Religion & American Law

The Christian Scientist Church is currently employing lobbyists to persuade lawmakers to draft a bill that will push insurance companies to cover $25-$50 visits to the Christian Scientist Church for healing prayer. In his New York Times article, Paul Vitello explains how the aforementioned church plans to connect with modern medicine via the thin bridge of structured service billing.

The Church of Christ, Scientist was founded in Boston by Mary Eddy in 1879. After sustaining a serious injury after slipping on a sheet of ice and being told that she had no chance of recovery by her local doctor, Ms. Eddy claimed to be miraculously healed after reading a New Testament Bible verse. She thus formed the Church around the premise that the Scripture beckons Christians to heal others by mimicking Jesus’ reliable actions.

Original Christian Scientist text warned that “anyone inviting a doctor to his sickbed invites defeat.” Since its inception, over 50 members have been charged in connection with death or injury stemming from members, mostly children, being encouraged to forego medical care. Currently, church officials maintain that “its members [have always] been free to choose medical care”. Declining membership rates and Church closings have forced the Christian Scientists to reinvent their approach. They hope that the co-pay options will act as a double edged sword that will both enforce the legitimacy of faith healing and increase the profits of the Church.

Lobbyists have petitioning the Senate on behalf of the Church of Christ, Scientist since 2006. In October 2009, Senate leaders received statements from physicians invalidating faith healing because of the “ complete lack of scientific evidence of the efficacy of prayer in treating any illness or disorder in children.” The doctors maintained that by holding insurance companies responsible for financing the Church’s prayer consultations, the government would be effectively “mandating coverage… for services that run counter to the principles of evidence-based medicine.”

Unfortunately, the article does not question the constitutionality of a Bill that would effectively support the practices of a church that performs services whose only qualifiers are references to Jesus Christ. Isn’t that in violation of the Establishment Clause? In the 1993 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah case, the Supreme Court held that states cannot restrict religiously mandated animal slaughter. The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye is a Yoruba church in Florida that, among other things, provides spiritual help and guidance to its members through Santeria practices. If this Bill is passed, would Santeria healing be included also? Would a Yoruba woman undergoing fertility treatments, who requests a Priest to summon the fertility goddess Oshun to aid in conception, be covered? Probably not. Religious treatment should not be mandated by the Legislative Branch. If all religious healing and treatment cannot be addressed in this Bill, then it is futile to even consider it.