On Tuesday, November 10, 2009, I used up half of a vacation day at work so that I could commute over to our State Capitol and show my support for a bill being brought in front of a Senate Committee. I’m of course referring to the Wisconsin State Senate–not the 100-member Washington D.C.-based Senate you usually think of when you hear the word “senate.” The Wisconsin Senate only has 33 members, while the Wisconsin Assembly (our equivalent of the House of Representatives) has 99 members. The bill I’m referring to is Senate Bill 384, the Freedom of Choice of Faith Act, which you can read unabridged via that link. The bill was put forward by State Senator Lena Taylor, who I really must say is a very sensible yet vibrant woman.
That Tuesday, as the bill was introduced, the session was technically called a “public hearing,” because anyone from the public had the opportunity to speak before the committee with their thoughts on the bill. A lot of people showed up, most of whom came to speak in support of the bill. They actually had to move us to a larger room twice to accommodate so many people sitting in on the hearing (there were more than 50 people present in support of the bill). I would encourage you to read the text of the bill and judge for yourself to see what it’s all about; it’s really not that long. I’m about to include a verbatim copy of the letter I’ve just sent to my state senator, so reading that should fill you in on the details of this bill. But I’ll give you a quick spoiler anyway just to wet your whistle. I will caution that this post is going to get very long, so if you’re not going to read the whole thing, or even if you just find me annoying, I would still strongly encourage you to scroll down to the end of the post and read the last testimony. I think it’s really good.
This bill has to deal with faith healing and child negligence laws. Last April, a girl died of diabetes after her parents adamantly refused any medical treatment for her, even though her condition visibly worsened over the course of about a month. They were charged and brought to trial, where they tried to use Wisconsin’s current law to argue that what they did cannot be considered negligence. Their argument was denied, and they were convicted. So to be perfectly frank, the law worked. They were tried and convicted. Still, this case galvanized a lot of people into wanting to change the law to be stricter about these things to hopefully prevent it from happening again at all, and that’s an honorable charge. Senate Bill 384 does just that. It makes the law stricter than what it is right now.
Currently, Wisconsin law states that “A person is not guilty of [physical abuse of a child] solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.” So right now, the law on the books says that any form of faith healing at all is to be considered legitimate, and should not be regarded as negligent behavior in a court of law. This bill that I’m supporting here repeals that clause. However, it does put something in its place–and this is key. There have been alternate bills proposed that simply remove this clause altogether and put nothing in its place, and quite frankly I think that idea is not only dangerously intolerant, but is also insidiously anti-religion. Senator Taylor’s bill will replace that section of the law with a new section that essentially says a parent can be considered negligent for using another system of healing besides the medical–unless they can show evidence in court that they had a reasonable expectation that it would work based on past success.
And that’s really the crux of the whole argument surrounding faith healing. If you’re an atheist, then clearly you don’t believe faith healing is or ever has been possible. If there’s no God, then there’s certainly no way He can heal anything, and so from that point of view, it is logically correct to deduce that relying on faith healing is the same as doing nothing, and is therefore negligent. I can understand that viewpoint perfectly, but I still completely disagree with it. If you do believe in God, then you have to admit that faith healing is possible. Now I understand different people are going to differ on their beliefs of how probable it is–for instance, some people might argue that God heals by giving us medicine. I don’t happen to agree with that either, but I understand the argument.
Likewise, I would ask you to understand that there are a good many people who not only believe that faith healing is both possible and reliable, but they rely on it being so for their own health care. I am one of those people. As a Christian Scientist, I always turn to God first. Now I’m not unreasonable, and I know when I’m in over my head, so I have turned to the medical world for relief once or twice in my lifetime, but on the whole I’ve found that putting my trust and understand in the Lord does affect ones health for the better. And don’t just take my word for it; I would highly encourage you to read the testimonies in support of this bill given by other Wisconsin residents as well. I’ll include them below, but I’ll also include a PDF file of them here as well.
Anyways, the issue fundamentally boils down to one thing: does faith healing work? Again, if you’re atheist, I know that your answer is no, and there’s probably little I can say to convince you. You would probably believe that faith healing is 0% effective, and while the medical world might not be 100% effective, it’s the only thing we’ve got. But I, my friends, and my family can all attest to the efficacy of prayer-based healing. It works. Testimonies of it working are recorded and even published all the time. I know that atheists will still generally dismiss those testimonies as purely coincidental, but if you are a person of faith, I implore you to express that faith. Opponents of faith healing are often very quick to point out cases like the one mentioned above, where a child dies despite the best efforts of a faith healer. However they are often very quiet when faced with the statistics of children who die because of medical complications despite the best efforts of a medical doctor. Isn’t that called confirmation bias?
However I do not deny that they have valid concerns–we obviously don’t want to promote children dying. So I agree that the law should be stricter than what it is now, and so I believe Senator Taylor’s bill is the best way to do that. I believe her bill is a good compromise, because while it does place the burden of proof with the parents, it still allows them the chance to explain themselves before the court and tell about any past success they’ve had. Because if something’s worked for you in the past, it’s reasonable to expect that it will work for you again in the future. But anyways, enough of my quick summary; I’m just going to include the letter that I sent to my State Senator below. I’m also going to include my transcript of all the testimonies given in support of the bill that day below, which I reference in my letter. Please, if you’re willing, write or call your Wisconsin state senator and ask them to support Senate Bill 384.
