mother, who was a Methodist, turned to Christian Science when kind doctors, after years of trying, failed to restore her health. One day a neighbor spoke to her of Christian Science. Mother began investigating. She was only part way through pondering Mary Baker Eddy’s book, “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” when she was healed — dramatically, completely and permanently. She enrolled my brother and me in the Sunday school and never looked back.

Then one day when I was about 6 years old, I was playing in the backyard and happened to slide down a swing set onto an unsealed tin can. The cut went almost through my foot. My father, though not a Christian Scientist, let mother call a practitioner to pray for me. No medicine was used at all, my foot was cleaned and wrapped up. I can say that I actually felt God’s presence and had no fear at all. As hard as it may be to believe, I could put weight on my foot the very next day, and was back at school in three days, walking and playing as before.

Is it any wonder I feel as I do about Christian Science, and having the continued freedom to rely on it for healing?

Of course she doesn’t mention the hundreds of examples of Christian Science healing not working, many of them involving horrible and gruesome deaths of children (I discuss these in Faith versus Fact). The Church does not document any of these; they are revealed by the press or by disaffected parents like Rita Swan (see below). Howell should talk to Swan, a former Christian scientist who lost her son when she and her husband used prayer and not medicine to treat his meningitis.

Richard W. Garnett, “Parents’ beliefs should be honored, within reason”: Garnett is identified as “a professor of law and political science at the University of Notre Dame.” Garnett genuflects towards religious rights, but compares medical exemptions to beard exemptions for imprisoned Muslims. There’s a bit of waffling here, but in the end I think that all religious exemptions for medical care “compromise the public interest” and “create serious risks of physical harm.” Those include vaccination, tuberculosis- and disease-testing in newborns, and all the laws that exempt parents from prosecution if they harm their children by using prayer instead of real treatment. But this is a mush-mouthed way to say it:

The Supreme Court’s recent 9-0 decision in Holt v. Hobbs provides a good example of a common-sense accommodation. The justices concluded that prison officials in Arkansas needed to exempt a Muslim prisoner from a strict grooming regulation of beards. This exemption respects prisoners’ religious liberty and the prison-management realities alike.

Not all cases are so easy. Some of the most difficult religious-exemption controversies involve public-health interests and the physical well-being of children. These include cases involving parents who rely on prayer rather than necessary medical treatments for their kids, faith-based objections to vaccinations, and certain religious rituals.

It is tempting, but misguided, to search for a neat one-size-fits-all approach to such controversies. Instead, we should treat each case as the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act invites us to do, and ask whether it is really necessary to deny particular exemptions to sincere religious objectors in order to protect an important public interest.

Governments have a compelling interest in protecting children from serious physical harms and in safeguarding the community from dangerous diseases. When parents object to established, effective medical treatments that are necessary to prevent physical harm to a child, even sincere religious objections must be overruled. If a religious exemption would not compromise the public interest or create serious risks of physical harm, it should be respected.

Rita Swan, “Child abuse under the guise of religion”: Rita Swan is a hero of mine. She’s president of Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD), an organization that battles not only religious exemption laws, but laws allowing corporal punishment of children and going easy on child sexual abuse. (She and her husband founded CHILD after, as I noted above, they let their son die of meningitis because they chose Christian Science prayer over medicine. They later left the faith and became activists.) CHILD has been very effective, and you could do worse than donating to the organization. And if you want a palliative for the unfounded views of Sharon Howell, go to the CHILD “victim page”; it will break your heart. And, of course, Swan makes no bones about getting rid of religious exemptions:

Many Idaho children have suffered and died without medical care because of the Followers of Christ beliefs. Arrian Granden, 15, died in 2012 after days of nausea and vomiting so much that her esophagus ruptured. Micah Eells, 4 days old, died in 2013 of a bowel obstruction, which usually causes excruciating pain and vomiting. Pamela Eells, 16, died in 2011, of pneumonia, drowning slowly as her lungs filled with fluid. Cooper Shippy died in 2010 of untreated diabetes shortly before his second birthday.

Idaho public officials take no action about these deaths. Criminal charges are never filed. The legislature is not willing to repeal Idaho’s religious defense to manslaughter and criminal injury. The Canyon County coroner told the press she doesn’t even do autopsies when children die without medical care in faith-healing sects.

Medical neglect may not be as sensational as other religion-related abuses but it has been just as deadly. Religious exemptions discriminate against children, depriving them of protections the state extends to others. They should be repealed.

With four of the five experts arguing that exemption laws harmful to children or the public safety should be repealed, and the sole exception being someone with a personal interest in keeping those exemptions, the sentiment in this debate is clear. And yet all but two of our 50 states still allow exemptions, and exemption from vaccinations based on religion, personal beliefs, or both are allowed in all but two states: Mississippi and West Virginia. This is unconscionable. Here’s the shameful map of exemptions from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

It’s time to put away our childish things and eliminate all religious exemptions that could be harmful to children or the public safety. There is no longer a valid excuse to let the dictates of delusional religion trump the facts of science.

h/t: Greg Mayer