Reply #36: "There are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child

[BurtWorm]

is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer according to the tenets of a recognized religion. Although these exemptions take different forms and interpretations in different state jurisdictions, the overall effect has been to limit the ability of the state to prosecute parents for suspected or alleged abuse or medical neglect of children when such occurrences may be the result of religious practice. Severe (even fatal) physical discipline, failure to seek medical care, or refusal of a proven efficacious treatment of a critically ill child may be protected from prosecution because of the religious exemption clauses now found in a majority of state codes. However, most of these cases do not involve Christian Scientists.

"Two important sets of interests are in apparent opposition - those of children in the perceived benefits of medical care and those of parents in making a decision about their children's well-being. Some parents believe that the constitutionally protected freedom of religion allows them to choose the method of healing (spiritual or medical) they feel will best benefit their children. However, this interpretation of the US constitution is in contradiction to important court rulings to the effect that parents may not martyr their children based on parental beliefs and that children cannot be denied essential health care.<8> However, a Christian Scientist would deem spiritual treatment as being "essential health care" that would most expediently lead to their child's health and well being."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Christian_Science_and_law

Lots of grids seem to be crashing into each other on the question of the parental rights to practice their religious beliefs vs. the child's right to be free from abuse.

It's all good...