Dear Senator,
I am writing to ask your support on Senate Bill 384, The Freedom of Choice of Faith Act, authored by Senator Lena Taylor of the 4th District. This bill deals with both religious freedom and child negligence laws. As a Wisconsin resident and practicing Christian Scientist, I am strongly in favor in Senator Taylor’s bill and I wish to give you a little context on the issue as well as explain my own opinion. I was present at the public hearing for this bill, and using the video footage provided by the Wisconsin Eye service, I later went back and wrote up a full transcript of all the testimonies given in support of the bill that day. I have attached said transcript with this message, so after reading through my own take on the matter, I’d appreciate if you would take a look at what other Wisconsin citizens have to say about it as well.
Back in April of last year, an 11-year old girl in Wausau named Madeline Kara Neumann died of diabetes. Her parents, who did not belong to any particular church, insisted on relying on faith healing in lieu of conventional medical treatment. Though their daughter’s condition visibly worsened over the course of about a month, they adamantly refused medical care during that time until the girl eventually passed away. Later, both parents were charged and convicted of reckless endangerment and were sentenced to jail time. This situation quickly became a high profile case and sparked a lot of debate about the merits of prayer or faith based healing. It also galvanized many into demanding changes in the law in order to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
The protection of children should always be given the utmost importance. However, it is crucial that as a lawmaker you carefully examine any proposal that comes forward on the matter to ensure that it does not conceal hidden agendas–especially when it is regarding a case that can elicit a strong emotional response from the public (like Madeline’s death clearly does). Certain other lawmakers have begun drafting alternative proposals to Senator Taylor’s bill, and after examining at least one of those bills I found quite a bit of anti-religious “pork” and insidious side effects on personal liberties contained therein. Fortunately, after close examination of Senator Taylor’s bill, I can confidently say that it is a well-thought compromise for all parties. I ask for your support of Senator Taylor’s bill 384.
I am a lifelong Christian Scientist. Christian Science is a worldwide Christian religion, founded in 1866, that teaches its followers to follow the path shown by Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible. However, there are some notable distinctions between Christian Science and “mainstream” Christianity, including a reliance on prayer and spiritual treatment instead of medical treatment. I also want to point out that I am writing you today of my own volition; no one from the church has asked me to be a spokesperson or anything to that effect. I am writing as a concerned citizen who wants a fair system of law that will protect children without creating unwanted side effects.
I can tell you from my own experience that Christian Science works. I know that healing through prayer is not only possible, but happens on a regular basis all over the world. Since the late 1800s, the Christian Science church has published both weekly and monthly literature with testimonies of healing through the practice. However, I also know through personal experience that there is no stigma in the church if one chooses to rely on medical care instead of spiritual treatment, as I have done so myself on a few occasions. When I was 14, I accidentally swallowed my orthodontic retainer in my sleep. My parents and I first turned to Christian Science treatment, but after a little while we decided together that the situation was not one we felt ready to handle through prayer, so we opted to go to the hospital where I underwent stomach surgery to have the retainer removed.
My reason for sharing a story in which I did not rely on spiritual care is simply to illustrate that my family and I have always had the rational judgment to know when we’re in over our heads and ask for whatever help we can get. And this is fundamentally the difference I want to point out between every Christian Scientist I have ever met and the Neumann family. The Neumanns insisted on shunning all medical treatment and rigidly sticking with one method, despite seeing no signs of progress whatsoever over the course of a month, nor any evidence of past success either. In the end, they effectively martyred their daughter rather than using common sense judgment. I do not believe any rational parent would do this, which is why I believe it was correct that they were tried and convicted.
However, had they been able to show a reasonable expectation of recovery based on past success, I believe that would have been a different story. It is reasonable to expect that a system that has yielded consistent positive results in the past will continue to do so in the future. So if the Neumanns had any reasonable expectation that their method would have worked based on past experience, then I might withhold my judgment. However, this does not seem to be the case. It seems as though they were trying their method blindly and stubbornly, which is precisely what Senator Taylor’s bill would help to prevent from happening again.
Currently the Wisconsin State Statues state that a parent cannot be considered negligent solely because they turned to faith healing in lieu of medical treatment (948.03(6)). The law also provides a specific exemption that no other Wisconsin law shall be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science (448.03(6)). Senator Taylor’s bill will repeal the former and amend the latter. Her bill will also create a brand new section to effectively replace the former.
In place of 948.03(6)–which currently serves as a blanket protection for all faith healing–the Taylor bill will create what is called an “affirmative defense.” This means that if a child were to die while under the care of spiritual or faith-based healing, the parents would be considered negligent, but they would be given a chance to prove themselves in court and argue that their actions were reasonable. This affirmative defense would provide a set of nine very specific criteria that they could use to prove that they were acting reasonably, including past efficacy of spiritual treatment, length of time that the child showed symptoms, and more.
