THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE COURTS: SPIRITUAL HEALING AND THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN

JOHN M. SATIRA SPRING 2014

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in History and International Politics with honors in History

Reviewed and approved* by the following:

Anne C. Rose Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies Thesis Supervisor

Michael Milligan Director of Undergraduate Studies Head of Undergraduate History Intern Program Senior Lecturer in History Honors Adviser

* Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates a series of state-level court cases from the 1980s and 1990s where state prosecutors charged Christian Science parents with criminal offenses after their children died after being treated with spiritual healing and not traditional medicine. In a general trend throughout the cases, the Christian Science parents saw the prosecutions as violating their religious freedom, citing religious exemption laws that protected their right to practice spiritual healing. The prosecutors, however, argued that state laws did allow criminal prosecution, and that religious freedom was not at question in the cases. The cases highlighted a specific subset of First

Amendment concerns where issues of religious freedom, parental rights, and the welfare of children all converged. While state courts provided differing views on the individual cases, the decisions were intricate and addressed concerns of religious freedom, clarity of laws, and due process rights of the prosecuted.

My method in this thesis utilizes case studies of individual state court cases. The selected cases are California’s Walker v. Superior Court in 1988, Florida’s Hermanson v. State in 1992, and Massachusetts’s Commonwealth v. Twitchell in 1993. The analysis of each case focuses on the state Supreme Court final decisions and explains each individual case’s reasoning and justification, while also acknowledging the significance of the cases to Christian Scientists and their prayer healing practices. Ultimately, the trends in all three of the cases are analyzed together for their broader significance on the state attitude toward religious exemptions when child welfare was at stake. State prosecutors were willing to criminally charge parents who chose spiritual healing over conventional medical care to show that child welfare was more important than religious free exercise. Nonetheless, state courts were unable to interpret the legislation in question in a straightforward and uniform way.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ...... iii

Chapter 1: “We Ourselves Are Not Perfect Creatures”: Introducing Major Themes of the Cases ...... 1

Chapter 2: Laurie Walker and Religious Exemption Challenges in California...... 23

Chapter 3: The Hermansons and the Fairness of Florida Laws...... 40

Chapter 4: The Twitchells and Procedural Concerns in Massachusetts ...... 57

Conclusion: State Desire, Legal Inability...... 75

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 80

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Anne C. Rose, Distinguished Professor of

History and Religious Studies, for serving as the advisor for my thesis. I sincerely could not have imagined completing this thesis under the tutelage of anyone else. Dr. Rose is responsible for initially piquing my interest in these Christian Science court cases when I took a constitutional history class that she instructed during my sophomore year at Penn State. Dr. Rose has truly been by my side as I worked on my thesis every step of the way. From being the first person I reached out to when I considered applying for the Schreyer Honors College to sending me the edits on my final thesis draft, this piece of work could not have been completed without the hard work, patience, and dedication that Dr. Rose exhibited.

Dr. Rose has also been unbelievably helpful outside of work on my thesis. Each and every single time that we met, Dr. Rose showed a genuine interest in all aspects of my life, which was especially welcome when I often felt overwhelmed by the daunting academic requirements that were usually the primary purposes of our meetings. Now, thanks to her advice and guidance,

I am proud to say that I will be attending law school beginning next year. I would not have been able to accomplish that goal without her invaluable help throughout the entire process.

I would also like to thank Michael Milligan, the History Honors Advisor, for the support that he has given all of the undergraduate history students in our pursuit of completing our honors theses. Dr. Milligan provided structure to the honors History program that was invaluable and extremely helpful. His willingness to speak honestly and frankly with me about my progress effectively kept me on track to finish my endeavor in a timely and efficient way. I am indebted to him for his guidance, as I know I would not have been to stay on track by myself. Thanks to Dr.

Milligan’s combination of both patience and encouragement, I am proud to say that I was able to complete the initially daunting task of finishing an undergraduate History thesis. iv

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for your constant support while I was working on my thesis. Your simple words of encouragement meant so much more than each of you know. 1

Chapter 1

“We Ourselves Are Not Perfect Creatures”: Introducing Major Themes of the Cases

After having been injured from a traumatic fall in the winter of 1866, Mary Baker Eddy found solace in praying to God and believed that she overcame her injuries through reading the biblical stories of Jesus’ healings. Unsure of how exactly how she had been healed, Eddy began her own spiritual journey and was keenly interested in the fact that she had been healed in a way outside of physiological remedies and believed instead that her cure to have resulted from her faith. Continuing to delve into her newfound religious interests, between the years of 1872 and

1875, while not consulting any other writers and reading nothing but the Bible, Eddy wrote the book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, with her inspiration being insights from her biblical studies and early morning visions. Eddy’s writings stated beliefs that there was “no Life,

Substance, or Intelligence in matter. That all is mind and there is no matter.”1 Science and Health has often been reissued to the present day, and Eddy’s beliefs found an audience that accepted her message of spiritual supremacy over the physical world and the promise that faith could heal both bodies and spirits.

Mary Baker Eddy, a woman from a humble town outside of Concord, New Hampshire, had created such powerful words and strong teachings that she has been credited as the founder of a brand new branch of Christianity in the United States: Christian Science. But the religion of

Christian Science has not gone unchallenged in the theater of United States religions. Throughout the next century, the Christian Science religion found itself both under fire and sometimes vindicated in conflicts with entities that combated its ideas and practices. In dealing with such

1 Rennie B. Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial: Religious Healing in America, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 28. 2 tribulations, the Church showcased a unique perspective that Christian Scientists had to manage in order to practice their beliefs. As an indigenous American religion, the Church of Christ,

Scientist, faced a variety of government regulations, legal proceedings, and changing public attitudes in response to its followers’ practices.

One high profile and disturbing controversy centered on Christian Science parents who declined to secure conventional medical treatment for their children and instead opted to utilize the Christian Science practice of spiritual healing. In a series of legal proceedings concentrated in the 1980s, parents faced criminal charges after the death of a son or daughter in state courts across the nation. The cases revealed the meaning of the First Amendment to be at stake: did the

First Amendment rights of parents include not to seek ordinary medical care for minor children in the name of religion? A variety of issues converged to affect the cases, ranging from the history of Christian Science practices to societal attitudes toward the effectiveness of medical treatment.

While each legal decision was complex and addressed many legal questions in making final decisions, the courts on the whole held that the First Amendment did not legally exonerate these

Christian Science parents. In fact, the ability of states to clearly construct child abuse statutes came into question, and the meaning of due process, clarity of laws, and fair warning all became pertinent to the cases. Through the difficult and intricate court proceedings, the final decisions of state Supreme Courts indicated that child welfare laws and policy, particularly with reference to spiritual healing practices, had not been established to the point where the state could straightforwardly prosecute the Christian Science parents in question.

This thesis offers in-depth analysis of three court cases from the series of Christian

Science cases, and each began its proceedings in the 1980s. A case study method works effectively to allow intense focus and analysis on specific facts, stories, and arguments in each selected case. This method does have its limits, as there were a variety of other cases that occurred around the 1980s whose stories remain untold here. In fact, between 1982 and 1990, 3 state prosecutors pursued criminal charges against Christian Science parents in seven cases related to spiritual healing of their children.2 Yet, the three selected cases represent diverse ideas about similar situations in separate states. Each case presented different stories and different decisions, and each helps to paint a picture of the nationwide legal situation for instances where

Christian Scientists, religious exemptions, and state protection of children clashed.

The three selected cases include California’s Walker v. Superior Court, decided in 1988,

Florida’s Hermanson v. State, decided in 1992, and Massachusetts’s Commonwealth v. Twitchell, decided in 1993. The Walker case was the first court case to challenge Christian Science healing practices in the 1980s, and thus it established early legal practices for the issues before the series of similar prosecutions against Christian Science parents began. Once other cases began to be tried, the Hermanson v. State case stood out because the Florida Supreme Court prominently rejected the decision created by Walker v. Superior Court, thus creating another relevant legal decision. The Twitchell case in Massachusetts offered yet another unique view. The

Massachusetts court system ended up focusing on specific actions taken by judges when trying the cases, and it reached a decision that focused on more than the initial wording of state laws. In all, the three cases made different determinations of the Christian Science parents. Were they protected by a legal exemption concerning faith healing, or were they law-breaking individuals?

Were they fairly prosecuted, or unjustly charged? And, importantly, were they guilty or innocent of a crime committed against each parent’s minor child? Through understanding the intricacies of the individual cases, connections between all three cases signify the larger legal implications of the cases.

Analysis of the cases creates a variety of questions about the interaction between

Christian Science spiritual healing and state prosecutors working in the name of child welfare.

Why did the cases all remain at the state-level and never draw attention of a federal court? Why

2 Ibid. 205. 4 did state legal systems avoid making the courtroom arguments focus on the First Amendment?

Why were the Christian Science parents easily convicted, yet given lenient sentences? Why did state legislatures rarely act to clarify confusing exemption laws? The questions and answers from these cases showed what was at stake, both legally and socially, and the results had lasting implications beyond the end of the court cases.

One issue at stake was the status of the Church of Christ, Scientist, and its many followers. By 2010, almost thirty years after the first 1980s state legal challenge to Christian

Science healing, the Church of Christ, Scientist, had officially began encouraging its members to seek conventional medical treatment if they felt it was necessary. Though the Church still espoused the benefits of faith healing, the policy reversal for the Church came after years of dwindling membership and after negative public attention due to the cases that involved the death of children.3 Ultimately, the decisions of the courts, whether ending in convictions of parents or not, were able to create a permanent change in Christian Science behavior that was much different than when the Church had first been conceived.

Founded in 1879, the Church of Christ, Scientist, followed the teachings in Science and

Health and grew throughout Eddy’s lifetime with its distinctive views on the supremacy of the world’s spiritual essence. With a respect for spiritual power, one facet of the Christian Science religion was the practice of spiritual healing. While the ideal of spiritual or prayer healing was not a new concept in Christianity, Eddy and her fellow Christian Scientists had their own set of unique beliefs for spiritual healing in the name of Christian Science. The logic of Christian

Science spiritual healing comes from the belief that “disease is mental.” In fact, Eddy wrote and preached that any illness is strictly the result of the human mind, and thus a physical manifestation of sins or a result of being distant from God. To explain the relationship between

3 Paul Vitello, “Christian Science Church Seeks Truce With Modern Medicine,” New York Times, March 23, 2010. 5 God and illness, writer Alfie Kohn observed, “God has nothing to do with [sickness] because God is perfect. Our problem is that we are alienated from God’s perfect will. To return to it, we have to understand how we ourselves are not perfect creatures of God, and how spirit rather than matter is the essential nature of being.”4 To combat sickness, Christian Scientists believed that they could be healed of physical pain and ailments through mentally righting their spiritual errors, with such mental changes coming about through prayer.

Early practices of spiritual healing involved Christian Science practitioners who led prayer-healing sessions to cure a variety of ailments. A practitioner of the Christian Science

Church was an individual who led prayer healing for an individual in order to resolve the person’s pain. Typical visits occurred either in the practitioner’s office or at the patient’s home, where the practitioner aimed to get a general idea of what ailment was facing the patient. In the name of healing, though, the practitioner would not try to discover specific symptoms. Acknowledging or identifying a disease could further justify it in a patient’s mind, thus making the goal of mentally healing the patient more difficult, according to Christian Science beliefs.5 Thus, once a general idea of the ailment was established, the practitioner would begin treatments of prayer and advice, both silent and audible. The prayers did not ask for a personal gift of health; instead, the aim of praying was to bring the patient closer to God. Practically speaking, Christian Science healings were solitary in order to focus on the important relationship with God. One Christian Science patient in 1897 stated that his healer “sat still for about ten minutes, looking at the floor and said he thought [I] would feel better.”6 Through such practices, Christian Science faith in spiritual

4 Quoted in Shawn Francis Peters, When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 92. 5 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 63. 6 Ibid. 65. 6 healing was strong, and prayer healing was utilized beyond physical illness to address problem of drinking, smoking, aging, and marital tensions.7

Despite having a belief about healing that was unconventional in the United States,

Christian Scientists believed they were able to freely practice their spiritual healing, citing the tradition of religious freedom in the United States. Specifically, the foundation for religious freedom in the United States derived from the United States Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution stated, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”8 Essentially, the First Amendment was made up of two parts. The first was the establishment clause, which denied Congress the ability to favor or declare a religion with its laws. The second part was the amendment’s free exercise clause, which prohibited congressional infringement on reasonable religious practices. Both parts of the First

Amendment were instrumental in upholding a sense of religious freedom in the United States.

While, in practice, the First Amendment, as a federal provision, did not completely separate government from taking religiously based actions or even offer unmitigated freedoms and equality to all religions, the First Amendment represented the idea that the United States offered extensive religious protections. The true strength and functioning power of the First Amendment unfolded in a variety of situations that showcased the role that the First Amendment played in national policy.

The first federal example of a test of the free exercise clause of the Constitution was seen in the cases against the practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, whose followers were known as Mormons. In 1878, after a Utah state law outlawed the Church’s practice of bigamy, George Reynolds subsequently challenged the law in court, citing a right to religious freedom found in the First Amendment, as bigamy was a central tenet of his religion’s

7 Ibid. 60. 8 U.S. Const. Amend. I. 7 faith. The proscription of bigamy, though, was constitutionality upheld in the 1879 Supreme

Court decision in Reynolds v. United States. Here the Supreme Court stated that religious activities that are criminal in nature, such as bigamy in the case of the Mormons, could be outlawed. The Court established in its decision that the action, not the belief, was what was being outlawed and that “religious practices that impaired the public interest did not fall under the protection of the First Amendment.” Furthermore, the Court decided that if every religious action was allowed indiscriminately, “every citizen [would] become a law unto himself.”9 Through the decision in the Reynolds case, the scope of religious freedom offered in the United States had significantly narrowed. Though religious freedom had been limited in different ways years before

Reynolds v. United States, especially in state laws, the Court now created a basis for religious actions to be limited across the nation with its 1879 decision.

While the Reynolds case addressed the question of free exercise, the issues of the case had nothing to do with the welfare of children. The case was still relevant to the Christian Science court cases more than one hundred years later. Specifically, the precedent of the Reynolds case established that while an individual can generally practice his or her religious beliefs, the ability to do so stops when another law is broken. In the case of Reynolds, Reynolds’s religious belief in plural marriage could not be acted upon legally because the state outlawed this practice. The same principle was at play for Christian Scientists, as Christian Science beliefs, if contrary to established laws, would not necessarily be protected by the First Amendment. As a result of the decision in the Reynolds case, the concept that there were legal limits to individual religious practices immediately affected Christian Scientists when the religion first started to practice its beliefs.

9 Zaven T. Saroyan, “Spiritual Healing and the Free Exercise Clause: An Argument for the Use of Strict Scrutiny,” Public Interest Law Journal 12 (2003): 373-374. 8 The Church of Christ, Scientist, began its notable history of conflict between its religion and what the state deemed as criminal activity with the Progressive Era’s public sanitation laws.

By the 1890s, the medical community in the United States concurred on germ theory, and thus sanitation laws were passed that required medical professionals to report the existence of infectious disease as they came across them. Using such laws, multiple legal prosecutions of

Christian Science practitioners occurred because the practitioners failed to report the contagious diphtheria disease in accordance to the new laws. Failure to report such diseases resulted from

Christian Science’s refusal to acknowledge any form of pain or illness as anything more than the result of sin. So, according to Christian Science beliefs, a disease such as diphtheria was not, in fact, contagious. Regardless of the beliefs, the lack of action on the part of Christian Science practitioners was a direct violation of state laws at the time.

One major instance of conflict between Christian Scientists and public health laws occurred in 1897 in Kansas City, Missouri. Sanitary laws and city ordinances had required all medical practitioners to report contagious diseases, and after the death of a young patient due to diphtheria, Christian Science practitioner Amanda J. Baird failed to report the disease. Despite facing prosecution by city health officials for her actions, Baird, an early pioneer in the Christian

Science community, denounced the Missouri state law that required such reports, arguing,

“Christian Scientists are living according to our own spiritual laws…and when we conflict with human laws we disregard the latter. We don’t believe that the health department ought to meddle.” However, non-Christian Scientists did not agree with Baird’s beliefs. According to the

Kansas City Star, neighbors of the infected house were in a “small panic” and were fearful for the health of their children. Reportedly, one neighbor stated about Christian Scientists and the sanitation laws, “If they wish to treat their children according to their own methods—that is, not 9 treat them at all—very well; that is not the public’s business. But the moment they threaten the public’s health it certainly does become the public’s business to protect itself.”10

The public outcry against Christian Scientists being potentially responsible for the outbreak of a contagion caused a shift in the Church’s doctrines. The Christian Science Church founder, Mary Baker Eddy, called for a change in church doctrine in order to keep the Church from having a practice that went against United States law. In 1897, Eddy instructed followers to allow the reporting of contagious diseases, and justified her decision by utilizing a well-known quote from Jesus Christ about managing religion in secular circumstances. To explain her decision, Eddy stated, “When Jesus was questioned about obeying human law, he declared:

‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,’ even while you ‘render unto God things that are God’s.’”11 Considering public sanitation laws as the Church’s first major obstacle in freely practicing its religion, Christian Science leadership under Eddy aimed to mitigate conflict with the state in order to curb animosity toward the fledging religion.

