Finally.  There were some deaths recently where I’m from associated with “Faith” healing, Christ Scientists I think (kind of an oxymoron, I know).  I don’t think the government should mandate a specific treatment for illness but prosecuting neglect is well within its power.  Good for you Clackamas County!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This took far too long, but of course it’s my beloved Oregon that goes for it first. I want a federal law.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hurrah!  Every State should follow suit.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Just wait until the GOP finds out… it will be an attack on religion not common sense!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Indygrl is right. The far right extremists will eventaully repeal this.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Although faith and religion are major aspects in our lives, these situations must be regulated and well taken care of.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

According to the journal of Clinical Evidence only 11 percent of all conventional treatments are actually estimated to be beneficial. Conventional medicine kills 225,000 Americans per year, yet the indoctrinated worship at its altar without question. It is always better to err on the side of liberty than on the side of a profiteering authority. We have a system that largely just treats and creates disease whilst deploring health. Chronic health conditions are now being associated with medication and surgery. Our environment and food are poisoned by the same group that would give us the solution.___

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” —Thomas Jefferson

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

While this certainly seems like an issue for the GOP to champion, there is little glory to be had within the realm of public opinion for defending those that lead their children to an easily preventable death.  If instead of denying medical options to the believers, a faith advocated the sexual use of minors, proponents may claim that their actions should be constitutionally protected, dissenters would expound upon the illegality in the sexual abuse of minors.  In either case, the crux of the problem remains the same, although some may argue that sexual abuse is preferable to death, or vice versa.

The real question is this: is there a prevailing moral law that can be adopted by every citizen of this nation?  If so, then the freedom of religion has its limits.  If not, then legislation like this can and will be easily challenged on the basis of protection of freedom of religion.  Where is the line between law and “moral law”?

It seems as if the great consistency in this country is the allowance of strange and occasionally illegal activities on the grounds of protecting religious freedom so long as harm only comes to a consenting adult.  Happily, children are very much not adults, and will thus be protected… in one state.  Cheers to federal laws punishing abusers of the innocent, may they flagellate themselves to their heart’s content, as long as they are 18 years of age and of a sound mind.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@DR53467, you must be right. Modern medicine is mostly nonsense, which is accurately reflected by this graph:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/49101305_e8e2316bfc.jpg

Think of it this way: Perhaps only 11 percent of conventional treatments are effective (incidentally I can’t find anything to back that up), but what percentage of faith-based treatments are effective in dealing with medical issues? That’s right, zero.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As a believer in God…I do understand that it is God who gives the wisdom behind science, technology and medicine…He want’s us to be a part of the solution because His love for us is all about a relationship with Him.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As I come from the UK I am confused about an idea of liberty that removes from parents the right to decide what is in the best interests of their child.  I have a child who is now adult, with a chronic disease, and I tried always to do the best for him, researching treatments and assessing risks and benefits.  This did NOT mean that I blindly followed what was recommended by his doctors.  Nevertheless he suffered from poor treatment, where I would have done better to refuse it.  This idea that all faith is wrong and all science is right makes my blood run cold.  Medicine involves people and is not so advanced that even today we can predict how an individual will react to a drug or a treatment.  I don’t think legislation is an appropriate response to this, at all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Fee Berry - what the freaking frick are you talking about? I guess it’s refreshing to see the “freedom trumps all! Who cares if little children die, we must have freedom to make our own choices!”-thing from someone who isn’t an American, but still… What are you talking about?

The bill, according to the article “would remove spiritual treatment as a defense against all homicide charges”. This doesn’t say anything about limiting choices for parents, it says that when a faith healer once again kills a child, he won’t be able to say “yeah, whatever, it was spiritual treatment so you can’t convict me, ok?”

And I can never understand this “science/medicine isn’t perfect so I must rush to the defense of any completely unproven, completely ineffectual ‘alternative’”-thing either. Yes, we all know that the science of medicine isn’t perfect - but it really is the best we’ve got. In the very great majority of cases, medical treatment is making people’s lives better, more pain free and longer than they have ever been before. I’m sorry for you if you’ve had a bad experience with it, but believe me - the experience people with real illness have with faith healers is not very good either. All they get is false hope, and sometimes a false sense of security that makes them fail to seek other treatment. Which, as has been mentioned, sometimes leads to children dying deaths that could have easily been avoided. Why do you want to defend that?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.