Opponents of this bill insist that the best idea is simply to remove any and all religious considerations whatsoever from the law, thereby providing “equal” protection for all children. This unfortunately represents a very short-sighted and intolerant viewpoint. Removing all religious considerations is not equality; it’s monopoly. It’s a monopoly on health care, demanding through force of law that the only safe, effective, and legal option would be to use medical treatment in every case. This would effectively aim to legislate away a whole set of cultures and practices as well as writing into law the belief that God either does not exist or cannot heal. This makes sense from an atheistic point of view, but it is not the role of government to force everyone into being atheists.
Opponents are also very quick to point out anecdotal cases where children have died under spiritual care, but are strangely silent when asked about children who have died under the care of doctors, because of infections, medical complications, or other unfortunate circumstances. Removing all religious considerations from the law would effectively legislate that medical science is 100% reliable while spiritual treatment is 0% reliable. And there are volumes upon volumes of documented testimonies that prove otherwise. I would encourage you to read the transcript of the public hearing for this bill that I’ve attached–there are several positive testimonies of prayer-based healing at work from your own Wisconsin neighbors.
But I will concede that some of the opponents have a valid concern that it is dangerous for government to be too permissive when it comes to religion. The Neumann case is already a clear example of that. However, I will remind you that the Neumanns were not Christian Scientists as they did not belong to any particular church at all, and that they were convicted in a court of law. Still, since the law presently excuses all forms of faith-based healing from being considered negligent, I believe Senator Taylor’s bill offers a solid compromise by removing this exemption but still leaving in its place the affirmative defense. By giving parents a chance to explain their actions and include testimony of past success as reason to have turned to a method other than the medical, this will simply allow as much as evidence as possible to be considered before passing judgment. Since the bill is a bit harsher than current law, it will help to deter any parents like the Neumanns who have no history of success with faith-based healing from blindly turning to something they do not understand.
As Mr. Joe Farkas so eloquently said in his testimony, the protection of children is paramount. And Senator Taylor’s bill treats that protection with the utmost importance, while simultaneously having the wisdom and tolerance that sometimes there are several different paths to the same summit. I strongly encourage you to read the testimonies I have transcribed of other Wisconsin residents who support this bill, and to likewise strongly support this bill yourself.
Warm Regards,
Gordon Myers
Lastly, I did mention in that letter and above that I transcribed all the testimonies given in support of the bill back in November. I used the footage provided by Wisconsin Eye to do this. Wisconsin Eye is essentially the equivalent of C-SPAN, except on the state level. The video of the hearing is split into two parts: part one and part two. So if you’d rather just watch the video, by all means feel free to do so. It starts at around 1:16:00 into part one, and continues right into part two. I will caution you, though, that the video does cut out abruptly at two points: first, between part one and part two there is a small gap, and then again toward the end of part two when the cameraman had to change the tape.
These gaps made it a little more challenging to transcribe the testimonies, so what I ended up doing was getting in touch with the two individuals whose video testimony is interrupted, and asked them to transcribe the missing section for me. They both graciously obliged, but I’ve put those sections below in italics to note that it wasn’t a direct transcription but still was from the primary sources. And since I was there myself, I can attest to the fact that these parts are correct. Anyways, if you’re only going to read one thing in this post at all, read the very last testimony by Sonette Tippins. It’s really good.
Lena Taylor
Honorable members of the committee, thank you for taking testimony relating to Senate Bill 384–the
Freedom of Choice of Faith Act–a piece of legislation relating to a person’s constitutional right to
practice their faith, healing beliefs, and the exemptions in the law regarding prosecutions of crimes. The
unfortunate case that has happened with the Neumann family in Wausau has drawn much attention, not
just within our state but within the nation, to the issue of electing spiritual or Christian Science treatment
in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for a child.
The Freedom of Choice of Faith Act modifies current law to further protect the child. Current law
provides exemption to prosecution for parents or guardians who elect spiritual treatment in lieu of
medical treatment of their child. This bill repeals this exemption to prosecution. Also, under current law,
individuals choosing Christian Science treatment cannot be compelled to submit to medical or surgical
treatment. SB 384 mandates the use of medical treatment as required when a child is taken into custody
because the child is in immediate danger from his or her surroundings. To be clear, law enforcement can
determine at their discretion when any child is in danger and immediately remove the child from the
home under current law. This bill says that medical treatment must be given if the child is in need of
medical treatment.
To protect the rights of practice of faith, this bill creates an affirmative defense for parents or guardians
when their conduct is in good faith and is a reasonable use of spiritual, prayer, or religious treatment in
lieu of medical treatment. However, by using an affirmative defense the burden of proof goes to the
defendant to prove that they were or are capable of faith healing. Lastly, in applying that affirmative
defense, the bill provides direction to the presiding judge by outlining nine factors related to determining
whether the use of spiritual, prayer, or religious treatment in lieu of medical treatment was indeed
reasonable.
There will be many person testifying today on this bill. I encourage you to listen carefully to each with an
open mind, realizing that we all come to the table with different perspectives, different beliefs, different
faith. The goal of this bill is to find the balance to protecting the children and ensuring that we do not
violate the first amendment right of our citizens. They have the right of faith, even if it is not our faith. I
encourage you to review it closely and to ask yourself–ask me questions if need be. But I ask for your
support of this legislation.
Glenn Grothman
I’d like to thank you for introducing the bill. I think it’s a necessary bill. I think there’s always the danger
of intolerance in our society and I see just going through the handouts that we’re going to have some
people that are going to express that intolerance later on, but I’m glad to see we have some people looking
out for freedom and people who believe in faith. Thank you.