Despite their efforts to submit to state public sanitation laws during the early years of the

Church of Christ, Scientist, Christian Scientists still ran into issues with state laws regarding their beliefs in how a human overcomes illness. Specifically, the religion began to experience state- level prosecutions when children passed away after being treated by spiritual means and not with conventional medicine. The deaths of children who underwent spiritual healing began to draw criticism, as attitudes in the United States began to move toward approving the state as a protector of children.

One of the first major cases that involved Christian Science parents being prosecuted came from the death of Esther Quimby in 1902. After Esther died from diphtheria while being treated by a Christian Science practitioner, a local coroner brought the girl’s death to the attention

10 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 178-179. 11 Ibid. 179. 10 of local authorities. Esther’s parents, John and Georgianna Quimby, along with practitioner John

C. Lathrop, faced a grand jury where they learned that they would be tried for manslaughter in the death of Esther. The manslaughter charges against the Quimbys marked one of the first significant times that parents were prosecuted for choosing the Christian Science method in which to treat their child.12 Though a county judge later threw out the manslaughter charges, the initial charges showcased the troubles that Christian Science parents faced when deciding to treat a child with spiritual healing. If the child died, the state was beginning to pursue charges against the parents.

During the trial following Esther Quimby’s death in New York, the Church of Christ,

Scientist, had to respond not only to challenges in court but also to an aggressive administrative action taken in Massachusetts that endangered the practices of spiritual healing. In Massachusetts, the State Board of Registration in Medicine decreed that no Christian Science healer would “be allowed to treat any patient suffering from a contagious or infectious disease.” When the decree was made public, Eddy maintained that Christian Scientists should abide by the decision of the

State Board of Registration in Medicine and not disobey the state laws regarding infectious disease, which included parents treating their child as decreed by state law, even if it meant turning to a physician. Such actions were deemed as a temporary fix for the problems facing

Christian Science, as Eddy acknowledged that such subordination to state law should be in place

“until the public thought becomes better acquainted with Christian Science.”13 Through adapting to the modern laws of the time under Eddy’s direction, Christian Scientists aimed temporarily to allow their practices to line up with the legal obligations of United States citizens and to avoid legal and public discourse as best as they could.

12 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 94-96. 13 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 182. 11 While Christian Scientists were waiting for society to learn more about their religion in with the hope of acceptance, federal policy surrounding religious free exercise was still developing. Eventually, a major United States legal decision that combined the issues of child protection, parental rights, and religious freedom further clarified the free exercise clause of the

Constitution and what it meant for ideas of religious freedom in the United States, specifically when it involved children. The 1944 case Prince v. Massachusetts involved a Jehovah’s Witness woman who brought her niece along to pass out fliers on a public street, which violated a state child labor law. In a case that involved free exercise of religion, parental rights, and state interest in protecting children, the Supreme Court ultimately held that a state could limit both parental and religious rights if the state had a compelling interest to uphold children’s welfare. The Prince case also brought about a well-known quote from the Supreme Court, as its decision declared, “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children…”14 Ultimately, Prince v. Massachusetts illustrated specifically the United States legal system’s willingness to prosecute religious actions of parents if they were deemed to harm children.

The Prince case was significant because the decision represented the legal system’s ability to prosecute parents when their actions were deemed harmful to their children. Though the issue at hand in the Prince case was child labor, a crucial precedent was set concerning religion and child welfare in the United States. Essentially, Prince v. Massachusetts was a continuation of the ideals set forth by Reynolds v. United States, only applied to parents who were breaking child welfare laws for religious purposes. When a law was broken, whether for religious reasons or not, prosecution was a viable option by the state. While the issues in the Prince case were not directly parallel to the issues in prosecutions against Christian Science parents, the case still explored the subset of the First Amendment cases where religion and the welfare of children collided. Legally,

14 Saroyan, “Spiritual Healing and the Free Exercise Clause,” 375-6. 12 there was the risk that parents would be prosecuted for their actions surrounding the welfare of their children. Prince was consequently a critical precedent that established state interest in protecting its young citizens.

The 1967 legal ordeal of Dorothy Sheridan of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, involved a combination of both Christian Science spiritual healing and the idea of states protecting children from the religious beliefs of parents. Dorothy Sheridan’s daughter, Lisa, became sick with pneumonia in February of 1967, and, as a practicing Christian Scientist, the mother treated her daughter with the aid of two Christian Science practitioners, while avoiding any type of medication. Despite the belief that Lisa was getting better at one point thanks to the prayer healing, Lisa’s health took a turn for the worse, and she passed away, leaving her mother shocked. “She never complained of having pain,” Sheridan stated about Lisa’s illness, “I expected her to recover.”15 Local authorities were confused by Lisa’s death, but for different reasons. Upon examining Lisa’s corpse and deciding her cause of death, the local medical examiner declared

Sheridan’s actions in caring for her daughter as “nothing short of criminal,” as according to his view and experience with medicine, the examiner believed Lisa suffered “an unnecessary death.”16

The district attorney for the Cape Cod area, upon learning of the medical examiner’s report on Lisa’s death, decided to prosecute Sheridan for manslaughter. What followed the charges against Sheridan was a dramatic legal case in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which was notable as the home state of the Church of Christ, Scientist. As such, district attorney

Edmund Dinis realized that his decision to prosecute Sheridan in an area that was home to

Christian Scientist practices for years was unprecedented. However, Dinis argued to the jury that whether Sheridan treated her child with prayer or not, she failed to provide the “proper physical

15 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 113. 16 Ibid. 114. 13 care” to her child that was required by law. In contrast, Sheridan’s attorney claimed that “proper physical care” was a vague term for generally taking care of children, which Sheridan did. In fact, the defense argued that Dorothy Sheridan aggressively tried to heal her daughter, but she did so while following the doctrines of Christian Science.

By the end of the trial, the jury agreed with the prosecution’s arguments of Dinis.

Sheridan was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and received a lenient sentence of five years probation, along with the requirement that she would take her other children to see a physician in the case of sickness. After the case wrapped up, one member of the jury stated that the group

“decided not to have religion play any part” in the verdict. Instead, the jury focused on the fact that Sheridan did not apply the “proper physical care” as required by law for her child and that the spiritual healing provided instead was not a viable alternative in the eyes of Massachusetts law.

As news of the jury’s decision circulated, concerns of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts grew.

Instead of aiming to appeal the case on First Amendment grounds, the Christian Science Church was instead fearful of an appellate court upholding the decision, which could severely damage the ability of Christian Scientists safely and freely to practice spiritual healing.17

Although accepting of the individual conviction of Dorothy Sheridan, the Church of

Christ, Scientist, did not aim to allow prosecution of its members for following the tenets of the

Church to continue. The Christian Science Church aimed to legalize its previously questionable spiritual healing practices by updating state and federal laws to exempt failed spiritual healings of children.

The first successes in influencing policy were at the state level. Although historian

Rennie B. Schoepflin described the process as taking “time and considerable behind-the-scenes pressure,” the Massachusetts legislature eventually placed a bill on the desk of Governor Francis

W. Sargent that specified a child could not be deemed neglected for the sole reason that his or her

17 Ibid. 114-115. 14 parents had treated the child with religious treatment.18 When Governor Sargent signed the bill into law in 1971, the first exemption clause aimed to protect religious practices, such as the spiritual healing practices of Christian Scientists, took effect.

After its first successes at the state level, legislation endorsing spiritual healing achieved more success at the federal level with the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Act (CAPTA) in 1974. Beginning its existence in the halls of the national Congress, CAPTA was primarily sponsored by Senator Walter Mondale and was eventually passed into law on January

31, 1974. However, Rita Swan, the head of an advocacy group entitled Children’s Healthcare Is a

Legal Duty (CHILD), has asserted that the passage of the law would not have been possible without several Christian Scientists being prominent power players in Washington, D.C., with

Swan pointing to Nixon White House staffers H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman specifically.

According to Swan, the religious exemption added to CAPTA was the result of Christian

Scientist influence and lobbying on the federal level, resulting in the states having to codify an exemption that would apply to all religions that practiced prayer healing, including Christian

Science, in order to receive funding for child protection programs.19

Others have disputed Swan’s claims, stating that there are no congressional records of

Christian Scientists participating in the legislative formation of CAPTA; yet critics have admitted that Christian Science influence could have occurred unrecorded at the agency level.20 Regardless of how the process unfolded, CAPTA still passed into federal law, with individual states having to codify a federal religious exemption in their child abuse laws in order to receive federal funding, if they had not created such an exemption already. Ultimately, forty-four states in total added some type of religious exemption for required medical care of children in their state statutes in order to gain funding for child protection programs. Without adopting religious

18 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 202. 19 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 116. 20 Ibid. 230. 15 exemption clauses, the threat of essential state child programs going unfunded led many states to pass laws to codify the federally mandated religious exemption.21

Not long after the passage of CAPTA, Christian Science spiritual healing included a rigid and approved accreditation process for its practitioners, which let the practice of Christian

Science spiritual healing easily qualify as appropriate treatment under state religious exemption laws. In fact, the first religious exemption statute for child neglect in Massachusetts included wording that required the religion in question to be “recognized” and for treatments to be done by a “duly-accredited practitioner.”22 By 1989, the Church of Christ, Scientist, had accredited over

3,000 full-time practitioners who potentially qualified for such an exemption due to Christian

Science being both an established religion and its practitioners having passed an accreditation process. In the 1970’s and 1980s, the formal process to become an accredited, full-time practitioner under the Church included two weeks of instruction under a Christian Science

Church teacher. The Church also needed to receive letters attesting to the spiritual character and ability to heal others using prayer.23 Through having clear expectations for its religious healers, the Church of Christ, Scientist, seemed able to qualify under the religious exemptions in states across the nation.

Furthermore, the characteristics of Christian Science spiritual healing went beyond just maintaining an accreditation process. By the 1980s, the modern Christian Science practitioner’s services were reimbursable through some health insurance providers. For payment, if a practitioner followed the instructions in Church guidelines, he or she charged an amount that was similar to what a conventional medical doctor charged a patient. Treatment methods allowed a practitioner to treat a patient without physically being with him or her. Oftentimes, prayer healing

21 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 202. 22 Ibid. 23 David Olinger, “Christian Science on Trial // How Practitioners Say They Heal,” St. Petersburg Times, June 4, 1989. 16 with a practitioner could occur over a telephone. As a typical example of a Christian Science practitioner, Frederick Hillier of Sarasota, Florida, spoke to the St. Petersburg Times about his experiences as a Christian Science practitioner. When showing a newspaper reporter his office, the Times noted that his office had “vinyl chairs, a desk, credenza, a telephone, a set of Florida law books, and a personal computer.” Hillier stated that most of his patients did contact him and utilize his services via telephone, and for reference he had stored contents of the Bible and the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy on his accessible office computer. For first-time patients, Hillier stated that when they called over the phone, he “would want to determine if they have already been healed through prayer, and what the circumstances were.” Hillier typically also inquired about the caller’s confidence in spiritual healing, and he said that if the caller did not believe in

God or believe in prayer healing, he might decline the case. For Christian Scientists who he had spoken with before and were experienced with spiritual healing, the calls would often be quick consulting sessions that could last “just a few seconds.” For a routine call, Hillier charged around

$12, but added, “no one is a Christian Science practitioner for the money, because it isn’t there.”24

Yet, despite the modern updates to Christian Science spiritual healing, such as the form of payment and use of telephones, the basic principles and beliefs of spiritual healing remained very similar to what existed when Mary Baker Eddy first founded the Church. In a religious column in an issue of the Christian Science Monitor in 1984, the paper upheld the universal nature of spiritual healing, saying the practice was “not something incredible performed only by

Christ Jesus and his close disciples. It can be – and is – part of the experience of any spiritually- minded individual who loves God.”25 Because Christian Science spiritual healing was willing to accommodate all those who wanted to utilize the benefits of prayer healing, faith in the healing power of prayer did not falter throughout the century. As an example, Hillier truly believed in the

24 Ibid. 25 “The Naturalness of Spiritual Healing,” Christian Science Monitor, April 11, 1984. 17 power of spiritual healing, saying that his own Christian Science teacher had appeared to have died due to hemophilia, but was brought back to life by a Christian Science practitioner who was not even present at the time. Hillier insisted that such an event “is rare, but not unheard of. But we don’t publicize those because it’s so unbelievable. It would increase the skepticism of what we do.”26 Overall, Christian Scientists believed just as fervently in the power of spiritual healing in the 1980s as they did when Mary Baker Eddy first espoused her beliefs in the late 1800’s.

Nestled chronologically between the conviction of Dorothy Sheridan and the passage and debate of religious exemption laws across the country was 1972’s Wisconsin v. Yoder. The case was another relevant decision of the United States Supreme Court, as the Court continued to frame the legal parameters that involved the sometimes-conflicting issues of religious freedom and the welfare of children. In the State of Wisconsin, Amish individuals, represented by Yoder, argued that the state requirement for their children to be educated up to the age of sixteen conflicted with their own religious beliefs and thus violated their right to free exercise when it came to raising their children. The reasoning behind avoiding further education was that the

Amish believed higher education challenged their simple lifestyle and was, in fact, a danger to their spiritual journey to salvation. To make its decision, the Supreme Court required that the

State of Wisconsin show a compelling interest for burdening the Amish not to follow their religious beliefs regarding education. However, the Supreme Court ultimately found that reasons for a compelling interest brought forth by Wisconsin to educate children until age sixteen was not enough, and that the Amish had the religious right to exercise religious freedom by withdrawing their children from public schooling.27 The significance of the Wisconsin v. Yoder case showed that while the Supreme Court was willing to limit religious actions in some cases, the free exercise clause was still held to high esteem and religions found protection in the clause.

26 Olinger, “Christian Science on Trial.” 27 Saroyan, “Spiritual Healing and the Free Exercise Clause,” 376. 18 While Wisconsin v. Yoder was far from a life-or-death situation and instead focused on education of children, the result of the case offered a critically important alternative to the earlier

Prince v. Massachusetts decision of the Supreme Court. While Court absolutely maintained the right to limit religious practices that it deemed conflicted with the well being of society, the

Supreme Court showed with its Wisconsin v. Yoder decision that the possibility for religious rights to overcome state law did exist. Through decisions such as the Prince case and the

Wisconsin v. Yoder case, the Supreme Court established case precedent that both declared statutory law as superior to First Amendment rights, while also offering a contrasting scenario where religious rights did trump state law. Wisconsin v. Yoder was a crucial decision because, while the case dealt with education instead of medical welfare, it validated the possibility of religious rights overcoming a law that conflicted with religion. Furthermore, the Wisconsin v.

Yoder case offered such validation a decade before a series of cases challenging Christian Science beliefs took place.

Legal respect for religious beliefs was an attractive possibility for Christian Scientists, especially as their competing wellness theory, medicine, was growing more sophisticated. While

Christian Scientists maintained a strong belief in spiritual healing throughout their church’s first century of existence, during the same time conventional medicine was becoming more and more widely accepted as an appropriate and effective way of treating sickness. In regards to the

Church’s the relationship with the growing field of medicine, a 1974 Christian Science publication stated that the Church did “appreciate the humanitarian work of doctors…for those who wish to rely on their form of treatment.” Yet, the publication further explained that the

Christian Science method of treatment was not compatible with conventional medicine because it 19 “looks into the body for causes and treats disease on a physical and chemical basis.” The Church acknowledged, “It really isn’t fair to either method to try and mix them.”28

Where Christian Scientists tried to maintain a cautious and separate relationship with conventional medicine into the late 1900’s, other parts of society were embracing the advances of modern medicine. Historian Shawn Francis Peters noted that society’s issues with spiritual healing were at first “mitigated somewhat by lingering doubts regarding the reliability of the still- emerging therapies being offered by physicians.” As time went on, though, Peters believed that the public consciousness no longer maintained fear or doubt about medical practices, which separated a majority of Americans from the medical beliefs of Christian Scientists.29 Ultimately, though the acceptance of medicine grew throughout the United States, Christian Scientists were cautious about the field of medicine, and instead focused on the benefits of prayer healing.

Due to the Church’s view on medicine, Christian Scientists faced a barrage of criticism even in the face of exemption laws protecting Christian Scientists from some level of prosecution.

