Freedom of Religion or Freedom to Murder?

Posted by JCE

***

This past March, Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted on manslaughter charges for refusing to seek medical treatment for their 15 month old daughter who died from pneumonia and bronchial infection - both easily curable with antibiotics. They claimed their religious order, Followers of Christ Church, prohibits them from using doctors (surprise) however Oregon law does not allow a religious exemption for these cases.

In a somewhat bizarre twist, their attorneys (that's right, plural) have filed a motion requesting their bail money back in order to fully litigate the charges and research the constitutionality of state law. I am not an attorney, so I have no idea if this is common practice or not, but it seems to me that the ONLY reason this avenue is being pursued is because religion is involved. Imagine Hannibal Lecter getting arrested and then requesting his bail money back in order to fight the charges. Uh huh. That seems reasonable. They have also established a web site to broadcast their message and evoke sympathy for their plight. (You may find the link through the Religious Blog article referenced above.)

While I support their right to present some kind of defense for their actions, requesting a refund of bail money for the charge of murder of their child seems a bit...oh I don't know...ballsy to me. If their faith is so damn strong, why don't they pray or appeal to their own congregation for financial support. Better yet, why hire attorneys? Just pray, god will come through with an acquittal, I'm sure. Just like he came through with a cure for Ava.

Oregon has faced this situation before with the Followers of Christ Church and consequently removed the shield of protection for just these very cases.

The Followers of Christ Church got national attention a decade ago when the number of child deaths among parishioners was brought to light. The ensuing media coverage led to the removal of Oregon’s spiritual healing shield, which protected parents who used prayer instead of medicine to treat deadly diseases.

There are states that allow exemptions from prosecution based on religious beliefs, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld a case involving endangerment to another individual for religious reasons. Should the Worthington's lose their case (and I predict that they will) and try to appeal to the Supreme Court, the history of the Court in such cases is to cite the fact that the First Amendment Freedom of religious expression does not provide protection from prosecution for harming another person and will defer the case back to the state.

Mr. and Mrs. Worthington are murderers. The freedom of religious expression begins and ends with the individual. The Bill of Rights is not a by proxy document and, therefore, the rights guaranteed do not extend to children on behalf of their parents. There are many other laws and legal documents in place that do provide protection for minors and in particular, allow the state to intervene on the minor's behalf in the event that their parent(s) fail to provide reasonable and adequate care for them. Allowing a 15 month old to die of pneumonia without seeking any medical attention falls square into the category of failing to provide reasonable and adequate care.

I sincerely hope that national attention of this case will prompt investigation into this church. A count of the markers in the church graveyard indicates that several more children have died since the change in Oregon law, but no cases have been investigated because the women in the church generally decline prenatal treatment and usually give birth at home, so the births and deaths go unreported.

The wall of Separation of Church and State was not built to hide murderers.

***