Joseph Farkas
Thank you for this opportunity to support this bill. I am the legislative and media liaison for the Christian
Science churches and societies here in Wisconsin. I am also a Christian Science practitioner–someone
who provides help through prayer at the request of individuals who have chosen to rely on spiritual means
for healing as taught in Christian Science.
The protection of [children is paramount]. The Christian Science church has always supported the
protection of children. Our newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, a Pulitzer Prize-winning paper has
always highlighted aspects in society where there has been an abuse and have also called for solutions to
this. I’m not going to go into the Neumann case because Senator Taylor so eloquently described it; just to
point out that the Neumanns were not Christian Scientists. This bill also clarifies the Wisconsin Medical
Practices Act, which is merely a licensing part of the law.
Some people have expressed concern that the language supersedes Wisconsin child protection laws and
that is not the case. This legislation adds already existing language in law that really points out that the
state does have the opportunity to immediately step in and remove a child in danger, need, illness, or
sickness and then order medical treatment.
I’m not a lawyer, but in terms of the affirmative defense that’s in this bill–it provides an opportunity for
everyone to hear all the facts that are involved in this case, a full story, and I believe reasonable people in
a jury or a judge can listen and determine the reasonableness of the people’s actions, so I believe it helps
everyone understand what happened and form a reasonable decision about the facts.
At the heart of all of this, I think both opponents and proponents have one goal in mind: do no harm to
children. Spiritual healing is at the heart of this issue and I truly believe that laws can be passed that
protect children and accommodate the reasonable use of spiritual healing for children’s healthcare needs.
This is such a bill, and I ask that it be voted out of committee, and I thank you for letting me speak today.
Cymbrie Van Fossen
Good morning. My name is Cymbrie Van Fossen. I am a member of the Christian Science church and I
wanted to start my testimony by thanking Senator Taylor and the committee for taking the time to hear
from members of the Wisconsin faith community like me who feel strongly that prayer is a safe and
effective means of maintaining the health and welfare of our children and our families. I am speaking in
support of Senate Bill 384. I’m a mom of three children. I have twin girls who are 12, a little boy who is 9,
and my first priority is the well being of these children. Nothing is more important to me than their safety,
their health, and their happiness.
I do respect the need of the state of Wisconsin to ensure that all children, regardless of their parents’
religious affiliations, are protected from harm and that’s why I support the proposed legislation. It gives
parents the legal framework in which to present information about their spiritual background and their
history of success in relying on prayer for healing as an affirmative defense in the event of a jury trial. My
own family has had many examples of physical healing throughout the years–everything from colds,
coughs, rashes, small stuff to medically-diagnosed instances of strep throat, anemia, and in one case
abnormal hip development.
I know my time is limited; I did want to share a few details of this last example as it was a medicallydiagnosed
situation where, at the birth of my son, the attending pediatrician at Meriter hospital gave him a
checkup, said everything was great, except there was this hip-click, which he said could lead to a
permanent disability if it wasn’t addressed and that he wouldn’t crawl properly and then wouldn’t walk
properly. I’ll just conclude by saying that I did turn to prayer for this and when I returned two months later
for his regularly scheduled checkup it was determined that there was no further problem and this has been
diagnosed and recorded in his health care exam sheets that I still do have. I think that Christian Science
care can be provided responsibly and I thank the committee for considering this legislation which helps us
to do that.
Robin Engel
Good morning and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Robin Engel and I live on Highway 89 in
Jefferson. I am here to support the Taylor bill because of its clear-headed thinking necessary to protect
children. The Christian Science church I belong to in Fort Atkinson was founded in the 1890s by pillars
of the community. This legislature honored its centennial anniversary. The individual contributions of our
members to the community over the years have been significant and enduring. My heart goes out to the
Neumann family, whose daughter died despite their best prayers.
The welfare of children transcends dogma and constitutional arguments. Christian Scientists are loving
and responsible parents who pray with and for our children because it works. My own children and
grandchildren have been healed of medically-examined concerns, including a hip-joint issue, hearing and
speech impairment, and a contagious skin disease through the practical application of Christian Science.
Christian Science does not prohibit medical treatment nor do Christian Scientists think less of church
members who use doctors. Some of us wear glasses, get broken bones set, and have surgical procedures.
As a Christian Scientist, I obey the law regarding quarantine of contagious diseases and vaccinations, and
I am grateful to this state for its strong child protection laws, and I support and obey them. I commend
you for your thoughtfulness in finding a solution that will protect children and provide fairness in a jury
trial. Thank you for supporting the Taylor bill.
Barry Whiteman
My name is Barry Whiteman; I’m here to speak in favor of Senate Bill 384 because it protects children by
removing the criminal child abuse religious accommodation that the Neumann’s defense attorney used to
try to shield prosecution. The bill also protects children by making it clear that the state can, at any time,
go into a home, take custody of a seriously ill child, and provide medical treatment. It’s a reasonable
compromise.
My wife and I were both raised in Christian Science and so were our three kids, and they’re all in their
twenties, and they’re gone; they’re launched, and they’re happy, healthy, and fully launched, and as
everybody knows that’s no small task. We saw many evidences of spiritual healing with our children.