In a 1974 newspaper opinion column titled “Inside Religion” in The Day, which served eastern

Connecticut, religious commentator Lester Kinsolving described a 1972 outbreak of polio that affected Daycroft School, a Christian Science boarding school in Greenwich, Connecticut. Upon discovering the polio outbreak, the Connecticut state health department ordered a mass quarantine and mass immunization of all students and faculty at the facility, which many at the school objected to on the grounds that receiving an immunization conflicted with their religious beliefs as Christian Scientists. By the end of the ordeal, Kinsolving also reported, eleven of the students at the school were victims of paralysis to varying degrees. Thus, Kinsolving was highly critical of the religious exemption law that allowed the religious and private Daycroft School to operate without medical vaccinations for its students. “It is fortunate that in the Nutmeg State there are no

28 William E. Laur, MD, “Christian Science Visited,” Southern Medical Journal 73 (1980): 72. 29 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 130. 20 religious fanatics who practice child sacrifice,” Kinsolving wrote sardonically, “only those who allow their children to be paralyzed, rather than inoculated.”30 Even with religious exemption laws on the books, Daycroft School’s polio outbreak showed the consequences of religious exemption from medicine that individuals like Kinsolving were prepared to argue should never have occurred in the first place.

Having similar beliefs to Kinsolving, and based on a more personal story, advocates

Douglass and Rita Swan, founders of CHILD, voiced similar support for conventional child healthcare, while opposing religious alternatives. The Swans’ personal story surrounding the death of their son, Matthew, was fundamental in developing their vision for child healthcare.

When Matthew first became ill, the Swans treated him with faith healing according to their beliefs as then-Christian Scientists, yet his condition did not improve. The Swans had eventually turned to medicine and brought Matthew to a physician; but by then, it was too late for medical treatment to effectively cure his meningitis. Matthew died in 1977, and the Swans not only abandoned their faith in Christian Science, but also began actively to crusade against all types of religious healing for children.

The Swans founded the advocacy group Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD) and began to publicize their beliefs, even appearing on a 1979 episode of a Phil Donahue television show to share their own personal loss, which they believed was the result of religions ignoring medical science. The efforts of the Swans did not go unnoticed, with influential

Christian Scientists claiming that the Swans ignited a “nationwide attack on Christian Science.”31

The Swans’ crusade was strengthened when they joined forces with a variety of other groups and associations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National District Attorneys Association, and other child advocacy groups. Together the

30 Lester Kinsolving, “Christian Science and Healing Are Subject of Controversy,” The Day, June 1, 1974. 31 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 204. 21 groups aimed to publicize the failures of spiritual healing when children’s lives were at stake, including those done in the name of Christian Science.

Since the Church of Christ, Scientist’s founding in 1879, a variety of issues shaped and molded the environment in which the Church existed. First, the establishment of the Church as an institution had grown throughout the century from a fledgling group of followers to an established institutionalized religion found across the United States. Another important factor for the story of the Christian Science Church was the changing relationship between the state prosecutors and religious actions. In major court cases, such as Reynolds, Prince, and Yoder, the courts established legal precedents on state-religion interactions. The states both maintained the right to limit certain religious actions, while also acknowledging that in some situations, religious freedom to act according to beliefs could not be regulated by government. As a religion with strong institutional organization and wealth, Christian Science had come to expect certain religious freedoms in the eyes of the law.

Overall, despite having become a powerful religion, Christian Science still faced major opposition regarding its spiritual healing practices. Christian Scientists often had to defend and justify their beliefs in the benefits of spiritual healing, especially when it came to the competing view of modern medicine. Such an issue was especially visible when situations led to the physical harm of children, with doubters of Christian Science healing claiming that medical care for children was a necessity. To avoid the growing role of medicine in American life, the Church lobbied for legislative action that aimed legally to approve the spiritual healing practices of

Christian Scientists and exempt them from providing certain physical care or medical treatment that previous law had mandated. The voices that promoted proper medical care for children over any type of religious treatment were not silenced, though, as public acceptance of medicine continued to rise. Thus, legal allowance of spiritual healing coexisted with a rising approval of medicine, and, according to the exemption laws, children’s welfare was what was at stake. The 22 time was ripe for the issues of religious freedom, parental rights, and state interest in protecting children to all come to a head with Christian Science as the religion in question. 23

Chapter 2

Laurie Walker and Religious Exemption Challenges in California

On November 10, 1988, the Supreme Court of California released its opinion in the case

Walker v. Superior Court, a hot-topic case in the State of California. The Court’s decision was a response to defendant Laurie Walker, who was facing charges of involuntary manslaughter and felony child endangerment. The charges came after she decided to treat her daughter, Shauntay

Walker, with the spiritual healing practices of the Church of Christ, Scientist, instead of conventional medical treatment. Though Shauntay eventually died of her illness, her mother,

Laurie Walker, claimed that she should not be criminally charged. Walker cited a religious exemption to California’s child abuse laws in her defense, claiming that she should not be prosecuted at all. Yet, the Supreme Court of California ultimately disagreed with Laurie Walker’s interpretation of California’s religious exemption, thus allowing the lower courts to continue prosecution. While the final opinion of the Court determined that Laurie Walker could in fact be prosecuted for criminal charges, the background of the case and its proceedings revealed much about the legal state of religious freedom for the Church of Christ, Scientist, in California.

For the State of California, the lengthy court battle involving Laurie Walker that culminated with Walker v. Superior Court represented a battle between religious free exercise and state-promoted welfare of a child, and public opinion weighed in heavily on both sides.

Proponents of religious freedom, many supporting the Church of Christ, Scientist, maintained that the religious exemption in California’s penal code meant that Laurie Walker was off limits for state prosecution. On the other hand, supporters of conventional medicine and child advocates encouraged the actions of the state, and many hoped to see an end to religious practices that legally replaced medical treatments. In the end, despite a fervent defense of Walker by her legal 24 team, the battle of the two ideals resulted in the state’s charges against Walker being allowed to proceed. The Court’s decision was based on legal precedent, which definitively revealed that, according to the State of California, parents could still be held responsible for the death of their child for not providing medical care, even if they utilized religious spiritual healing instead.

The story all began with Laurie Walker of Sacramento, California, who was a state employee and divorced mother of three. On February 21, 1984, one of her daughters, Shauntay

Walker, a four-year-old girl from Sacramento began to exhibit flu-like symptoms such vomiting and the development of a fever. Laurie Walker made the decision to keep Shauntay home from her preschool and, in accordance to her religious beliefs as a member of the Church of Christ,

Scientist, called for the assistance of an accredited Christian Science practitioner.32 The practitioner, a woman by the name of Mrs. Norma Alpert, was contacted on the first day of

Shauntay’s illness and agreed to pray for Shauntay’s health to return. Mrs. Alpert also visited

Shauntay in person on two separate occasions. Along with the assistance of Mrs. Alpert, Laurie

Walker also contacted a Christian Science nurse who attended to Shauntay three different times throughout the young girl’s illness.33 Although a medical doctor was never consulted, by reaching out to different types of help made available through the Church of Christ, Scientist, Laurie

Walker took proactive steps to care for her sickly daughter in accordance with her faith.

Despite the quick and responsive efforts of Laurie Walker to rid her daughter of her illness through prayer, Shauntay did not immediately begin a straightforward path back to good health. After initial contact with Mrs. Alpert, Shauntay’s health did not immediately improve, as the four-year-old was unable to retain food, did not want to eat, and only wanted to sleep.34 In fact, four days into Shauntay’s illness, the young girl also developed a stiff neck along with her

32 Philip Hager, “Prayer Healing Faces Court Test in Girl’s Death,” Los Angeles Times, March 6, 1988. 33 Walker v. Superior Court, 763 P. 2d 852 (Cal. 1988), 119. 34 JoAnna A. Gekas, “California’s Prayer Healing Dilemma,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 14, (Winter 1987), 395. 25 continued flu-like symptoms.35 However, according to reports received by Mrs. Alpert after

February 28, Shauntay’s good health seemed to have been returning. The four-year-old had started to eat again, albeit in small amounts, and was able to retain the food. Other noted improvements included her normal bowel movements and her ability to frequently drink liquids like 7-Up and milk. Overall, such factors indicated positive progress toward the return of

Shauntay’s health.

Shauntay’s improvements did not continue indefinitely, however, nor did Shauntay ever fully recover from her illness. On the evening of March 28, Laurie’s sister, Claudia Ishlam, visited Shauntay and urged Laurie to consult a medical doctor, after seeing Shauntay as “basically comatose.”36 Laurie refused, and at around 11:30 p.m., Laurie Walker phoned Mrs. Alpert to once again ask for her prayers, as Shauntay had begun to breathe heavily and irregularly. As others prayed for her, Shauntay breathed more quietly, and eventually her breathing returned to normal.

Still, Laurie Walker and Mrs. Alpert continued to pray together. Eventually, though, their prayers were not enough to heal Shauntay. Approximately an hour and a half after Laurie Walker’s phone call to Mrs. Alpert, Shauntay Walker stopped breathing early in the morning of March 29, 1984, at around 1:00 a.m.37 After seventeen days of fighting what would later be determined to be acute purulent meningitis, Shauntay Walker succumbed to her illness and passed away.

After losing her child, Laurie Walker was not only described as a “distraught” mother,38 but also soon found that she had attracted the attention of the District Attorney’s Office of

Sacramento County. After learning the nature of Shauntay’s death, the office filed charges of felony child-endangerment and manslaughter against Walker, with attorneys believing that healing by prayer was not a sufficiently effective medical step to save Shauntay’s life, leaving

35 Walker v. Superior Court, 763 P. 2d 852 (Cal. 1988), 119. 36 Martin Halstuk, “Religious Freedom Collides With Medical Care,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 25, 1988. 37 Gekas, “California’s Prayer Healing Dilemma,” 395. 38 Hager, “Prayer Healing Faces Court Test.” 26 Laurie Walker guilty of a crime in the death of her daughter. While not unprecedented in the State of California, such prosecution by the state marked the first time in thirty years that charges were filed against parents regarding religious exemption under state law from medical treatment, and the case was also the first of such nature against Christian Science parents since 1902.39 Summing up the opinion on prayer healing being utilized over medical care, Deputy District Attorney John

O’Mara stated that he did not debate whether or not to take action, stating, “The case came into my shop. I read it. It struck me that something like that should not go on.”40 And thus, the legal battle for Laurie Parker, set off by the death of her four-year-old daughter, had begun.

At the heart of the legal battle for Laurie Walker lay the statutes written in the California

Penal Code, specifically Section 270, which outlined the state’s child abuse laws. At the time, state law stated “Every parent of any child who willfully omits, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty imposed upon him by law, to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance or other remedial care for such child, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” The key term in the phrasing of Section 270 was “other remedial care,” which, according to a 1976 amendment, clarified the phrase to include “treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof.”41 Both parties in the Walker case pointed to Section 270 to declare either innocence or guilt. The defendant, Laurie Walker, insisted that Section 270 legally allowed spiritual healing to care for a sick child. On the other hand, the state prosecution asserted that the statute did not allow spiritual healing in lieu of medical care, and also raised concerns of a possible unfair bias of the law to favor the Church of Christ, Scientist, and its practitioners.

39 Jim Corbett, “‘Science’ vs. Medical Debate,” Lodi-News Sentinel, July 7, 1990; Peters, When Prayer Fails, 117. 40 Herb Michelson, “Prayer Healing v. Law – A Test of Religious Freedom,” Lodi-News Sentinel, August 24, 1985. 41 Anthony Shaw, “Children Are Suffering as Faith Healers Hide Behind Religious-Exemption Shield,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1988. 27 Such legal issues became the primary focus of the Walker case as it worked its way through the

California legal system.

Challenges to Section 270 of the California Penal Code were hardly a new legal issue in

1984. While the Walker case was the first case to challenge the “spiritual means” statute since the amending in 1976, California’s child-abuse laws, which provide some level of criminal charges for offenders, had existed in a variety of editions and interpretations throughout their time in

California’s legal code.42 The initial requirements for the child-abuse statute were added to the legal code in 1872. This required parents to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for their children. The next change to the statute was in 1925, when the California legislature revised

Section 270 to protect parents who provided “remedial care” for their children instead of conventional medical care. Such additions and changes to the California Penal Code displayed the state’s willingness to allow non-medical treatment for children, to a certain extent.

Forty years after the addition of the “remedial care” phrase to the state’s penal code, the courts determined the exact meaning of “remedial care” as found in the 1925 amendment. The challenge to the amendment was brought to the Supreme Court of California in 1967 in a case called People v. Arnold. The case revolved around the death of a thirteen-year-old girl named

Sandra Kay Arnold, who died of a bowel obstruction after her mother, Florence Ada Arnold, did not seek medical treatment for her young daughter and instead turned to the prayer and religious practices of her denomination, the Church of the First Born. After a series of legal challenges and delays, the case eventually reached the California Supreme Court, where Arnold’s case was reversed due to reasons unrelated to Section 270. But this decision did not stop the Court from making a definitive statement on the “remedial care” statute. In its conclusion, the Court stated that “other remedial care… does not sanction unorthodox substitutes for ‘medical attendance’; it

42 Michelson, “Prayer Healing v. Law.” 28 indicates one of the multiple necessities which the parent must provide.”43 Therefore, the Court decided that “other remedial care” was, in fact, in addition to, and not in lieu of, traditional medical care.

Although the Court set an initial precedent through the case People v. Arnold regarding

Section 270 of the penal code, California’s child-support law changed once again in 1976, and this time, the change occurred on more than just the state level. The California state legislature amended the “remedial care” aspect of the California Penal Code to specify what exactly

“remedial care” meant when it came to spiritual healing. Specifically, California law aimed to exempt spiritual treatments from child neglect regulations, thus adding to the code: “treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof.”44 Such language was added to California’s child-abuse law as part of a way for states to gain eligibility for protective services grants under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974, which was a federal act.

By 1984, when Laurie Walker made the decision to treat her young daughter with spiritual healing instead of medical care, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act had since eliminated its religious exemption requirement for states to get federal support. Yet, the exemption was still significant because California remained one of the 43 states that still had the religious exemption in its laws.45 The lawyers for Laurie Walker used Section 270’s religious exemption to contest the ability of the state to prosecute Walker at all. Walker filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the Superior Court of Sacramento County denied the motion, with the Third

District Court of Appeal affirming the lower court’s decision. Then, the Supreme Court of

43 People v. Arnold, 426 P. 2d 515 (Cal. 1967), 452. 44 Shaw, “Children Are Suffering.” 45 Ibid. 29 California granted review of the case, setting the stage for a statewide decision on Section 270 and its religious exemption statute.46

Fully aware of the impact that the Walker v. Superior Court case would have in the State of California, the lawyers for Laurie Walker also represented the Christian Science Church, and the defense team included Warren Christopher, who would later go on to serve as the Secretary of

State in President Bill Clinton’s first administration. On the whole, the lawyers defending both

Walker and her church were described as “a powerhouse team.”47 For Walker’s defense, her lawyers aimed to paint their client as a devoted mother in order to garner some level of sympathy for her defense. Walker’s lawyers claimed that she lacked the “disregard for human life or indifference to consequences” that a manslaughter charge required, and also contended that she was a “caring and loving mother” who purposefully chose a course of action that, in accordance with her own beliefs, was the best possible care for Shauntay. One of Walker’s lawyers, Thomas

A. Volk, insisted that the California legislature never aimed to pass a law that would punish a mother such as Laurie Walker, and that it “never contemplated that such a novel proceeding would take place.” Furthermore, Volk went on to add that Walker’s potential punishment of state prison for up to ten years was “something the law never intended.”48

In response to the defense of Laurie Walker by her legal team, O’Mara did acknowledge that the State of California recognized some religious exemptions, but insisted that they were only in cases where “minor medical instances” occur; when the illness is severe, those who have withheld medical care from a child would be prosecuted. O’Mara specifically pointed to the state law and acknowledged Section 270, but argued that the statute did not apply “in cases that were life threatening, and where medical treatment could have saved the child’s life. In those types of

46 Elizabeth R. Koller, “Walker v. Superior Court: Religious Convictions May Bring Felony Convictions,” Pacific Law Journal 21 (1990), 1083. 47 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 117. 48 Hager, “Prayer Healing Faces Court Test.” 30 cases no one is exempt, and the perpetrator will be prosecuted.”49 Furthermore, prosecutors for the case rebutted the defense’s claim that the California legislature that passed the 1976 amendment would not want to see Laurie Walker prosecuted. Instead, they claimed that the

California legislature would not have passed the amendment to Section 270 by a vote of 87 to 1 to

“permit parents to sacrifice children to their religious beliefs.”50

O’Mara did not publically ignore the role of religion in the case, though, saying,

“Religious freedom is vital, yes. But a balancing act is needed. Especially with children involved.”51 He even showed some level of sympathy for Laurie Walker, stating that although it was difficult for him to “understand how someone could sit by and watch their child die without doing everything to attempt to save his child,” O’Mara added that people like Laurie Walker “are nice, middle-class and well intentioned. They're not drug-crazed psychotics, like an awful lot of the people I see.”52 The prosecution’s willingness to continue the case against Laurie Walker, despite her religiously based defense, showed the prosecution’s strong belief in balancing government influence and religion in California’s state law.

