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:
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 (That requirement was rescinded in 1983, but it was too late: most states had enacted the religious exemptions, which are still in place.)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