Some years ago one of them was hit by a car while riding his bike and he spent six weeks in a fine
hospital–traction, the whole bit. It was one situation where we just weren’t prepared to handle it
exclusively through prayer. We feel it’s important to practice a reasonable and responsible use of spiritual
treatment and prayer. Anyway, he recovered fully, but his doctors did say that as a result of his serious leg
injury he might have trouble being fully mobile in the future. He was six years old at the time. Anyway,
he recovered fully, and it turns out that that kid played high school tennis, high school football, then he
went on to college, and he played college division three tennis and football and he was named All
Conference three times for tennis. So he did okay, and his leg is just fine. Continued prayer for our son
had a valuable role in that long-term healing. Prayer does work. It promotes very good health outcomes
for kids.
I’m in favor in the responsible and reasonable use of prayer that promotes this well being and the health
and protection of children is paramount, and for these reasons I support Senate Bill 384 as a good
compromise, and I urge you to do so as well. Thank you very much.
Wanda Warmack
Thank you Senator Taylor and I appreciate that I have submitted some written testimony and you can
refer to that for the points, but I just thought for clarification in addressing what the former speaker raised
as objections to the bill, it will not make it more difficult to intervene. I think the chairman has recognized
that it actually iterates what’s already the standard within Wisconsin that the state can immediately take
custody of a child and provide immediate–without court order–medical treatment for seriously ill
children. What this legislation does do is provide an anti-discrimination provision at a trial which would
just allow presentation of evidence, and the iteration of the different factors–they’re very concrete: the
age of the child, whether the parents knew it was serious or not, these are all considerations that are very
clearly defined in the aspects that you set forth as part of information that can be presented in trial. So, if
there are any questions I’m willing to answer them if necessary later. I am here representing the Christian
Science church; I am the legislative manager of the area that deals with government.
Janet Chisholm
My name is Janet Chisholm and I’m here to speak in favor of the Taylor bill. I’ve lived in Madison for a
number of years, but don’t get worried that I’m going back this far; I was born in a small town in
Oklahoma, where I was raised a Methodist and had a wonderful experience in that church.
They had a strong sense of community and I was instilled with the idea of caring for others. The most
interesting thing about life in that church was my Sunday School teachers who were brilliant research
scientists for Continental Oil Company, as it was known at that time, and they taught me to challenge all
my thinking, to look at what I was thinking, to challenge it, to be a thinker, and to search for the truth. I
think my parents were happy that I went on a spiritual journey and left the church. I hope they were; my
sister’s a Tibetan Buddhist and my other sister’s a Catholic, so we kind of took it at heart what our
research scientist-teachers told us.
I ended up studying Christian Science and becoming a member and raised a daughter in it. When I look
back on my experience as a Methodist and as a Christian Scientist, and compare my experience in those
churches, I can honestly say that both churches are filled with parents who love their children and who
work tirelessly for their benefit, for their nurturing, for their protection. So as a Christian Scientist, I
would not want a state law that benefits parents who do neglect their children or abuse them, and as a
parent I can say unequivocally that I would never knowingly sacrifice the life of my child for my religious
beliefs; I just wouldn’t do it.
And so this brings me to the Taylor bill, because I do think it protects the rights of children, and I also
think it gives parents who might find themselves in a court case the ability to explain themselves. If I
were a juror on that case, I would want to know what they were thinking so I could help render a more
informed verdict. So I thank you for your work on this bill and I support it.
Jon Axelrod
Thank you Senator Taylor. First I want to thank you and thank the members of the committee for
allowing me to come express not my support or opposition to the bill, but to try to give you my analysis
from a legal point of view, and specifically a constitutional law point of view.
[At this point Senator Taylor interrupted to ask whether Attorney Axelrod was registering in favor or
speaking for informational only, and Attorney Axelrod clarified that he was registering in support.]
I’m supporting it because I think from a constitutional point of view as well as a legal point of view it’s
just an excellent balance. I represent the Christian Science church. I’m a partner in Dewitt, Ross, and
Stevens in Madison. I’m not a Christian Scientist, and as I said I’m not here today to express my views
either in support of the policy in the bill or against the policy in the bill, but instead to try to analyze SB
384 from a constitutional law point of view, and let me tell you, I think not only are you an excellent
chairman but I think you’re an excellent attorney because your proposal strikes a very thoughtful balance
between the perceived abuses of the Neumann case on the one hand, who incidentally were not Christian
Scientists and who incidentally were convicted. And the opposite pole, which I believe would promote
religious discrimination and deny people of faith the opportunity to reasonably practice their faith, and I
believe that would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment and particularly the standards in the
City of Hialeah case in the United States Supreme Court.
I think what you’ve done is very thoughtfully struck a balance between these two poles, if you will, and I
think that the affirmative defense which would remain in Wisconsin is done in a particularly thoughtful
way because it would allow people their due process rights to explain themselves if it ever came to a trial
in front of a judge or in front of a jury as to whether or not they acted reasonably, but it wouldn’t put
handcuffs on the court or the jury to accept that testimony, but simply to evaluate that testimony in light
of all other factors including whether medical treatment could have solved that particular condition, the
family’s religious background, and so forth. So I applaud your efforts; I think this is the legislative process
at its best. I did come today hoping that you would allow me more than two-and-a-half minutes, and I
understand why that’s not possible, but I have some written which I would like to give to the page or the
clerk and I thank you.