Regardless of which side would create the winning argument to put before the state’s

Supreme Court, the Walker case had an immediate impact across the state, as it was the first to be prosecuted in a series of three cases against Christian Science parents in California, all with children who had died of bacterial meningitis. As the Walker case was working its way through the California judicial system, legal judgment on two other cases awaited a decision on Laurie

Walker. The California Court of Appeal held a case involving Christian Science parents Eliot and

Lise Glaser, who were both charged with the second-degree murder of their son, Seth, who died of his illness when he was seventeen months old. Along with the Walker case, the California

49 Corbett, “‘Science’ vs. Medical Debate.” 50 Hager, “Prayer Healing Faces Court Test.” 51 Michelson, “Prayer Healing vs. Law.” 52 David Margolick, “In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science,” New York Times, August 6, 1990. 31 Supreme Court was also scheduled to later hear the case of another pair of Christian Science parents, Mark Rippberger and Susan Middleton, who were charged with involuntary manslaughter regarding the death of Natalie, their eight-month-old daughter.53 Both cases were fundamentally connected to the Walker case. Not only did state prosecutors from Los Angeles and Sonoma counties acknowledge that they turned to Sacramento County for guidance on how to prosecute the parents in their cases,54 but it was clear that the decision of the California

Supreme Court would affect more than just Laurie Walker, and it would have a profound affect on Christian Scientists across the State of California.

With so much public and media attention developing around prosecuting Christian

Science parents, the Church of Christ, Scientist, fought to develop its own voice throughout the ordeal of the California case, especially since out of about 2,000 active Christian Science churches in the United States at the time, 340 of were in California.55 Nathan A. Talbot, a spokesman for the Boston-based headquarters of the church, stated his opinion that Christian

Scientists were being unfairly portrayed throughout the public coverage of the trials. He aimed to share the Christian Science view of the proceedings. Talbot heavily based his efforts on fully explaining the church’s belief on prayer healing. To illustrate his point, in an article to the Los

Angeles Times, Talbot nostalgically retold the story Merrill Reed and his wife, who, in 1902, were the last Christian Science parents before Laurie Walker to be tried under California law.

After not providing medical care to their daughter while she was sick with, and eventually died of, diphtheria, Reed and his wife were prosecuted under child neglect laws.

Despite the charges against the Reeds, Talbot reminded his audience that both Reed and his wife were eventually found not guilty of the charges against them, all thanks to a variety of experts who testified at the trial that Christian Science prayer healing did work, and who were

53 Hager, “Prayer Healing Face Court Test.” 54 Michelson, “Prayer Healing v. Law.” 55 Ibid. 32 able to produce a variety of personal stories that demonstrated Christian Science prayer returning the sick to better health. In fact, Talbot described Christian Science and its practice of prayer healing to be “a spiritual movement that considered healing to be a normal, intelligible part of

Christianity--not a miracle, but a consistent spiritual discipline that produced consistent results.”56

In a separate statement, Talbot admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that Christian Science healing is not perfect, but added that “The public is aware of our losses, but you never read about the 600 other children who died of meningitis the same year Shauntay did.”57

When retelling the story of Reed to the Los Angeles Times in 1988, Talbot, in conclusion, acknowledged that in the more than eighty years between the Reed case and the Walker case, the

“practice of medicine has become immensely more sophisticated, more technically impressive.”

But, with the growth in sophistication, Talbot also observed that medicine had become “more legally coercive” as well. Talbot asserted that while the Church of Christ, Scientist, respected the commitment of medical doctors, Christian Science beliefs provide a “perspective on human health radically different from conventional biomedical assumptions.” Despite the demonstrated successes of medicine, Talbot asserted the prayer healing was still just as effective as it was in

1902, as it “continued to bring significant results.” Therefore, Christian Science beliefs, which maintained the modern-day effectiveness of prayer healing, were being unfairly maligned when

Christian Science practitioners were legally forced to accept medical doctors’ view on human health. Though prayer healing deviated from social and medical norms, argued Talbot, it still deserved to be recognized as a form of treatment that was viable and respected by the law.

While the Church of Christ, Scientist, supported the religious exemption law and an interpretation that would allow spiritual healing, there was concern from others regarding the laws that Christian Scientists were utilizing to proclaim innocence. Anthony Shaw, a Los Angeles

56 Nathan A. Talbot, “Spiritual Healing: Still in Court After Eight Decades,” Los Angeles Times, May 1, 1988. 57 Halstuk, “Religious Freedom Collides.” 33 pediatric surgeon and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics, wrote an article to the Los Angeles Times describing California child abuse law’s religious exemption as “confusing, unfair, and harmful,” and adding that the “vague language leaves unclear whether those responsible for choosing spiritual over medical treatment may be held legally responsible if harm comes to a child under such circumstances.” The vagueness of the law, according to Shaw, could legally protect parents who did not provide conventional medical treatment to their children. While Shaw acknowledged that religion could play a constructive role in family life, he also asserted, “The constitutionally protected freedom of religion should not permit children to be endangered by the religious practices of adults.”58 Shaw concluded his article, forcefully claiming “No attempt to amend or modify it is likely to make it less confusing, unfair or harmful. Nothing short of total expungement of this clause, which permits harm to children under the shield of religious exemption, will do.” Overall, Shaw asserted that children with treatable diseases should, in fact, be treated for their illnesses regardless of their parents’ religious beliefs, and he strongly supported the elimination of the California child-abuse law’s religious exemption.

Along with the concerns of Shaw, the vagueness of the law also came to the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU claimed that Walker’s right to due process was being violated due to the vague, and possibly conflicting, state statutes and laws.59

While the ACLU backed the defendant, its concerns about the California law only further suggested the necessity for clarification on the California statute.

Along with its vagueness, some viewed the California law as providing an unfair, established preference for the Church of Christ, Scientist. Critics took issue with the California law granting a religious exemption to “recognized” church or faith by a religiously “accredited”

58 Shaw, “Children Are Suffering.” 59 Hager, “Prayer Healing Faces Court Test.” 34 individual, and the state agreed. Regarding such considerations, Deputy Attorney General

Clifford K. Thompson, Jr., filed briefs stating that “If the court finds that the law is aimed at protecting certain groups--such as Christian Scientists--it should be struck down for impermissibly granting a religious preference, violating the constitutional ban on government establishment of religion.”60 The concern of a potential issue with the federal Constitution’s establishment clause added yet another level to the building Walker case.

While some supporters of the state fought for court action against exempting Walker, other supporters were wary of sweeping action of the courts if they eventually ruled in favor of

Walker. The California Medical Association voiced concern about the court potentially expanding parents’ rights that would affect laws already in place that allowed medical intervention for child despite parental objections. David E. Willett, a San Francisco attorney for the medical association, stated that the association did not “want the court to declare parental rights so sweeping that a child would be left helpless under the law,” and succinctly added, “A parent is entitled to religious beliefs--but a child is entitled to care.”61

All of the background arguments and legal proceedings finally culminated with the

California Supreme Court listening to arguments for the Walker v. Superior Court case on March

8, 1988. The court proceedings went largely as expected, with lawyers on both sides of the case advocating as they did in written briefs and earlier in lower courts. Two primary issues were addressed and entertained by the justices during the oral arguments for the case. The first was how exactly the religious exemption might protect Laurie Walker. Was the decision to treat her daughter through prayer a legally protected choice? Or was the viability of spiritual healing limited to non-life threatening situations? Secondly, the court also explored whether or not the

60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 35 law’s requirement of an “accredited” practitioner unconstitutionally established a preference for certain religions under the exemption.

During the proceedings before the state Supreme Court, the prosecution, headed by

Deputy Attorney General Thompson, maintained its argument that the religious exemption in the state law did not allow religious healing as a complete substitute for conventional medical care for a severely ill child. Addressing the court on whether or not Laurie Walker could be charged with a crime, Thompson said, “The only question is whether a reasonable person would know this child was dying. If the answer is ‘yes,’ then there is criminal liability.” Thompson was also sure to evoke language from the federal Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts, stating, “Parents may be free to make martyrs of themselves--but not to make martyrs of their children.”62

Ultimately, the prosecution advocated for its vision of the law as understood by the Office of the

District Attorney in Sacramento County to the Supreme Court of California, with the goal of convicting Laurie Walker for withholding medical care from her dying child.

Whereas the prosecution stood solid, the defense for Laurie Walker did as well. The defense continued its argument that Section 270 in California law protected Walker’s religiously based decision. In his defense, Warren Christopher stated to the court, “Society has recognized the practice of Christian Science as a reasonable and acceptable alternative to conventional care.”

The defense also continued its emotional appeal to the tragic loss of Shauntay, adding that the court should not put Laurie Walker “through the additional tragedy, the additional trauma, of

[the] trial” that would occur should the charges against Laurie Walker stand.63 As expected in light of pre-trial documents, the defense team for Laurie Walker vehemently defended its view of the California law, which would allow for her religious right to care for her child.

62 Philip Hager, “Asks Manslaughter Charge in Child's Death: Prosecutor Seeks Trial for Christian Scientist,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 1988. 63 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 117. 36 Along with the debate regarding whether the law completely protected spiritual healing under the state’s child-support laws, the law’s possible preference for Christian Science as a state- approved faith was also addressed during the Supreme Court hearing. Justice Stanley Mosk noted that the term “accredited” within the statute may apply to Christian Science practitioners, but otherwise it severely limits the type of religious practitioners who could be protected under the law, such as excluding Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis. As a result, Walker’s legal team then encountered questioning from Justice Stanley Mosk, with the justice asking them whether or not the law created “a preference for a religion, contrary to the First Amendment?” Though Volk, as an attorney for the defense, deflected the question by stating that the courts could construe the wording of the statute to include a variety of religions, the prosecution agreed with the sentiments of Justice Mosk at the trial. Thompson stated that the law “openly discriminates” and pinned a

“badge of inferiority” on religions that did not accredit their religious healers.64

Over eight months after hearing the arguments of Walker v. Superior Court, the Supreme

Court of California released its ruling on November 10, 1988. Within the first paragraph of the majority opinion written by Justice Stanley Mosk, the final decision on Laurie Walker’s case was made apparent. He stated, “We conclude that the prosecution [of Laurie Walker] is permitted by statute as well as the free exercise and due process clauses of the state and federal

Constitutions.”65 In order to arrive at such a conclusion, the majority opinion addressed a few of the issues that stood before the court, including the true meaning of Section 270 and the concerns of Laurie Walker’s constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion.

The first issue tackled in the majority opinion was whether Section 270 legally protected

Laurie Walker’s decision to treat her daughter with prayer in lieu of medical care. The Court first turned to the legal precedent in the state set by People v. Arnold, which stated that “remedial

64 Hager, “Asks Manslaughter Charge.” 65 Walker v. Superior Court, 763 P. 2d 852 (Cal. 1988), 118. 37 care” such as spiritual healing was just one of many services parents could provide their children.

In the Walker v. Superior Court decision, though, the Court overruled the Arnold decision. The

Court stated that the “remedial care” described in Section 270 did allow spiritual healing as a substitute for medical care. However, the Court went on to add that the statute existed in certain situations as a way to avoid misdemeanor liability, and thus could not eliminate the possibility for prosecution under more serious charges such as child endangerment and involuntary manslaughter. The Court also decided that other legislation by the state determined that children treated by prayer could still be considered abused or neglected.66 Furthermore, by being able to distinguish such regulations within the California law, the Court resisted assertions that the law was too vague or even offered conflicting information.67 Essentially agreeing with the argument of the prosecution, the Supreme Court gave the first reason to allow the charges to stand against

Walker.

Moving beyond the state law level and looking to the national Constitution’s First

Amendment, the Court agreed with the lower courts and utterly rejected the idea that Laurie

Walker could appeal to the First Amendment in order to avoid prosecution. First and foremost, the Court pointed to the Christian Science Church’s own amicus curiae brief, which stated that religious healing is not compelled of its followers, nor did using medicine equate with a religious sin in the eyes of the church, thus rejecting the idea that not using spiritual healing would have violated a necessary part of Christian Science.68 Even considering Christian Science healing to be a religious option for Walker, the court was able to utilize the precedent of Prince v.

Massachusetts to disallow parents to impose their religious beliefs upon their children.69

Therefore, in the eyes of the prosecutors, Laurie Walker had violated state law by not turning to

66 Koller, “Walker v. Superior Court,” 1084-1088. 67 Ibid. 1092-1094. 68 Walker v. Superior Court, 763 P. 2d 852 (Cal. 1988), 139. 69 Koller, “Walker v. Superior Court,” 1091-1092. 38 conventional medicine when her daughter became gravely ill. According to the California

Supreme Court, this allowed Walker to be legally charged with manslaughter.

The decision of the California Supreme Court ended up being the final word on the state’s ability to prosecute Laurie Walker. The defense attorneys for Walker did, in fact, appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but the Court declined to hear the case. While the federal

Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning for declining the case, legal experts believed that

Court concurred with the California court’s decision on the basis that the Constitution “protects religious beliefs but not religious conduct.” With the Supreme Court disallowing the final possible appeal in the Walker case, Laurie Walker had no choice but to return to the courtroom of

Judge George Nicholson of the Sacramento County, but not before having reached a deal with her prosecutors.70 In return for pleading guilty, Walker was promised a reasonably lenient sentence.71

The prosecution kept its word. In June 1990, Laurie Walker was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced with probation, a fine of three hundred dollars, and six hundred hours of community service.72 Outside of formal sentencing, the agreement with the prosecutors also compelled Walker to let her surviving daughter choose her own method of healing should she fall ill, whether it should be Christian Science prayer or conventional medicine.73 Thus, after a four-year long legal battle, Laurie Walker’s ordeal had finally ended.

While the Walker case had an immediate impact on the life of Laurie Walker, the decision led to a variety of changes in the way Christian Science parents were handled by the state judicial system. Walker v. Superior Court finally established what exactly the state’s religious exemption under Section 270 meant, thus quieting assertions that prayer healing was always a legitimate and legal substitute for giving a child medical care. Instead, the Court took

70 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 206. 71 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 118. 72 Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial, 206. 73 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 118. 39 time to state that while prayer could be acceptable in some circumstances, the law did not allow medical care to be withheld from children in severe case of illness. Thus charges of manslaughter and abuse could still be brought against parents who did not seek medical treatment. Ultimately, the Court’s findings and subsequent decision struck a blow to the spiritual healing practices of

Christian Scientists, as even a religious exemption in California’s state law did not fully protect their religious beliefs. 40

Chapter 3

The Hermansons and the Fairness of Florida Laws

A Florida case decided in 1992 expanded the body of judicial decisions concerning the legal limits of spiritual healing for children. The case began with Amy Hermanson. Amy was a seven-year-old girl who came from a prominent family of four in Sarasota, Florida. Her parents held respected positions within the community, as her father, William “Bill” Hermanson, was the senior vice president at a local bank, while her mother, Christine Hermanson, was the director of the Sarasota Fine Arts Academy, where she taught voice and music. The lives of the Hermanson family were turned upside down, however, when young Amy passed away due to childhood diabetes. Her parents had opted to treat Amy with prayer as a result of their beliefs as Christian

Scientists, and more conventional medical treatment had not been sought for Amy until it was too late for her to recover.

What followed Amy’s death was a whirlwind of legal proceedings over the coming years that pitted one Florida law against the other: did the religious exemption in child endangerment laws legally allow the Hermansons’ actions, or did child abuse laws mandate legal prosecution against them? Throughout the convictions, appeals, and decision by the state’s Supreme Court, the Hermansons’ tribulations ultimately suggested that the Florida state laws were not properly designed to handle such conflicts between parental religious rights and the welfare of children, as the statutes were riddled with indecision and vagueness. Thus, the legal outcome was that the

State of Florida could not initiate the prosecution of parents when the law made it impossible to clearly understand state statute on such a deeply personal and religious issue.

Amy and her older brother, Eric, both attended a private school called the Julie Rohr

Academy, where Amy had a reputation of being a bubbly and outgoing student. At the start of her 41 new school year in September 1986, Amy had caught the attention of her teachers for a change in her behavior. She seemed lethargic, began dozing off in class, and claimed to be too tired to participate in her gym class at school. The young girl also complained about being unable to sleep and having constant stomachaches. Along with her lack of energy and complaints, teachers at the private school also noted changes to Amy’s physical appearance: she was rapidly losing weight, she grew dark circles under her eyes, her skin developed a bluish tint, and her breath noticeably smelled of a strange “fruity” odor.74

By September 22, 1986, Amy’s parents had noticed that something was wrong with their daughter as well, and following their beliefs as Christian Scientists, took quick action to help remedy their daughter’s condition in the form of spiritual healing, at first believing that Amy’s illness was of an emotional nature. By phone, the Hermansons contacted Thomas Keller, an accredited Christian Science practitioner in Indiana, for consultation and treatment in accordance with Church practices. Keller advised on certain spiritual healing practices for Amy for eight days, starting on September 22. Throughout such time, as long-distance Christian Science practitioners typically do, Keller also offered his own prayers for Amy for a good healing.