Nancy Gingras
Good afternoon Senator Taylor, and a very heartfelt thank you for this opportunity today for not only
myself but for everyone who’s being able to speak in favor of this bill and to the committee, thank you.
As you mentioned my name is Nancy Gingras, and in my own experience I have practiced Christian
Science all my life, and I have found it to be an effective way of treating illness and injury. Therefore, as
a mother of two children who are now grown, it was just natural for me to turn to Christian Science in the
health care of my children. However the children’s father was not a practicing Christian Scientist, and talk
about tolerance, we had that right within our own home, and there were circumstances where we were
prompted to seek medical help. I always wanted to seek what was most effective and also, one of the
previous speakers mentioned about the children, and I want you to know that from the youngest children
on, they are receptive to prayer and they do really register right in that decision-making.
As parents, we love our children, and I would never think of sacrificing their well being, and the good
news is there is no stigma in our church if a parent seeks medical help. We are a very loving congregation
that supports one another, and we all know how it feels to have a sick child. I’d like to share two healings
which did involve physicians in regard to my son who is now serving as a captain in the United States Air
Force.
As a nine year-old, he developed a deep cough. His father and I decided to take him to a doctor. The
doctor diagnosed our son with double-pneumonia. After a discussion with the doctor, it was with his
approval we were able to take the child home. And as a family, we discussed and made the decision to
rely on prayer alone because we had seen many effective healings. But we complied with the doctor’s
request and returned within a couple of days, and per his examination, the child was free of any effect of
pneumonia. In fact, he went skiing that weekend.
The same son as a teenager was standing alongside a school bus when he was hit by an SUV that did not
see him. A head injury resulted and an ambulance was called. His father and I met him in the emergency
room, in fact this happened right here in Madison at the University Hospital. The doctor explained that
there was significant bleeding under the skull and our son was kept overnight for observation, but there
were no medical procedures being implemented, as we were relying on prayer, but per the father’s
decision, we did have the observation.
During the night, our son regained consciousness, and within a matter of a few days regained normal
function and was released without any medical treatment. Before his release he had a CAT scan which
showed improvement. The abrasions were cleared up in three days. He went back to school within a
week, and in order for our son to attend the Air Force Academy an extensive medical examination was
administered. He received a CAT scan of the head and there was no trace of injury found. I’m so grateful
for these healings, and grateful for the compassionate physicians who let us know when it was safe for my
son to come home from the hospital. Christian Scientists, like parents everywhere, want only the best care
for their children. Thank you.
Martin Evanson
Thank you, my name is Marty Evanson, I live in the southwest side of Madison. I shouldn’t have any
trouble dealing with the two-minute drill without any timeouts. I’m a lifelong Christian Scientist, and a
long-time Christian Science Sunday School teacher. I’m blessed to have five energetic aspiring and
inspiring young students in my charge. I’m here to speak in favor of Senator Lena Taylor’s bill.
Children are precious gifts who deserve the very best comfort and immediate care that we can give them.
Christian Scientists rely on the proven and practical methods that have been most effective in their lives
and in the best interest of their children. Christian Science treatment is extremely effective as I’ve found,
as it provides physical healing coupled with a growing understanding and deepening relationship with the
Almighty.
The well being of children is a foremost and solemn responsibility. I support this bill because it ensures
that laws do not provide a shield for irresponsible or injurious behavior and allows parents to explain their
actions in the event of judicial proceedings. Thank you.
James Treutler
Thank you Senator Taylor and committee members. My name is James Treutler; that’s why my students
call me Mr. T. Throughout my life I have worked with children as a high school teacher, coach, and
athletic director. As a little aside, one of your senators who’s not on this committee [Ted Kanavas], is a
past athlete and student of mine. As a coach and athletic director and a teacher, it’s always been my
purpose for educating them and looking out for their well being. This legislation that is being presented
leaves no doubt in people’s mind that the proper care of children is of utmost importance. It clearly points
out that there is no bar to prosecution for inappropriate behavior regarding the health and safety of
children. It reinforces the already existing law which gives the right to the state to step in and take custody
of a child who is deemed to be in danger and to provide medical treatment as needed.
As someone who has seen the effectiveness of spiritual care in my own life, I support the language being
proposed which provides for a fair trial if someone is charged in connection with the use of spiritual
treatment. Clarity and fairness is what this bill is designed to provide. I ask in the name of all those who
rely on spiritual treatment that you support this bill. Thank you very much.
Charles Wellington
Good morning Chairperson Taylor, Senators Grothman and Hopper. My name is Charles Wellington and
I live in Monroe, Wisconsin with my wife, Christine. We’ve lived there since 1979. I’m here today to
speak in favor of Senate Bill 384. The committee’s heard a lot of testimony here this morning, and I’m
here to add one more. Let me, if I may, begin with my story to help you get an idea of the foundation of
where I’m coming from. Shortly after World War I, my grandmother was informed by more than one
doctor that she’d never be able to have children. She suffered with this diagnosis for many years, until she
heard about a physician that might be able to help. She visited him in Evanston, Illinois and he also
confirmed the diagnosis. But while she was in his office, she noticed a book on the shelf of his library,
that was Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian
Science. She asked about it, and he gave it to her and said it might help. A few years later, my uncle was
born, and a year so after that my mother was born. My grandmother became a Christian Scientist; my
mother was raised that way and I was raised that way with my brothers and sister.