During Amy’s illness, Bill and Christine Hermanson travelled to Indianapolis, Indiana, for an annual Christian Science conference on spiritual healing and left both Eric and the sickly

Amy in the care of Marie Beth Ackerman. Twenty-four--year-old Ackerman was, like the

Hermansons, a Christian Scientist, and she lived in Sarasota assisting Christine Hermanson at the

Sarasota Fine Arts Academy as an administrator. The Christian Science Committee on

Publications, the body responsible for the public relations of the Church, also employed

Ackerman. Therefore, Ackerman continued to care for Amy as expected by the Christian Science

74 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 779. 42 religion. The Hermansons arrived home and once again took over care for their children in the early morning of September 29.75

Upon arriving home and once again seeing Amy, the Hermansons believed that her condition was worsening. In response, that morning they contacted a local accredited Christian

Science practitioner by the name of Frederick Hillier. A former computer software salesman before he completed the practitioner accreditation requirements of the Church of Christ, Scientist,

Hillier began to visit Amy in person for the next two days, as opposed to the common practice of offering his services via phone.76 Also that day, Bill Hermanson had a conversation with his father-in-law, Jack Morton, who expressed concern for Amy and suggested that she may have diabetes. That evening, the Hermansons stayed up all night with Amy, and when Hillier arrived to continue his treatments of Amy the next morning, he suggested that the couple call a Christian

Science nurse to help care for Amy. Later that day, Molly Jane Sellers, a recognized Christian

Science nurse with over twenty years of experience, arrived to help with the physical needs of

Amy.77

Despite their efforts to heal Amy, the Hermansons soon found themselves under the watch of the government, as Amy’s aunt, Leslie Morton, called a state social worker to report the dire condition of her niece. Through the conversation with Amy’s aunt, the social worker noted that Amy had experienced drastic weight loss, that her muscle tone was depleted, and that her eyes were sunken into her head and functioning separately.78 As a result of the report, at around

11:00 a.m., Bill Hermanson was contacted by Willy Torres, a counselor from the Department of

Health and Rehabilitative Services, and was told that the department had a received a complaint of child abuse. A hearing for the allegation was scheduled in Juvenile Court for 1:30 p.m. that

75 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 778. 76 Olinger, “Christian Science on Trial.” 77 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 778. 78 Olinger, “Christian Science on Trial.” 43 day, and the hearing would determine whether or not medical care for Amy would be ordered by the state or whether spiritual healing would be allowed.

Bill Hermanson complied with the request of the Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services and traveled to the Sarasota County Courthouse for the hearing, leaving

Amy in the care of Hillier, as the Christian Science practitioner, and Sellers, as the Christian

Science nurse. During the hearing, Bill Hermanson received a telephone call from his home informing him that Amy had “taken a turn for the worse,” and he also learned that an ambulance had been called. The information that Bill Hermanson had learned by telephone became relevant to the hearing, and the Court ordered that a licensed medical doctor examine Amy. The order was unable to be completed, though, because once paramedics arrived at the Hermansons’ home, Amy had passed away on that day, September 30, at about 1:27 p.m.

Medical Examiner James C. Wilson, M.D., released an autopsy report for Amy that determined the girl had died from diabetic ketoacidosis caused by juvenile diabetes mellitus.

Wilson pointed specifically to his autopsy’s findings of dehydration and weight loss as typical symptoms of the disease’s progress. Furthermore, according to his professional opinion, Wilson believed that a medical doctor could have diagnosed the disease prior to Amy’s death, and with sufficient action and medical treatment, Amy’s death could have been prevented up to several hours before she expired.79 Despite the report from the autopsy, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services investigated the circumstances surrounding Amy’s death, and decided not to take further action against the Hermansons for abuse or neglect. The local state attorney’s office in Sarasota County, though, had a different plan of action.

After a five-week investigation by sheriff’s deputies that was separate from the inquires of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the state attorney’s office charged Bill and Christine Hermanson with third-degree murder, manslaughter, and felony child abuse. The

79 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 777. 44 two were arrested on November 5, 1986, and faced arraignment on November 24 for the charges brought against them. If eventually convicted, Bill and Christine could have faced a sentence of up to thirty-five years in prison.80 When charged with the death of their daughter, the Hermansons were facing their first run-in with the law in their lifetimes, as neither had been arrested for or convicted of a crime before. Until the legal proceedings resulting from the death of Amy, Bill and

Christine Hermanson lived a seemingly irreproachable lifestyle. When the Florida Supreme Court detailed the personal history of Bill and Christine, it explained the story of their education, marriage, move to Sarasota, and birth of their two children.81 As a couple with no prior run-ins with the law, the legal trial charging the Hermansons with crimes against their child was an unexpected next chapter in the lives of the Hermansons.

The news of charges being brought against the Hermansons elicited a variety of responses. The State of Florida had a religious accommodation statute in its child welfare laws that allowed religious healing in place of required medical care, and some believed the provision would exonerate the Hermansons of all charges. For example, the Hermansons’ attorney, Dan

Dannheisser, stated that he felt “comfortable” that Bill and Christine abided by the state law and

“did everything possible given the circumstances” to help save their daughter. He added that they were “fully loving and caring parents.” Likewise, Joseph Whitelock of St. Petersburg, a lawyer and Christian Scientist who served as a consultant for the case, balked at the charges against the

Hermansons. “If you’re not guilty of abuse or neglect,” asked Whitelock, referring to the investigation by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, “how can you be guilty of murder?” The state attorney’s office disagreed. According to Mack Futch, the chief assistant state

80 Associated Press, “Diabetic Girl, 7, Dies Untreated,” Miami Herald, November 14, 1986. 81 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 777. 45 attorney for Sarasota County, the religious exemption did not apply when severe harm or death occurs to a child.82

Interpretation of the state law soon became a major flashpoint in the case of Bill and

Christine Hermanson. The Florida statute in question, numbered section 415.503(8)(f), outlined the rules and regulations regarding what can be deemed as “harm” to a child’s health or welfare, and it included a religious accommodation. Specifically, the statute stated “a parent or other person responsible for the child’s welfare legitimately practicing his religious beliefs, who by reason thereof does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, may not be considered abusive or neglectful for that reason alone…”83

The history of Florida’s religious accommodation provision regarding child welfare was largely uncontroversial. This addition to the childcare and welfare statute was passed in 1975 by a unanimous vote in both the Florida Senate and the Florida House of Representatives. The aim of the Florida legislature was no different than the aims of state legislatures across the country: complying with the federal guidelines of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in order to receive matching federal funding for state child programs. Specifically, though, the Florida lawmakers considered the medical treatment in question to mean exemption from undergoing physical examinations at school or receiving inoculations, and Florida State Senator Jack Gordon admitted the bill was passed with the idea of routine screening of schoolchildren.84 Although hearings on the provision drew no comment from proponents or opponents of the measure,

Florida State Senator Richard Deeb touted the religious accommodation provision as “providing a defense for parents who decline medical treatment because [of their] religion.”85

82 Associated Press, “Diabetic Girl.” 83 Christine A. Clark, “Religious Accommodation and Criminal Liability,” Florida State University Law Review 17 (1989-1990): 572. 84 Karen Branch, “Court Overturns Parents’ Convictions in Girl’s Death,” Miami Herald, July 3, 1992. 85 Clark, “Religious Accommodation and Criminal Liability,” 572. 46 Despite the existence of a religious accommodation law, charges of felony child abuse and felony third-degree murder were still brought against Bill and Christine Hermanson.

Immediately, the Hermansons filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that section 415.503(8)(f) in

Florida state law should bar prosecution against them, as they were following their religious beliefs as Christian Scientists when treating their daughter Amy. Specifically, their motion relied on the logic that the state was prosecuting them for no other reason than that they were exercising their religious beliefs, thus violating the state law that individuals “may not be considered abusive or neglectful for that reason alone,” with “that reason” referring to their choice as Christian

Scientists of spiritual healing treatments for Amy.

While the defense of the Hermansons focused on the wording of the state law’s religious exemption for child abuse, the state countered with a two-pronged argument. The first aspect of the argument was to claim a different meaning to the phrase “for that reason alone.” In the eyes of the prosecution, another “reason” was created when Amy’s illness became life threatening, and so the state was pursuing charges against the Hermansons not because they treated Amy with spiritual healing, but because they did not turn to a more effective form of healing when Amy’s condition began to clearly deteriorate in front of them. From another angle, the prosecution also simply aimed to classify the religious provision to the child abuse statute as unconstitutional. The prosecutors stated that the provision unfairly favored structured religions that could prove certain aspects of their faith and practices, such as what the Church of Christ, Scientist, could do through its accredited practitioners.86 By aiming to make the religious exemption unconstitutional, the prosecutors sought to continue criminal charges against the Hermansons without having to debate the significance of a religious exemption at all.

After listening to both the Hermansons and the state prosecution during oral arguments,

Judge Steven Dakan rejected the Hermansons’ motion to dismiss the case, and instead allowed

86 Ibid. 47 them to utilize the religious accommodation statute to aid in their defense. For the prosecutors,

Judge Dakan allowed their prosecution of the Hermansons to proceed, but completely rejected the motion to declare the religious accommodation statute unconstitutional. Such action by Judge

Dakan forced the prosecution to build a case around the religious exemption on the books and struck down the opportunity to challenge the exemption on a constitutional basis.

Though proceedings against the Hermansons continued, a few legal delays arose in bringing the case to trial. For one, the religious accommodation provision to Florida state law was still evolving during the Hermansons’ legal prosecution. Thirteen years after the original passage of the religious accommodation statute, the Florida legislature added an amendment to state law in 1988 that granted immunity for any individual whose actions fell under the state’s religious accommodation for child abuse. Immunity, as established by the law, completely protected individuals, as immunity bars prosecution under any circumstance. Once again, the Hermansons took legal action before their case went to trial and they filed another motion to dismiss their case, using the newly passed amendment as basis to receive immunity from criminal wrongdoing.

However, their motion was denied, leaving the Hermansons to defend themselves under the state laws that existed when Amy had passed away in 1986.87 A further attempt by the Hermansons to evoke action by the United States Supreme Court did not secure delays either. In December of

1988, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United State Supreme Court refused to delay the trail against the Hermansons, despite defense attorneys claiming that the prosecution interfered with

First Amendment rights. In fact, the only delay that the Hermansons’ case was granted came from

Judge Dakan, who postponed proceedings in the wake of a 60 Minutes television feature that

87 Ibid. 48 profiled another Christian Science case. In effect, he waited for publicity surrounding cases like the Hermanson prosecution to subside.88

The Hermansons eventually faced a jury when their case went to trial on April 10, 1989.

Early in the trial proceedings, prosecutors brought up the physical condition of Amy as relevant information for the jury. Reports from teachers who interacted with Amy at the Julie Rohr

Academy detailed her lack of energy and unhealthy appearance, while other testimony came from the pathologist who performed Amy’s autopsy. Citing information gathered by talking to her parents before the trial, combined with his own physical examination, the pathologist was able to paint a picture of exactly what symptoms Amy showed before her death. The pathologist described Amy’s final physical appearance as skeletal, with typical characteristics of being undernourished and dehydrated, despite the Hermansons’ claim that Amy had been drinking plenty of fluids and urinating regularly. Other symptoms, such as no noticeable fever, constipation late into her illness, and intermittent vomiting, along with information from the

Hermansons that they first noticed changes in Amy a month prior to her death, led the pathologist definitively to classify Amy’s illness as chronic. Such a classification ruled out the possibility that the illness was acute and thus quickly treatable in any way. To further provide more information to the jury, photographs were shown to the jury that were taken both shortly after the paramedics arrived and right before the autopsy.89

One key piece of information that was introduced by the State of Florida into its prosecution of the Hermansons came from the testimony of Sellers, the Christian Science nurse who was attending Amy. Sellers testified in the courtroom that when Amy became unresponsive and began vomiting, she suggested calling an ambulance. Hillier, the practitioner working alongside Sellers, decided first to call the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist, in

88 Associated Press, “‘60 Minutes’ Forces Change in Christian Scientists’ Trial,” Orlando Sentinel, December 7, 1988. 89 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 779. 49 Boston and then called an ambulance. Using the testimony presented by Sellers, the prosecution suggested that the Christian Science Church did, in fact, recognize conventional medical care, as an accredited nurse of the faith was willing to turn to an ambulance to help save Amy. Therefore, the Hermansons were accused of ignoring medical care as a viable method of treatment in the eyes of their faith, and their sickly daughter became the victim of their decisions. The prosecution believed that such information constituted culpable negligence on the part of the Hermansons, leaving them answerable for Amy’s death. To combat the charges against them, the Hermansons claimed that they were legitimately practicing their religious beliefs as allowed by the accommodation provision of Florida state law, in accordance with the line of defense explicitly allowed by Judge Dakan’s decision.90

After hearing the case, the jury deliberated for one and a half hours to rule on the charges brought against the Hermansons. The jury brought three questions to the judge that they wished to have answered before making a decision. The questions about the Hermansons were: “(1) As a

Christian Scientist do they have a choice to go to a medical doctor if they want to? (2) Or if not, can they call a doctor at a certain point? (3) Do they need permission first?” The court advised the jurors to utilize evidence supplied throughout the trial to determine the answers to such questions.

Both the prosecution and defense agreed before the trial that the court was allowed to ask the jurors to pass judgment on such questions, and the jury was thus asked to make a judgment on how the Hermansons were practicing their religion.91 However, after an eight-day trial and a total of three hours of deliberation, the jury ultimately found the Hermansons guilty of felony child abuse and third-degree murder on April 18.

On June 30, 1989, about two months after their convictions, Bill and Christine

Hermanson stood before Judge Dakan for their sentences, and much had changed in their lives

90 Ibid. 779-780. 91 Ibid. 780. 50 since their trial in April. They had left their relatives and friends in Sarasota to seek a new life in

St. Louis, with Bill leaving his job as a bank vice president and Christine selling her music academy. According to one of their attorneys, “There was nothing for them here [in Sarasota] anymore.” Before Dakan declared his sentences, the Hermansons made their first public statements since their daughter had passed away. As opposed to apologizing for their actions, both Bill and Christine voiced their confusion and frustration instead. Bill Hermanson stated that, to him, it was “almost incomprehensible that we could be found guilty of killing our child when exactly the opposite is what was going on.” Christine Hermanson echoed his sentiments, saying

“I just have a difficult time understanding a justice system that has…brought us to the point where we are standing in front of you with a conviction when our family and our children are the absolute center of our activities.”92

After their statements, Dakan gave the Hermansons four-year suspended prison sentences, instead opting for fifteen years’ probation. Furthermore, the Hermansons were required to provide regular medical treatment and examinations for their twelve-year-old son Eric and newly added son, Paul, who was born after Amy’s death. On one level, the Hermansons could have considered themselves lucky, as they potentially faced jail time. According to the assistant state attorney, Mark Futch, “a prison term would have been appropriate.” One of the jurors who was present for the sentencing, Donna Reed, stated that she was happy the Hermansons did not receive jail time and thought that the sentences were “very fair.” The opinion of the Hermansons’ lawyer, Thomas Dart, was much different. He believed the sentence to be too harsh. Dart had hoped the judge would remove the status of a felony conviction, as the sentencing left the

Hermansons labeled as felons, and being labeled as a felon would make it difficult for them to continue their lives in the field of banking and education. Despite this, the Hermansons pledged

92 Jeffrey Good, “Parents Convicted in Child’s Death Go Free,” St. Petersburg Times, July 1, 1989. 51 to follow the judge’s orders, according to their other lawyer, Charles Arnold. “As firmly as they believe in their religion, they’re law-abiding,” Arnold stated.93

Despite their sentencing, the legal battle of the Hermansons was not over. The couple appealed their case to Florida’s District Court of Appeal for the Second District. At the district court, the Hermansons argued that their initial motion to dismiss all charges should have been granted because the Florida state law authorized the treatment that they had supplied Amy. The

Hermansons also argued that because they were not aware their actions were criminal, their right to due process had been violated. However, after the district court reviewed the case, the challenge at the district court level did not result in a victory for the Hermansons.