In high school, I sustained a particularly severe back injury in wrestling, and my father who is not a
Christian Scientist insisted that I be taken to the hospital where I was, and X-rays confirmed that I was in
pretty bad shape and would never wrestle again or be involved in any physically demanding activity.
After that diagnosis, I asked my father if I could utilize Christian Science treatment and he readily agreed,
and I did, with the help of a Christian Science practitioner, and I was back wrestling within a week. I also
participated in intercollegiate athletics in college and I’ve been fairly physically active all my life. I’ve
continued to study and practice Christian Science because it’s been proven effective in my life, and as you
may have concluded, my wife and I have raised our children similarly.
Let me be perfectly clear, however, that nothing challenges ones beliefs more acutely than relying on
them in the care of one’s children. Any parent with a sick or ailing child wants only one thing, and that’s
the immediate and complete alleviation of that child’s suffering. Some parents turn to medicine for that,
and that’s perfectly fine. My wife and I turn to prayer for one reason: that we had found it to be effective,
and logically inferred that it would continue to be so. By choosing this route, we hope to accomplish two
things: one, the alleviation of the physical problem, and two, teaching our children by experience that
God indeed was a very present help in trouble.
SB 384 simply permits a parent who may face criminal charges regarding his or her decisions relating to a
child to explain to a trier of fact why a decision was made. This simply reflects basic fairness. There’s a
world of difference between using prayer for a child’s illness because it has proven effective in the past
and blindly martyring one’s child in the name of religion. No one can rationally support the latter, but the
former is critical when weighing these issues. The issue is extremely important for our time. The world
seems to be spinning ever faster toward a more secular disposition. Christian Scientists do not ask for any
special treatment or protection as suggested by some. They would readily acknowledge that the welfare of
children is paramount. SB 384 strikes a fair balance in preserving the welfare of children while not
creating an atmosphere that would have a chilling effect on spiritual healing, and I respectfully submit
that it should become the law of this state. Thank you very much.
Jorie Clark
Thank you so much, Senator Taylor, for sponsoring this bill, and the courage to bring forward concepts
and discussions that don’t often happen. What’s wonderful about it is that encourages all of us to come
forward in a discussion to share ideas, so thank you to all the senators who will be also reviewing this
thoughtfully. My name is Jorie Clark, and I’m here for a couple of reasons. First of all, I’m a mother of
three children here in Wisconsin and I have personally logged hundreds of hours in prayer as well as
hundreds of hours in hospitals supporting family members who’ve chosen medical treatment. I’m also a
founder of a virtual world on the internet that serves over two-and-a-quarter million families online, and
we’ve been recognized both for our innovation in education, and at our looking at solving social issues.
I’ve also been a lead participant in the development of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act,
working both by invitation of the FTC to talk at hearings, as well as the Commerce Department. So
keeping children safe is a key focus of both my personal interest and my professional work.
In my work, we teach children to think and families to share ideas and make informed choices. With that,
we look at solving social issues from a variety of viewpoints while protecting everyone involved. A
second consideration is following the rigors of science. We’re encouraging children to apply scientific
methods in reviewing data, looking for patterns, applying knowledge to problems, and providing proofs
of effectiveness. It is for this reason that I support Senator Taylor’s bill, because it appears to both provide
fairness and reasonableness. It also encourages thinking, protecting children, while also allowing parents
to choose healthcare treatments that have proven effective for them and share their reasoning if needed.
Thank you very much.
Ginger Mack
My name is Ginger Mack, as you stated, and I’m a student here at UW Madison. I also meet with the
Christian Science Student Organization here on campus. From my own experience, I grew up as a
Christian Scientist, and I can attest to the fact that I was diligently cared for by my parents. I have also
seen firsthand that Christian Science parents respond promptly to the needs of their children, and are able
to seek medical help for their children when needed. As a constituent I feel it is important to have
legislation that is transparent and allows Christian Scientists to provide the very best care for their
children. Also, this includes being accountable to State and Federal laws. Thank you.
Margaret Lewis
Thank you Senator Taylor and committee members. My name is Margaret Lewis; I am representing
myself speaking in favor of Senate Bill 384. I have been a student of Christian Science for more than 50
years and prayer in lieu of medical treatment has been the treatment of first resort in my family for four
generations. Like you, I had the honor of serving three years in the State Legislature in the 80s and when
this current provision of the law related to child abuse and neglect was passed. I’ve been married for 28
years, my husband is not a Christian Scientist, I have three very active children born every off-election
year that were raised very publically and have experienced healings of every childhood disease–measles,
burns, cuts, ear aches, allergic reactions to bee stings, falls. I did, however, have the bone of my oldest
son, when he was in middle school, set. My children have not been immunized, nor attended health
classes that focus on the causes of disease, but they have seen a doctor as they have had to have physical
exams to participate in sports–in soccer, in diving, in cross country, in wrestling–and have had their
needs met.