The district court began its decision with an explanation that Judge Stephen Dakan was originally incorrect in allowing the Hermansons to utilize the religious exemption law in their murder defense at all, as it only applied to child abuse and not murder. Such a decision by Judge

Dakan, according to the district court, “caused an unnecessary legal tangle throughout the entire proceedings” by bringing in the idea that the Hermansons’ crime could be validated by religious actions.94 Furthermore, the district court dismissed completely the possibility that the

Hermansons’ right to religious belief as based on the federal Constitution could vindicate the couple. In its decision, the court specifically quoted the Supreme Court’s 1944 decision in Prince v. Massachusetts, stating “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” Thus, the

Second District Court of Appeals in Florida fully held that the actions of the Hermansons could be judged by a jury of their peers, and that “the Hermansons’ acknowledged absolute right to hold their religious beliefs did not permit them to exercise that right at the price of Amy’s life.”95

93 Good, “Parents Convicted in Child’s Death Go Free.” 94 Hermanson v. State, 570 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), 325. 95 John Gibeaut, “Christian Scientists Lose Appeal - Court Rules Religion Not a Murder Defense,” Tampa Tribune, September 29, 1990. 52 The district court also weighed in on the belief that the Hermansons’ due process right had been violated. While the Hermansons claimed that they were not properly informed when exactly their actions moved outside of the scope of the religious exemption, the district court disagreed with such an argument. In making its decision, the district court relied heavily on the decision of the California Supreme Court in its 1988 Walker v. Superior Court case. The Walker and Hermanson cases were similar, with Christian Science parents who pleaded innocence in their children’s death under state law, finding themselves prosecuted anyway. The parents in both cases asserted their belief that the law was not clear and was thus unfair. In response to such criticism by the defendant during the Walker case, the California Supreme Court stated that a person must become aware himself when his conduct becomes criminal, as the process of legality should be clear. The Second District Court of Florida later agreed with this ruling. In the

Christian Science cases, such a change occurred when the children in question reached a point where spiritual healing was no longer adequate for the children’s health and another method of treatment, such as conventional medicine, should have been attempted.96

News of the decision of the district court evoked a variety of reactions from those involved in the case. As with the trial court jury’s decision, the state attorney’s office was pleased. After the district court’s decision, an “extremely pleased” assistant state attorney Deno

Economou declared that the judges “covered the whole ballpark” of legal issues and definitively ruled on the issues in the case. With the same goals as the prosecution, child health advocates who had been following the tumultuous case were pleased with the ruling as well. Rita Swan, a national advocate for children’s healthcare who was publicly critical of Christian Science spiritual healing practices throughout the duration of the Hermanson trial, stated that the ruling was “a tremendous victory for children’s rights” and praised the work of the Second District Court.97

96 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 782. 97 Gibeaut, “Christian Scientists Lose Appeal.” 53 Supporters of the Hermansons were obviously upset that the Hermansons’ appeal had failed to declare the couple innocent. They were also distressed because the outcome meant that

Christian Science spiritual healing practices could be prosecuted under the law. Although the conviction of the Hermansons had been upheld, the Christian Science Church intended to continue to educate American society on the legitimacy of its practices. As spokesman for the church, Nathan Talbot stated that its plan was “to continue to let people know that there’s an alternative method of healing that doesn’t have a perfect track record but has been so successful that a large segment of society relies on it.” Following the decision of the district court, the state of the Hermansons’ legal challenges was temporarily in limbo, as Dart spoke for the Hermansons saying, “We’ll have to examine the opinion to determine what further steps to take. I think it’s going to take a period of reflection.”98

Eventually, the Hermanson did continue with legal appeals and their actions resulted in the Florida Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case in 1991, with a court date set for 1992. Bill and Christine Hermanson shied away from public comments while waiting for the trial in the

Florida Supreme Court, but their legal argument for appeal appeared in court documents.99 The basis for the appeal was, once again, the fact that the Hermansons claimed that they were denied due process and fair warning of criminal actions, with vague and unclear laws surrounding the religious exemption being to blame. This time, the Hermansons had further evidence about the confounding Florida laws by claiming there were conflicting statutes. For their defense, the

Hermansons seized on the fact that it took the district court of appeal nine pages to articulate the supposedly simple fact that the Florida religious exemption only applied to neglect and not felony child abuse and murder. The Supreme Court of Florida considered the facts brought forth to the

98 Ibid. 99 Jennifer L. Stevenson, “Beliefs Tested by Girl’s Death,” St. Petersburg Times, December 1, 1991. 54 case, especially the confusing nature of the religious exemption and the ruling in the California

Walker case as precedent.100

Though acknowledging the similarities between the Walker case in California and the

Hermanson case in Florida, the Supreme Court of Florida disagreed with the findings of its counterpart in California. “We disagree,” stated Justice Overton, “with the view of the Supreme

Court of California in Walker.” Under Florida state law, treating a child by means of spiritual healing was viable under one statute, but criminal in another, and Florida’s Supreme Court believed that the Hermansons had no fair warning as to which statute the state would aim to try them under, thus disagreeing with the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court of Florida further pointed to the general confusion surrounding the statutes on both the circuit court and district court levels, saying that the judges had “difficulty understanding the interrelationship of the statutes.” Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court, the initial jurors who decided on the

Hermansons’ case also “had problems understanding what was required.” Through looking at such confusion, the Court concluded that “a person of ordinary intelligence cannot be expected to understand the extent to which reliance on spiritual healing is permitted and the point at which this reliance constitutes a criminal offense” under the laws as written. With such conflicting information on the statutes, the Supreme Court of Florida did not believe any conviction of the

Hermansons was fair. In the Court’s view, conviction did, in fact, violate their right to due process under the law.

All in all, the Supreme Court of Florida placed blame for the difficulty of comprehending the statutes on the state legislature. In the eyes of the Court, Florida’s legislature had “failed to clearly indicate the point at which a parent’s reliance on his or her religious beliefs in the treatment of his or her children becomes criminal conduct.” Thus, the legislature “created a trap” that the Supreme Court of Florida believed should be addressed. Therefore, the legislature would

100 Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992), 781. 55 have to clarify the statutes before parents like the Hermansons would be prosecuted under such law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Florida’s final decision was to reverse the lower courts’ decisions and declare the Hermansons free of guilt and vacate their sentences.101

Following news of the overturned convictions in 1992, opinions were mixed. Dart reported that his clients, the Hermansons, were pleased, but the couple did not make any public comments themselves. An editorial in the St. Petersburg Times also agreed that the main issue was the laws. The newspaper acknowledged that the laws on record in Florida were undoubtedly confusing and agreed with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that the laws “created a trap” for the Hermansons. The editorial urged the Florida legislature to act on the vagueness of the law in order to create something “understandable to the parents who will rely on them” although it further acknowledged that “the answer will probably satisfy no one completely.”102 Despite the call to action by the St. Petersburg Times, the laws on Florida’s spiritual healing policy remained unchanged throughout the 1990s.103

Ultimately, the Hermanson case in Florida overturned the convictions of Bill and

Christine Hermanson, two Christian Science parents, who were blamed for choosing spiritual healing over traditional medical care. However, the court proceedings did not vindicate their actions. Instead, the final decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Hermanson v. State focused on the laws at hand and not on the greater religious questions that were attributed to the case.

After looking extensively at the Florida state statutes, the Supreme Court found that they were not clear, and thus not acceptable. By putting “fair notice” for its citizens first, the Florida Supreme

Court refused to allow individuals such as the Hermansons to be prosecuted when the laws on the books were not sufficiently able to show when actions moved from legal to illegal.

101 Ibid. 776. 102 “Drawing a Line on Child Neglect,” St. Petersburg Times, July 13, 1992. 103 Jean Johnson, “Speaker’s Focus is Spirituality and the Bible,” St. Petersburg Times, January 30, 1999. 56 The relationships between the Hermanson case and California’s Walker case was directly created once the Second District Court of Florida used Walker v. Superior Court as a precedent in making its decision. Decided a few years before the end of the Hermanson case, the Walker case determined that the religious exemption for parental spiritual healing practices applied only to child neglect statutes, and not other criminal charges. Such a decision allowed criminal prosecution of Christian Science parents continue in the State of California. Noting the similarities between the Walker and Hermanson cases, the lower court decisions in Florida aimed to fall in line with the decision made by the California Supreme Court. Yet, the high court of

Florida disagreed. After considering the confusion that resulted from applying the state’s religious exemption law, the Florida Supreme Court stated that Christian Science parents such as the Hermansons could not fairly be prosecuted under the state’s laws due to the lack of fair warning. Contrary to the opinion in California, a separate legal opinion and response was established in the State of Florida. The varying decisions of the two state courts underscored the array of difficulties that came with having a consistent legal response to the deaths of children treated by spiritual healing.

Despite the gray-area nature of the battle between children’s welfare and parental religious practices, the Florida Supreme Court strongly encouraged a legislative remedy, holding that it was the state legislature’s job to sift through the facts and determine a policy that could work in such a tricky area, not the court system of Florida. Yet, the Florida legislature’s inability to change the statutes despite direction from the Supreme Court spoke volumes of just how difficult the situation at hand was. The conflict between Christian Scientists’ religious freedom and a state desire to protect the welfare of children was neither helped nor hurt by the trials that the Hermansons faced. Instead, the conflict showcased how complex the legal situation was.

57

Chapter 4

The Twitchells and Procedural Concerns in Massachusetts

In 1990, the Church of Christ, Scientist, once again faced a challenge to its religious beliefs in a state court, as its spiritual healing practices were being scrutinized as being deathly harmful to children who were not given medical treatment. Most notably, now its troubles were occurring in the very place where the religion first began: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The death of the young Robyn Twitchell and the subsequent trial of his parents, David and

Ginger Twitchell, sparked a unique case in Suffolk County, literally in the shadow of the

Christian Science Mother Church located in Boston. Just like the many other cases that brought

Christian Science spiritual healing practices to court, the trial proceeded through a variety of stages. Initially, an attempt to totally dismiss the case failed, based on a somewhat relevant religious exemption law. When a jury later judged the case, the Twitchells were found guilty of manslaughter. A jury of the Twitchells’ peers determined that the welfare of a child was more important than parents following their religious practices.

The case took an interesting turn when, in 1993, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts overturned the conviction and remanded the case back to the lower courts based on procedural concerns in the decision of Commonwealth v. Twitchell. Though exonerating the Twitchells from criminal punishment on the basis of due process concerns, the Court was explicit in not condoning the practices of Christian Science parents who elected to use spiritual healing in lieu of conventional medical care. According to Massachusetts’s highest court, a jury could permissibly convict parents for manslaughter for not treating a child with medicine, even if they used religious healings in its place. However, the jury’s decision could not stand because important information had been withheld from its consideration. Yet, the decision of the state’s Supreme 58 Court took only one step in limiting the validity of spiritual healing in the eyes of state government. The Twitchells’ ordeal with the Massachusetts judicial system represented a turning point in government-religion interaction when the welfare of children was the concern, with state protection of children beginning to supersede the religious practices of parents.

On the evening of April 3, 1986, Robyn Twitchell, a two-and-a-half-year-old boy from

Boston, Massachusetts, began crying, screaming, and then vomiting after a light supper.

Following the prayer healing beliefs of the Christian Science religion, his parents called upon

Christian Science professionals to aid in the prayer healing efforts for Robyn. A Christian Science nurse by the name of Linda Blaisdell helped to feed and bathe Robyn throughout his illness, all the while taking notes on Robyn’s condition on her nursing charts. Along with calling on a

Christian Science nurse, the Twitchells also brought in the help of Nancy Calkins, a Christian

Science practitioner, who visited Robyn three times over the next five days to lead prayer-healing rituals.

Robyn’s symptoms continued in various waves over the next few days, with him vomiting a brown, foul-smelling substance at his worst moments, but being able to be playful and active at his best. By April 8, 1986, Robyn was experiencing spasms, and eventually his eyes rolled up into his head and he lost consciousness. Robyn passed away that April evening in his father’s arms. Witnessing Robyn’s rapid decline in health, Calkins applied her expertise in

Christian Science spiritual healing by leading several minutes of prayer for Robyn’s recovery, a common practice among Christian Science practitioners. Eventually, the Twitchells called paramedics to their home; but by the time they arrived, Robyn was beyond help. The paramedics believed that the young boy had been dead for at least an hour, stating that “cold is cold.” Medical doctors later determined that Robyn’s passing was the result of peritonitis caused by a bowel obstruction. 59 Upon learning about the death of Robyn Twitchell after an autopsy report, the District

Attorney’s Office of Suffolk County moved forward with charging the Twitchells with manslaughter. After being charged by the district attorney, David and Ginger Twitchell declined a variety of interviews surrounding the death of Robyn, but their defense team was more than willing to speak on their behalf. Speaking for her clients, attorney Rikki Klieman stated that they were “devastated, confused, depressed, just as any person who lost a child would be.”104

Furthermore, Klieman argued that the Twitchells were freely practicing their religion, as all

Americans were allowed under the First Amendment. Klieman added “the fact that the state is trying to charge them with homicide is just outrageous.”105 To protect her clients’ religious freedom to utilize spiritual healing in treating their child, Klieman and the rest of the defense team for the Twitchells pointed to a religious exemption written into the Massachusetts state law when it came to child treatment.

The law in question was a 1971 statute that recognized spiritual healing as an alternative to modern medicine. The statute was passed in response to the involuntary manslaughter conviction of a Christian Science mother in 1967. The law explicitly disallowed the state from deeming a child neglected if the only treatment offered to the child was spiritual healing.

However, the defense’s use of the exemption ran into trouble, because the law dealt with child neglect and not manslaughter, which is what David and Ginger Twitchell were charged with.

When the amendment to Massachusetts state law was being debated to recognize spiritual healing as viable treatment for children, Dr. J. Buroughs Stokes, the representative from the

“Committee on Publication for The First Church of Christ, Scientist,” made a statement to a legislative committee in February of 1971. His statement claimed that Christian Scientists were

“seeking legal protection from the possibility of being considered neglectful by any individual or

104 Peter Johnson and John Larrabee, “Key Test of Faith Healing; Christian Scientist Parents’ ‘Painful’ Choices; State Takes on Power of Prayer,” USA Today, May 2, 1988. 105 Ibid. 60 authority who may misunderstand our methods.” Furthermore, with the passage of the amendment, Stokes added that it would “make it clear that Christian Scientists, in providing their children with Christian Science treatment and care, are not violating this law,” referring to the neglect law to be amended.106

Upon passage of the amendment later in 1971, the amendment was added to

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 273, Section 1, and read, “A child shall not be deemed to be neglected or lack proper physical care for the sole reason that he is being provided remedial treatment by spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof.”107 Using the child neglect statute as a basis, defense attorney Rikki Klieman filed a motion to dismiss the charges brought against David and Ginger Twitchell. The motion was denied, and the manslaughter charges were allowed to continue. Should the manslaughter charge lead to conviction, both David and Ginger Twitchell would face a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison and a $1,000 fine.108

The site of the Twitchell proceedings in Massachusetts was significant, as the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the demographic birthplace and headquarters of the

Christian Science Church. When asked about the case, local lawyers treaded carefully in their remarks. Dave Rodman, a spokesman for the District Attorney, only called the Twitchell case “an interesting case” and offered little more commentary. Meanwhile, Newman Flanagan, a third- term prosecutor, did not release a comment at all, although in the past he had mentioned that the

Church of Christ, Scientist, was “a religion that is well thought of.” Avoiding significant remarks about the Christian Science religion suggested the influence that the Church wielded in

Massachusetts. At the time, the Church published the Christian Science Monitor and broadcast

106 Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 617 NE 2d 609 (Mass. 1993), 131. 107 Ibid. 108 “Trial of Christian Scientists In Son’s Death Goes to Jury,” New York Times, July 3, 1990. 61 both a local television station and daily radio show, while employing around 1,500 people in its twenty-six-story Boston headquarters.109

Speaking on behalf of the Church of Christ, Scientist, Nathan Talbot stated, “No one would think of prosecuting grief-stricken parents in the hundreds of sad instances where children have died under conventional medicine. What is being put on trial here is not the action of individual parents but a public policy, a healing practice, a way of life.”110 Talbot emphasized that

Christian Scientists were not seeking to break laws and “have never asked for the right to neglect children.” Instead, according to Talbot, parents “asked for the right to practice spiritual healing.”

He added, “that for us is what the free exercise of religion is all about.”111

Four years after the death of Robyn, the trial of David and Ginger Twitchell began in the spring of 1990 and was a two-month proceeding. By then, the Twitchell family had moved from

Boston, Massachusetts, to Brentwood, New York, where David had begun work as an administrator for a local Christian Science nursing home.112 Despite the passing of Robyn years before, the Twitchells were still busy caring for their three other children, Jeremey, Brian, and

Elias, with Brian and Elias having been born after the death of Robyn.113 The case began in the court of Judge Sandra Hamlin, with a jury deciding on the conviction of the Twitchells for manslaughter. Due to the Twitchells being charged with manslaughter, and not child abuse, Judge

Hamlin did not allow mention of the spiritual exemption law for child abuse to be brought as a legal principle for the jury to consider when deciding the case.114 Instead, a variety of other issues became relevant.

109 Johnson and Larrabee, “Key Test of Faith Healing.” 110 Ibid. 111 “Trial of Christian Scientists.” 112 Ibid. 113 Doris Sue Wong, “Christian Science Parents Put On Probation,” Boston Globe, July 7, 1990. 114 Shelli Dawn Robinson, “Commonwealth v. Twitchell: Who Owns the Child?,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 7 (1991): 415. 62 One of the central issues that helped to draw out the trial was a focus on what Robyn’s medical condition was like throughout his five-day illness. The prosecution and defense presented radically different pictures of Robyn’s condition prior to his death. In the eyes of the prosecution, Robyn Twitchell must have died an agonizing death. Dr. William Hardy Hendren, the chief of pediatric surgery at Children’s Hospital in Boston, believed that Robyn’s death had come suddenly or that the child had never been on the road to recovery once his symptoms became apparent. Speaking with his knowledge of bowl obstructions, Hendren claimed that such a medical condition brought excruciating pain. Hendren doubted the assertion by the Twitchells that Robyn had been active and happy during any point of his bowel obstruction, stating, “In my experience, that would be totally impossible.” He believed such statements were “pure fantasy.”115

Further backing Hendren’s assumptions, two neighbors of the Twitchells, Robert and

Judi Delaney, testified about their own experiences with Robyn’s illness, as they could hear

Robyn crying during his illness from their own home. Robert said that “the crying, the moaning and groaning, were absolutely unbearable,” while his wife said that the crying was so unbearable and continuous that she had to shut the windows in their house, because she “couldn’t stand hearing [Robyn’s screams] anymore.”116 In contrast to the assertions of the prosecution, the

Twitchells claimed that Robyn seemed to be getting better, which was the result of a “good healing” in the eyes of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Both parents described him playing with the family cat as a sign of rebounding from his illness.117 David Twitchell testified and claimed that Robyn’s condition did not seem life threatening to him; if it had, he would have taken him to a hospital.