I too have experienced many healings of physical, financial, career, or relationship issues, but I have also
had treatment for an inoperative lymphatic system in my left side, a detached retina, and all my children
were born in a hospital. I may not be a model Christian Scientist, and that’s why I call myself a student of
Christian Science, and frankly we do not have a model law. Each of us does the best we can based on our
experience, choosing the alternatives that are our highest sense of right under the circumstances. In
lawmaking, we try to do the same thing; we try to assure that what is passed produces the greatest good
for the greatest number and can’t foresee every individual circumstance. This is why, I think, we
appreciate so much the work on building balance and tolerance in the work that you have done.
The current criminal law says that child abuse and neglect does not occur solely for the reason someone
relies on prayer in lieu of medical treatment. I kind of liked that law; I didn’t want to be considered a felon
for practicing my religion with my children. The jury in the Neumann case took into account not only that
prayer was used, but the effectiveness of that prayer. Folks are on notice: if you choose prayer in the case
of children, it better be effective. That’s a good thing. We all want the very best treatment for children. No
one’s personal pride or blind belief should be put before a child’s safety. However, neither current law, nor
what’s been proposed absolves from legal penalty those that have deeply held religious beliefs no matter
what their history and experience might be.
Under current law, and under the proposed law, a child can be removed from a parent’s custody, as we
have discussed earlier, if there’s a life-threatening situation. So what does this change contribute? If
language in current law is removed, it does give some guidance to parents as to what they can reasonably
expect to be able to present in a defense if a tragedy occurs. Just like a doctor sued for malpractice would
be able to present evidence as to why a correct diagnosis and treatment might have been difficult because
each individual is different. In some courts, this presentation of evidence has not been allowed. The good
news is that the proposed law continues to recognize that there are those with different deeply held
religious beliefs that have a long history of successful healing practice, and at the least, they should be
allowed to share their experiences with the court and that their experience may be relevant to the actions
they take. Thank you Senator Taylor for respecting deeply held religious beliefs, and I’d be glad to answer
any questions. Thank you.
Sonette Tippins
I hadn’t planned to speak, I was just going to be here in favor of this bill, but I couldn’t help but ask if I
could speak after hearing the testimony against by the medical representatives. If, as a parent, I could be
assured–and now I’m a grandparent–that every child under medical treatment would never die, would
always be cured, and would become fine, I would be thrilled. I’d be delighted, and I think everybody
would rejoice. But we all know that’s not the case. Every parent chooses what they believe is the most
effective health care for their child. I was able to raise my children with Christian Science very
successfully, and I want to speak so that my daughter will be assured this right for her children.
When I was pregnant with my first child, at six months into the pregnancy, I was stricken with terrible
pains and went to the health clinic, where our doctor diagnosed me with acute appendicitis, and he said
the condition was so serious that I must go immediately for surgery but the baby would die. So he called
in a specialist on appendicitis who confirmed the diagnosis and, with tears in their eyes, they called the
hospital and said to be ready for me. They told my husband and me that because of the seriousness of this
appendicitis, either the baby was already dead, or he would die during the surgery. I stopped at home,
which was en route to the hospital and called a Christian Science practitioner to ask her to support me
with prayer. By the time I got to the hospital, the surgeon was waiting, and he happened to be the same
man that I had been seeing as an obstetrician. He said, “I know you’re a Christian Scientist and I am going
to [give you some time to see if you can get better by your Christian Science." I was checked into the
hospital, and a few hours later the doctor stood by my bed and pronounced me well. He said, "you are
ready to go home, and could even go to school--I was a high school teacher. But why don't you have a
nice breakfast here, and then your husband can come and get you, and you stay home and enjoy the rest
of the day." At the proper time, this doctor delivered my dear little baby, who was normal in every way.
All of the children's health care needs were met through Christian Science, with my husband, who was
not a Christian Scientist, so impressed by the quick healings he witnessed, that he too preferred Christian
Science treatment for our children.
When our daughter was born, after a few months it was evident that one of her toes had never grown.
Through prayer, by the time she turned one, her toes were all completely normal. I have never heard of
any medical treatment that can make limbs or toes grow.]
When my son was twelve, he had such severe acne that it covered his arms, his legs, his hair. You can
imagine the torment he experienced in school and the name-calling. So my husband, who was a supporter
of Christian Science for our children for healing, we both decided we would take him to a skin specialist.
We took him for two years to three different doctors who did everything they could and we followed
everything they told us to do. He only became worse. Finally, at age fourteen our son asked to rely
entirely on Christian Science for treatment, and he was healed in one month. I am grateful for the efforts
of the medical profession, and I am grateful for their contributions to everybody’s health and safety. I also
believe that parents should be able to use their own experience as a guide in what is going to provide the
best care for their children, and if their experience has shown them that Christian Science is it, then I
would like that privilege to be there. Thank you.
Again, all these testimonies can be downloaded here. Please call or write to your State Senator in support of SB 384. You don’t have to write a fancy 3-page letter like I did; you just need to tell them your name and address and that you support Senate Bill 384: The Freedom of Choice of Faith Act. And by all means, feel free to talk to me about it if you have questions. It’s something I feel passionately about so I’ve done a bit of thinking about it (if that’s not immediately obvious).
Gordon is Offline