115 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 123. 116 Doris Sue Wong, “Neighbor Calls Twitchell Son’s Cries ‘Unbearable,’” Boston Globe, May 24, 1990. 117 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 122. 63 Not relying on David Twitchell’s account alone, the defense brought other witnesses to describe their views on the state of Robyn’s health. Both Nancy Calkins and Linda Blaisdell, who aided Robyn as the Christian Science practitioner and nurse, respectively, testified that Robyn’s condition did not seem dangerously severe throughout their time with him. Calkins claimed that

Robyn was not feverish, vomiting, or in any noticeable pain when she visited him. Likewise,

Blaisdell claimed that when she cared for Robyn on the day before his death, he was playful, alert, and did not appear gravely ill. However, Blaisdell did acknowledge that she noted Robyn was “listless at times, rejecting all food, moaning in pain,” and “vomiting” according to the notes on her nursing chart.118 Providing their own accounts of the state of Robyn’s health, downstairs neighbors to the Twitchells, Stephen and Lisa Guarracino, testified that they had heard no moans or screaming from the child, which countered the prosecution’s witness accounts.119 Ultimately, the prosecution and defense painted very different pictures of how Robyn was prior to the time of his death.

Along with debating the physical condition of Robyn, the prosecution brought up the potential help that traditional medical treatment could have given Robyn. According to Hendren,

Robyn’s bowel had been twisted, and over the course of several days, his intestines perforated.

Hendren claimed that Robyn’s condition demonstrated clear and obvious symptoms of a bowel obstruction, including cramps, fecal vomiting, and dehydration, and added that a capable physician would have been able to diagnose Robyn’s condition in a brief telephone conversation with one of Robyn’s parents. After such a diagnosis, Hendren surmised that a corrective surgery would have likely saved Robyn’s life, as the success rate for such procedures was “nearly 100 percent.”120

118 “Trial of Christian Scientists.” 119 Lawrence J. Goodrich, “Prosecution Cross-Examines David Twitchell on Care Chose for Son Who Died,” Christian Science Monitor, June 11, 1990. 120 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 123. 64 Yet, the defense painted a picture of the Twitchells as good, loving parents who had the best interests of their son at heart. The Twitchells’ attorney stated that her clients had done everything that they could have to help their son, while maintaining the practices of their religion.

Klieman asserted that the Twitchells truly believed in the power of spiritual healing, and so they

“did everything that they thought was humanly possible in a method of healing that they thought was right, that they believed was proven correct and that they had seen work for three generations in their families.” To properly explain such religious beliefs in the courtroom, David Twitchell took the stand to discuss how his beliefs had an impact on the healing and eventual death from his son. Though controversial, such testimony was permitted by Judge Sandra Hamlin as a way to determine the Twitchells’ motives for relying on spiritual treatments and was not an attempt to

“litigate anyone’s religion.”

Throughout his testimony, David Twitchell explained his thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics for the jury, which did not fall far from the official beliefs of the Christian

Science Church. When describing his son’s illness, he stated, “Pain has no right to exist because

God did not authorize it.” On a personal note, he added, “When I feel pain, I deny its right to be there. If I believe God’s power is greater than it, it will be healed.” David Twitchell further testified that he aimed to follow his religion’s doctrine when treating his child, believing it to be the best way to heal. Furthermore, Twitchell believe that for Robyn, the healing was working.

Instead of acknowledging medical treatment as the missing piece that could have healed Robyn,

Twitchell instead hinted that his own closeness with God was to blame, saying, “I felt if I was closer to God and closer to Christ Jesus’ footsteps as we always try to be, Christ Jesus wouldn’t have lost this child, and I don’t think I would have.” Such a statement referred to the traditional belief that children were pure and sinless, and that Twitchell’s own sins led to the illness and later death of his supposedly innocent child. 65 During cross-examination, prosecutor John Kiernan peppered David Twitchell with questions about his beliefs on medical care. Kiernan brought up issues of Ginger Twitchell turning to midwives and doctors during childbirth, David Twitchell going to the dentist, and

Ginger Twitchell utilizing glasses. Kiernan argued that such situations were all examples of the couple using medical care for themselves, but denying it for their son Robyn. Twitchell responded to such accusations in two different ways. Regarding childbirth, he stated that his wife utilized outside care, as they believed they had to do so by law. For his own dental visits, David

Twitchell said he had only visited the dentists after spiritual healing did not work for months.121

Such a statement by David Twitchell echoed his belief that if he truly believed spiritual healing was not working for Robyn, he would have turned to traditional medical care. In his own words,

David Twitchell stated, “If medicine could have saved him, I wish I had turned to it.”122

Though taking the time to explain the religious implications and factors of the case, the defense did not limit itself solely to religious evidence. In fact, to bolster the Twitchells’ decision to follow their religiously based faith healing, Klieman brought forth a pediatric radiologist to counter the medical claims of Hendren. The radiologist testified that a rare birth defect caused

Robyn’s bowel obstruction, and doctors would thus have had a difficult time detecting it, casting doubt on the supposed assuredness of healing Robyn through conventional medicine.123 In its attempts to win the jury over, the defense made sure to utilize both spiritual and medical evidence to combat the claims of the prosecution.

When closing, the prosecution did not rest. To push the jury to convict, Kiernan downplayed the possibility that the Twitchells were loving, parents. Referring to Robyn as a helpless “little child,” Kiernan claimed that he “was sacrificed for his own parents’ intellectual

121 Goodrich, “Prosecution Cross-Examines David Twitchell.” 122 “Trial of Christian Scientists.” 123 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 124. 66 purity,” while adding that Robyn “could have been saved by a telephone call.”124 He continued to assert that the Twitchells were “indifferent” to the “natural consequences of their child being desperately ill.” Kiernan pointed to medical experts and their opinions to claim that the

Twitchells must have known that the spiritual healing treatments were not working, as Robyn had shown the “signs and symptoms of a dying baby.”125 As the decision was left in the jury’s hands, the prosecution pushed for a clear legal standard for the care of all children to be established through the outcome of the Twitchell case, as they believed that Robyn’s death was the result of intended neglect.

The jury of twelve people, including eight women and four men, did not take their decision in the Twitchell case lightly. The group deliberated for fourteen hours over the period of three days, and requested four different times to hear the legal definition of “wanton or reckless behavior,” which was a necessary element for a manslaughter conviction.126 Eventually, the jury reached its decision. David and Ginger Twitchell were found guilty of manslaughter for treating

Robyn with spiritual healing only instead of turning to conventional medical treatments. Their conviction included ten years’ probation and the requirement that they get regular medical checkups for their three other children during their probationary period. If the Twitchells violated the conditions of their probation, they would be threatened with up to twenty years in prison.127

Though the Twitchells remained tight-lipped with the press throughout the proceedings of the court, upon hearing the final verdict, David Twitchell stated, “This has been a prosecution against our faith.”128 Nathan Talbot, the chairman for the Church of Christ, Scientist’s committee on public relations, agreed. In his critical opinion of the ruling, he claimed that the state

124 “Trial of Christian Scientists.” 125 Peters, When Prayer Fails, 123. 126 “Christian Science Couple Facing Jail in Son’s Death as Fury Grows,” Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, July 5, 1990. 127 Doris Sue Wong, “Christian Science Parents Put On Probation,” Boston Globe, July 7, 1990. 128 “Christian Science Couple Facing Jail.” 67 prosecutors and courts were “trying to prosecute out of existence this method of treatment.”129

Speaking specifically about the conditions of the probationary period requiring medical care,

Talbot continued to describe the decision as unfair. He called the probation “the state’s effort to re-educate Christian Scientists into its own view of what health care should be, regardless of how effective Christian Science healing is.” David Twitchell, continuing his first conversations with the press, acknowledged that he and his wife would obey the conditions of their probation; however, he believed that the regular medical checkups were “completely unwarranted” and further criticized them as vague. “I’m having trouble figuring out whose judgment is going to decide exactly when a problem is serious and not just a cold,” he openly questioned, while adding, “aside from that, we will try our best to obey the instructions.” Additional reactions spoke to the larger constitutional issues. Theodore E. Dinsmoor, the chief lawyer from the Christian

Science Church from the Gaston & Snow law firm in Boston, called the case “nothing short of a gross intrusion on the First Amendment” and “an unmitigated attempt to undermine the Christian

Science way of life.”130

In contrast, the prosecution was happy with the outcome of the case, especially the sanctions imposed against the Twitchells. The prosecutors claimed that the medical requirements for the other Twitchell children addressed their primary concern, as they were focused on the future safety of children. District Attorney Newman Flanagan believed that all conditions of the probation sentence were justified if it meant protecting the Twitchells’ other children.

Specifically, Flanagan pointed to his belief that Ginger Twitchell had “indicated in the past that she would do the same thing if one of their other children” were in a similar condition that Robyn was in before he died.131 After the conviction, Kiernan, the prosecutor, spoke broadly of the legal impact of the case, and downplayed the religious implications, saying that the prosecution “was a

129 Margolick, “In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science.” 130 Ibid. 131 Wong, “Christian Science Parents Put On Probation.” 68 direct response to the failure to provide medical care for the child. What the case proved is the right to believe is absolute – the right to practice is not.”132 Kiernan further stated, “The message has been sent. Every parent of whatever religious belief or persuasion is obligated to include medical care in taking care of his or her child.”133

The defense disagreed so strongly with the conviction of the court that it immediately began the appeals process, beginning with a stay of sentence. On July 6, 1990, after an hour-long hearing, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Sandra Hamlin denied David and Ginger Twitchell’s request for a stay of sentence pending an appeal of their conviction.134 Though the stay of sentence was denied, lawyers for the Twitchells continued to appeal the case on a variety of different bases. One specific point was that Judge Hamlin had given the jury false instructions because jurors were permitted no explanation of the spiritual exemption. In fact, the Supreme

Court of Massachusetts had overturned four murder convictions in the three years prior to the

Twitchell case, and all involved Hamlin. According to the Supreme Court, Hamlin had given the juries false instructions on how to read evidence in the cases, thus leading to unfair decisions by the jury that necessitated the decisions to be overturned.135 With such a history, the defense believed it was justified in moving forward with appeals proceedings, and the Supreme Judicial

Court of Massachusetts heard the case of David and Ginger Twitchell on May 4, 1993.

The majority opinion of the Court, written by Justice Herbert P. Wilkins, laid out a variety of issues brought up by the case, including the initial jury’s decision to convict the couple of manslaughter, as well as the evidence about the Twitchells’ knowledge of their legal duties as parents. At the beginning of the opinion, Justice Wilkins stated that the jury in the Twitchells’ case was warranted in its decision: Robyn Twitchell had shown enough distress that his parents

132 “Christian Science Couple Facing Jail.” 133 Margolick, “In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science.” 134 Wong, “Christian Science Parents Put On Probation.” 135 Lawrence J. Goodrich, “Appeals Process Gets Under Way In Twitchell Manslaughter Case As Defense Seeks Stay of Sentence,” Christian Science Monitor, July 9, 1990. 69 could be found wanton or reckless for not providing their son with medical care. Furthermore,

Justice Wilkins agreed “parents have a duty to seek medical attention” for sickly children as distressed as Robyn, and that if their response was deemed wanton or reckless, they could not avoid prosecution for manslaughter based on the state law’s spiritual treatment provision. Yet, the

Court further decided that “special circumstances” within the case could also justify a jury finding that David and Ginger Twitchell reasonably thought that their actions in treating Robyn with prayer would not result in criminal prosecution. Because the jury was not allowed to be present this evidence, the Court ruled that there was “a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.” The

Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgments.136

The decision that the Twitchells reasonably believed that their spiritual treatments for

Robyn would bar them from criminal prosecution was based in their claim that they were misled by an opinion of the Massachusetts Attorney General. The Twitchells claimed that they became entrapped in a manslaughter conviction for “exercising a privilege which the State clearly had told [them] was available,” thus violating their due process right to fair warning. While Justice

Wilkins expressed doubts that the Twitchells directly heard an opinion of the Attorney General, the conflict instead came from the Twitchells reading a Christian Science publication called

“Legal Rights and Obligations of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts.” Part of the publication succinctly quotes G.L.c. 273 § 1, and then added a portion of the Attorney General’s 1975 opinion regarding the state’s spiritual healing amendment, stating that state law “expressly precludes imposition of criminal liability as a negligent parent for failure to provide medical care because of religious beliefs.”137

According to Justice Wilkins, the Attorney General’s opinion may have seemed to explain that parents could not be persecuted in any way for foregoing medical care and instead

136 Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 617 NE 2d 609 (Mass. 1993), 117. 137 Ibid. 127. 70 utilizing spiritual healing for a child, as criminal liability was not addressed at all. Coupled with a direct quote about child neglect from Massachusetts state law, the Court believed that a reasonable person could have expected to be fully abiding by the law when treating a child with spiritual healing, regardless of the outcome. Justice Wilkins asserted that the situation did not reveal the Twitchells as ignorant; in fact, he claimed that a jury could have determined that the

Twitchells actively sought to learn the laws, and yet the couple was misled through circumstances out of their control. The information about the pamphlet and the Twitchells’ due process concerns was used by the defense during the Twitchells’ manslaughter case, and the Court believed that such circumstances should have been given consideration in court in order to determine whether or not the Twitchells had their appropriate due process. The Court did not fault the judge for excluding such evidence.

Despite overturning the convictions of David and Ginger Twitchell, the Court did take the opportunity in its majority opinion to assert its opinion of the spiritual treatment provision in state law. The Court outright rejected the defense’s claim that the spiritual treatment provision in

Massachusetts General Law would bar the Twitchells, or any Christian Science parents, from a manslaughter prosecution. Justice Wilkins stated on behalf of the Court that the spiritual treatment provision applied solely to issues of child neglect, as the Court deemed that there was

“no history to § 1 that suggests that the spiritual treatment provision carries any message beyond

§ 1 itself.” As evidence to the Court’s claim, Justice Wilkins pointed to historical examples. He claimed that the name of the law that created the amendment made no mention of changing any law besides child neglect, and that in his expert statement supporting passage of the amendment,

Dr. J. Buroughs Stokes claimed that Christian Science spiritual treatments should not have been considered neglect, while mentioning nothing else about other crimes or offenses. Therefore, the

Court concluded that the spiritual treatment provision in question only applied to protecting 71 parents from charges of neglect, not other crimes. The state prosecutors decision to pursue manslaughter charges and have a jury try the Twitchells, was legal under the eyes of the law.

The final decision of the Court officially remanded the case to the lower courts for a new trial; but the decision for another trial was placed in the hands of the district attorney. The Court decreed that the district attorney could try again for a prosecution if he believed “a prosecution is necessary in the interests of justice.” After learning of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme

Judicial Court to overturn the lower court’s conviction, the prosecution did not take further action against the Twitchells, and instead claimed some level of victory. Robert Gittens, the Assistant

Suffolk County District Attorney, claimed, “The law is now clear: Parents cannot sacrifice the lives of their children in the name of religious freedom.”138 Gittens was referring to the fact that the Twitchells’ conviction was overturned on procedural grounds, not the Twitchells’ claim of religious freedom. On the other hand, an attorney for the Twitchells, Stephen Lyons, simply stated that he was “absolutely delighted” by the overturning of the conviction.139

For Christian Scientists throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the overturning of the Twitchells’ conviction was far from the end of the state battle of recognizing spiritual healing alongside medical treatment. At the end of the year that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Twitchells’ appeal, the state legislature took action against spiritual healing after all of the publicity that the Twitchell case had brought the issue. After being introduced into the Massachusetts State Legislature in 1988, a law that declared child abuse a felony was signed on December 28, 1993, by Governor William Weld. Notably, the law also abolished spiritual healing as an exception to the state child neglect statute. Though Weld, a Republican, claimed to have tried to maintain the spiritual healing exemption to the bill, he still signed the bill into law

138 Associated Press, “Court Overturns Conviction of Christian Science Couple,” Los Angeles Times, August 12, 1993. 139 Ibid. 72 after the Democrat-controlled state legislature brought it to his desk.140 While the newly passed law had little relevance in the Twitchells’ case, as they had been prosecuted under manslaughter charges and not child neglect, such legislative action confirmed the significance that the Twitchell case had in bringing attention to laws involving religious exemptions in Massachusetts.

As expected, the Church of Christ, Scientist, deemed the law as unfavorable to its religion. While the bill was still in the legislature, the Church declared in a statement that the law appeared designed “to make parents afraid of having the responsibility of caring for their children and have the state make their decisions for them.”141 After the bill was passed and became law,

Warren Silvernail, a spokesman for the Church, decried the law and defended keeping the exception for spiritual healing on the books. Specifically, Silvernail spoke to the recent attention that the Twitchell case had received, stating, “Of the 6,000 children that were lost in the commonwealth during the 1980s, Robyn Twitchell was the only child from a Christian Science family. Christian Scientists wonder why the media and Legislature is focusing so much attention on trying to outlaw a healing practice for children that has such a good healing record.”142 Though unfavorable to the Church of Christ, Scientist, the new child neglect statute became law of the land in the Massachusetts.

The story of the Twitchells in Massachusetts echoed certain aspects of the Walker and

Hermanson cases. First, the state courts made sure not to acknowledge First Amendment implications in the cases. Instead, the Massachusetts courts viewed the issue at hand as whether or not the Twitchells had violated criminal law. Through being forced to look directly at the state laws, the religious exemption law in Massachusetts faced the same challenges as the other exemptions: was spiritual healing exempted only from charges of child neglect, or did it protect

140 George Graham, “Child Abuse Law Signed – Religious Exemptions Banned,” Union-News, December 29, 1993. 141 “Child Abuse Bill Deletes the ‘Twitchell Defense’,” Worchester Telegram & Gazette, November 17, 1993. 142 Graham, “Child Abuse Law Signed.” 73 parents from all criminal charges? Essentially, Massachusetts agreed with the thinking in

California’s Walker case. The state viewed spiritual healing as only being protected to a limited extent from child neglect prosecutions, not other or more serious crimes.

Massachusetts did acknowledge that, procedurally, the Twitchells’ case was not handled soundly. With the restriction of evidence that a jury had to consider, a trial judge inadvertently revealed the confusion in religious exemption laws and the difficulty in ensuring fair trials when the exemptions were involved at all. If the laws had been completely clear, the judge would have been able to determine whether or not the evidence was viable. In a way, the procedural confusion had a similar basis to the concerns of the Florida Supreme Court in the Hermanson case. Though the Hermansons’ convictions were overturned due to a lack of clarity in the wording of state laws, the jumbled procedure in the Twitchell case still gave witness to a general inability to follow policy and procedure when it came to religious exemptions.

Throughout the years of the trial and other proceedings, the Twitchell case had a great impact on a variety of entities. David and Ginger Twitchell, through being found guilty and then having their conviction overturned, were vindicated in one sense, and yet condemned in another.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court made the decision that parents could, in fact, be prosecuted for not providing their children conventional medical care, even if they utilized spiritual healing in its place. Thus, the religious exemption only extended to child neglect, and was unable to render parent immune from other crimes such as manslaughter. The Twitchell case and its publicity began to spur action in other parts of the state government, which began to move in that direction established by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. With the state legislature’s successful motions to eliminate religious exemptions for neglect in the state statutes, the impact of the Twitchell case was clear: Massachusetts, the state where Christian Science first took root and grew as a religion, was beginning to look at the Church of Christ, Scientist, more critically. Ultimately, the 74 Commonwealth of Massachusetts had decided that the medical welfare of children was more important in the state than the free practice of religion. 75

Conclusion: State Desire, Legal Inability

In the 1980s, the three state-level cases of Walker v. Superior Court in California,

Hermanson v. State in Florida, and Commonwealth v. Twitchell in Massachusetts, all involving children’s deaths, pitted Christian Science spiritual healing against state child welfare laws. A variety of issues converged in the cases, including religious rights, parental rights, acceptance of medicine, and what was seen as a state duty to protect the welfare of children. Ultimately, the courts’ decisions illustrated that such complex issues were not properly handled by existing religious exemption laws, and so states were unable to effectively regulate spiritual healing practices when it came to children welfare.

The cases occurred during a time in the United States when the Church of Christ,

Scientist, had maintained a century-long practice of spiritual healing to treat illnesses. When it came to treating their children, some Christian Scientists believed that their practices were legally protected under religious exemptions in a variety of states by the 1980s. The religious exemptions were based on the right to religious practice offered by the First Amendment. Yet, in a movement that symbolized a changing legal attitude toward allowing the religion of a parent to decide the health of a child, state prosecutors decided to purse criminal charges against Christian Science parents when the practice of spiritual healing failed to save children from death. The actions of the prosecutors represented a change in the attitude of state legal systems: when it came to the life of a child, religion was no longer an acceptable reason for bringing harm to a child. Treating a child with conventional medicine, not a religious alternative, was becoming more accepted as the proper way to ensure the welfare of children in the eyes of state law.

When Christian Science children died after faith healing failed to cure them, such situations offered the opportunity for states to express their principles through legal proceedings 76 and criminal charges. Christian Scientists were targets of the prosecutors due to public attention brought to their religious practices by advocates like Rita Swan. Also, the Church of Christ,

Scientist, was a well-established and familiar entity due to the very public and consistent nature of the Church’s defense of spiritual healing. Most importantly, though, Christian Scientists found themselves being prosecuted because child deaths following spiritual healing occurred at a time when state prosecutors were ready to take the cases on. Once brought to the attention of state authorities, prosecutors proceeded with criminal charges in line with their belief that child protection superseded any religious belief.

A main issue in each of the cases was the right of parents to treat their child using the prayer-healing tenets of Christian Science. As followers of an established religion in the United

States, the prosecuted Christian Science parents claimed First Amendment protection for their religious exercise. However, only a small subset of First Amendment rights was actually at stake: cases where religion, parental rights, and state interest in child welfare converged with free exercise. Though the First Amendment’s history had involved cases where such issues intersected in the past, the life of a child was never before at stake. Furthermore, as the cases worked their way through the respective state court systems, the First Amendment implications of the cases did not emerge as strong considerations. From the beginning, prosecutors asserted that the cases were not about religious freedom, but were instead about well-established laws about children’s welfare that they believed Christian Science parents had violated. The state courts agreed with the prosecutors’ line of argument. Outside of acknowledging that the First Amendment did not automatically mean unlimited protection for all religious beliefs, judges shied away from making the cases about the First Amendment. Instead, they focused on the specific legal language in state laws, especially the religious exemptions that Christian Scientists claimed permissible immunity from prosecution for the tragic deaths of Christian Science children. 77 With the First Amendment arguments not gaining traction in the state courts, the cases turned to another debate altogether. That debate centered on the due process rights of Christian

Science parents. The major aspect of due process in question was whether or not the Christian

Science parents had “fair warning” that their decision to maintain spiritual healing could result in criminal charges. Through the cases’ journeys through state legal systems, courtrooms had a difficult time grappling with the true meaning and purpose behind the religious exemption laws in question. Did the exemption laws immunize Christian Science parents from prosecution? Did the exemption laws only apply to charges related to child neglect and not apply to charges related to child death? The questions on the vagueness of the religious exemptions began in the lower courts, so when the cases were reviewed, the situation created yet another issue for each state’s highest court to decide. If judges were having a difficult time understanding which actions were criminal, how could ordinary citizens, such as Christian Science parents, have fair warning, and thus due process, on whether their actions were criminal or not?

Ultimately, each state came to a different conclusion regarding the central issue of due process and whether the parents the cases had fair warning. Though parents such as Laurie

Walker and the Hermansons were not aware of the confusing laws before they were charged, their defense attorneys seized on the vagueness of the laws to show a problem with how prosecutors went about charging Christian Science parents. In its Walker v. Superior Court decision, the

California Supreme Court established that Laurie Walker did have due process throughout her case. The decision was based on the Court’s determination that the state’s religious exemption stopped at child neglect and any charges related to an actual child’s death opened up new charges such as manslaughter, for which Laurie Walker was eventually prosecuted. Yet, in Florida, the state’s Supreme Court disagreed with the final decision in the Walker case. Florida’s Hermanson v. State case determined that due process for the Hermansons had, in fact, been violated as the religious exemption laws were unfairly vague, and the couple could not be prosecuted under one 78 statute and yet completely immune from prosecution under another similar statute. The two different conclusions decided by states with very similar religious exemption laws highlighted the various ways that the exemptions could be read, further showing the unclear nature of religious exemption laws at the time.

In Commonwealth v. Twitchell, the determination of the state’s Supreme Court was procedurally different from the previous cases still. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, similar to

California’s Walker decision, determined that the Twitchells could be prosecuted for a crime like manslaughter because the state’s religious exemption only covered child neglect. However, the

Massachusetts Supreme Court took issue with a legal procedure during the case that eliminated from evidence a legal information pamphlet that the Twitchells claimed caused them to believe that they were acting in accordance with the law when treating their son. Though agreeing that the Twitchells could not claim innocence under the religious exemption statute, the Court determined that the Twitchells should have been permitted to explain in court that they believed they were exempt when caring for their child, and the jury had a duty to hear such information when making its decision. Thus, the due process concern in the Twitchell case went beyond the court deciding the application of an exemption law, as previous knowledge of the exemption even affected the evidence available in the trial.

These three cases that tried Christian Science parents for the deaths of their children involved a variety of intricate legal procedures and laws. Significantly, though, the three cases demonstrate that a solid and fair process for trying Christian Science parents was not even established, let alone fair and uniform nationwide. The problems came from the inherent difficulty in legislating religious exemptions, especially when a potential side effect of the exemptions could be the deaths of children. After challenges from prosecutors who aimed to separate religion from children welfare, all three courts dealt with claims that the religious exemption laws were vague and confusing, and so due process became the primary issue with 79 which the state courts grappled. Thus, the issue of religious freedom was not made a priority when there was so much time and effort that went into just making sure that the Christian Science parents were being tried fairly in the first place. The state-level cases highlighted how a variety of courts across the country could identify the same issues with similar laws, and yet still have their own solutions to addressing the concerns, which spoke to the vague, conflicting, and confusing nature of the religious exemptions. The cases showed that while Christian Scientists were concerned for their right to practice spiritual healing and state prosecutors were concerned about children’s welfare, the laws as then written were incapable of offering a clear and concrete nationwide solution either way.

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Court Cases

Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 617 NE 2d 609 (Mass. 1993).

Hermanson v. State, 570 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992).

People v. Arnold, 426 P. 2d 515 (Cal. 1967).

Walker v. Superior Court, 763 P. 2d 852 (Cal. 1988).

Primary Sources

Associated Press. “‘60 Minutes’ Forces Change in Christian Scientists’ Trial.” Orlando Sentinel, December 7, 1988.

Associated Press. “Court Overturns Conviction of Christian Science Couple.” Los Angeles Times, August 12, 1993.

Associated Press. “Diabetic Girl, 7, Dies Untreated.” Miami Herald, November 14, 1986.

Branch, Karen. “Court Overturns Parents’ Convictions in Girl’s Death,” Miami Herald, July 3, 1992.

“Child Abuse Bill Deletes the ‘Twitchell Defense’.” Worchester Telegram & Gazette, November 17, 1993.

“Christian Science Couple Facing Jail in Son’s Death as Fury Grows.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 5, 1990.

Corbett, Jim. “‘Science’ vs. Medical Debate.” Lodi-News Sentinel, July 7, 1990.

Gibeaut, John. “Christian Scientists Lose Appeal - Court Rules Religion Not a Murder Defense.” Tampa Tribune, September 29, 1990.

Johnson, Jean. “Speaker’s Focus is Spirituality and the Bible.” St. Petersburg Times, January 30, 1999.

Good, Jeffrey. “Parents Convicted in Child’s Death Go Free.” St. Petersburg Times, July 1, 1989.

Goodrich, Lawrence J. “Appeals Process Gets Under Way In Twitchell Manslaughter Case As Defense Seeks Stay of Sentence.” Christian Science Monitor, July 9, 1990. 81

Goodrich, Lawrence J. “Prosecution Cross-Examines David Twitchell on Care Chose for Son Who Died.” Christian Science Monitor, June 11, 1990.

Graham, George. “Child Abuse Law Signed – Religious Exemptions Banned.” Union-News, December 29, 1993.

Hager, Philip. “Prayer Healing Faces Court Test in Girl’s Death.” Los Angeles Times, March 6, 1988.

Hager, Philip. “Asks Manslaughter Charge in Child's Death: Prosecutor Seeks Trial for Christian Scientist.” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 1988.

Halstuk, Martin. “Religious Freedom Collides With Medical Care.” San Francisco Chronicle, April 25, 1988.

Johnston, Peter, and John Larrabee. “Key Test of Faith Healing; Christian Scientist parents’ ‘Painful’ Choices; State Takes on Power of Prayer.” USA Today, May 2, 1988.

Kinsolving, Lester. “Christian Science and Healing Are Subject of Controversy.” The Day, June 1, 1974.

Margolick, David. “In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science.” New York Times, August 6, 1990.

Michelson, Herb. “Prayer Healing v. Law – A Test of Religious Freedom.” Lodi-News Sentinel, August 24, 1985.

Olinger, David. “Christian Science on Trial // How Practitioners Say They Heal.” St. Petersburg Times, June 4, 1989.

Shaw, Anthony. “Children Are Suffering as Faith Healers Hide Behind Religious-Exemption Shield.” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1988.

Stevenson, Jennifer L. “Beliefs Tested By Girl’s Death.” St. Petersburg Times, December 1, 1991.

Talbot, Nathan A. “Spiritual Healing: Still in Court After Eight Decades.” Los Angeles Times, May 1, 1988.

“The Naturalness of Spiritual Healing.” Christian Science Monitor, April 11, 1984.

“Trial of Christian Scientists In Son’s Death Goes to Jury.” New York Times, July 3, 1990.

Vitello, Paul. “Christian Science Church Seeks Truce With Modern Medicine. New York Times, March 23, 2010.

Wong, Doris Sue. “Christian Science Parents Put On Probation.” Boston Globe, July 7, 1990.

82 Wong, Doris Sue. “Neighbor Calls Twitchell Son’s Cries ‘Unbearable’.” Boston Globe, May 24, 1990.

Secondary Sources

Clark, Christine A. “Religious Accommodation and Criminal Liability.” Florida State University Law Review 17 (1989-1990): 559-590.

Gekas, JoAnna A. “California’s Prayer Healing Dilemma.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 14 (Winter 1987): 395-419.

Koller, Elizabeth R. “Walker v. Superior Court: Religious Convictions May Bring Felony Convictions.” Pacific Law Journal 21 (1990): 1069-1105.

Laur, William E., MD. “Christian Science Visited.” Southern Medical Journal 73 (1980): 71-74.

Peters, Shawn Francis. When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Robinson, Shelli Dawn. “Commonwealth v. Twitchell: Who Owns the Child?” Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 7 (1991): 413-432.

Saroyan, Zaven T. “Spiritual Healing and the Free Exercise Clause: An Argument for the Use of Strict Scrutiny.” Public Interest Law Journal 12 (2003): 363-387.

Schoepflin, Rennie B. Christian Science on Trial: Religious Healing in America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

ACADEMIC VITA

John M. Satira

4011 Dublane Court, Murrysville, PA 15668 [email protected] ______

Education

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA College of the Liberal Arts & Schreyer Honors College • Bachelor of Arts with Honors in History • Bachelor of Arts in International Politics • Minor in Italian

Professional Experience

J.A. Green & Company, Washington, DC Intern, June 2013 - Aug. 2013 • Analyzed legislative and bureaucratic policies for client companies in order to improve government relations • Researched topical legislative and political issues under the direction of policy analysts, such as: o Regulatory and domestic compliance o Defense manufacturing initiatives o Defense authorization and appropriations o Rare earths and conflict minerals policy

Penn State Residence Life, University Park, PA Resident Assistant • Created and fostered a secure and inclusive community in residence halls for over 40 undergraduate students • Utilized department policy to respond effectively to crisis situations and breaches of student conduct

International Center for the Study of Terrorism, University Park, PA Research Intern, Jan. 2012 - Aug. 2012 • Examined terrorists’ autobiographical works to identify and code information that led to disengagement • Collaborated research efforts through participation in weekly meetings with academics and fellow interns

Memberships & Activities

Lion Ambassadors, Penn State Student Alumni Corps Lion Ambassador, Jan. 2012 - May 2014

President, April 2013 - April 2014 University Relations Chair, April 2012 - April 2013

Penn State Dance Marathon Morale Committee Member, Oct. 2012 - Feb. 2013 Hospitality Committee Member, Oct. 2011 - Feb. 2012

Lion’s Paw Senior Honor Society Member, April 2013 - May 2014

Parmi Nous Senior Honor Society Member, Feb. 2013 - May 2014

Honors & Distinctions

Academic Honors Society Phi Beta Kappa

Academic Awards Dean’s List, Fall 2010 - Fall 2013 Josephine Rhea Award for Excellence in Italian Studies Penn State President’s Freshman Award

Scholarships Norene E. Purtell Memorial Scholarship Bayard Evans Lion’s Paw Scholarship Class of 1922 Memorial Scholarship Bayard D. Kunkle Scholarship Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Penn State Alumni Association of Westmoreland County Scholarship