Opinion ID: 1281444
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Free exercise under the First Amendment

Text: In the absence of a statutory basis to bar defendant's prosecution, we necessarily reach her constitutional claims. (14a) Defendant and the Church first contend that her conduct is absolutely protected from criminal liability by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 4, of the California Constitution. We do not agree. (15) The First Amendment bars government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Although the clause absolutely protects religious belief, religiously motivated conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. ( Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304 [84 L.Ed. 1213, 1218, 60 S.Ct. 900, 128 A.L.R. 1352].) To determine whether governmental regulation of religious conduct is violative of the First Amendment, the gravity of the state's interest must be balanced against the severity of the religious imposition. ( Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 221 [32 L.Ed.2d 15, 28, 92 S.Ct. 1526].) If the regulation is justified in view of the balanced interests at stake, the free exercise clause requires that the policy additionally represent the least restrictive alternative available to adequately advance the state's objectives. ( Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div. (1981) 450 U.S. 707, 718 [67 L.Ed.2d 624, 634, 101 S.Ct. 1425].) (14b) Defendant does not dispute the gravity of the governmental interest involved in this case, as well she should not. Imposition of felony liability for endangering or killing an ill child by failing to provide medical care furthers an interest of unparalleled significance: the protection of the very lives of California's children, upon whose healthy, well-rounded growth ... into full maturity as citizens our democratic society rests, for its continuance.... ( Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 168 [88 L.Ed. 645, 653, 64 S.Ct. 438].) Balanced against this interest is a religious infringement of significant dimensions. Defendant unquestionably relied on prayer treatment as an article of genuine faith, the restriction of which would seriously impinge on the practice of her religion. We note, however, that resort to medicine does not constitute sin for a Christian Scientist (Schneider, Christian Science and the Law: Room for Compromise?, supra, 1 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. at pp. 87-88), does not subject a church member to stigmatization (Talbot, The Position of the Christian Science Church, supra, 26 N.E. Med. J. at p. 1642), does not result in divine retribution (Schneider, op. cit. supra, at pp. 87-88), and, according to the Church's amicus curiae brief, is not a matter of church compulsion. Regardless of the severity of the religious imposition, the governmental interest is plainly adequate to justify its restrictive effect. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, 321 U.S. at page 170 [88 L.Ed. at p. 654], 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 before they have reached the age of full legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves. The court in Prince considered a free-exercise claim asserted by parents whose religious beliefs required that their children sell religious tracts in violation of child labor laws. If parents are not at liberty to martyr children by taking their labor, it follows a fortiori that they are not at liberty to martyr children by taking their very lives. As the court explained, The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. ( Id. at pp. 166-167 [88 L.Ed. at p. 653]; accord, Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at pp. 233-234 [32 L.Ed.2d at p. 35].) In an attempt to avoid this inexorable conclusion, the Church argues at length over the purportedly pivotal distinction between the governmental compulsion of a religiously objectionable act and the governmental prohibition of a religiously motivated act. Accepting arguendo the force of the distinction, we find that it has no relevance in a case involving an interest of this magnitude. As the court in Prince recognized, parents have no right to free exercise of religion at the price of a child's life, regardless of the prohibitive or compulsive nature of the governmental infringement. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has specifically sustained the compulsion of religiously prohibited conduct for interests no more compelling than here implicated. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, 39 [49 L.Ed. 643, 655, 25 S.Ct. 358], the court upheld a law compelling the vaccination of children for communicable diseases in the face of parental religious objections. In United States v. Lee (1982) 455 U.S. 252, 261 [71 L.Ed.2d 127, 135, 102 S.Ct. 1051], the court upheld a law requiring that the Amish violate the tenets of their faith by participating in the Social Security system. And in Gillette v. United States (1971) 401 U.S. 437, 462 [28 L.Ed.2d 168, 188, 91 S.Ct. 828], the court upheld the government's right to compel certain conscientious objectors to make war despite the religious character of their objections. We see no basis in these precedents for the conclusion that parents may constitutionally insulate themselves from state compulsion so long as their life-threatening religious conduct takes the form of an omission rather than an act. The imposition of felony liability for failure to seek medical care for a seriously ill child is thus justified by a compelling state interest. To survive a First Amendment challenge, however, the policy must also represent the least restrictive alternative available to the state. Defendant and the Church argue that civil dependency proceedings advance the governmental interest in a far less intrusive manner. This is not evident. First, we have already observed the profoundly intrusive nature of such proceedings; it is not clear that parents would prefer to lose custody of their children pursuant to a disruptive and invasive judicial inquiry than to face privately the prospect of criminal liability. Second, child dependency proceedings advance the governmental interest only when the state learns of a child's illness in time to take protective measures, which quite likely will be the exception rather than the rule: Under ordinary circumstances, ... the case of a true believer in faith healing will not even come to the attention of the authorities, unless and until someone dies. (Comment, Religious Beliefs and the Criminal Justice System: Some Problems of the Faith Healer, supra, 8 Loyola L.A. L.Rev. at pp. 403-404.) Finally, the imposition of criminal liability is reserved for the actual loss or endangerment of a child's life and thus is narrowly tailored to those instances when governmental intrusion is absolutely compelled. We conclude that an adequately effective and less restrictive alternative is not available to further the state's compelling interest in assuring the provision of medical care to gravely ill children whose parents refuse such treatment on religious grounds. Accordingly, the First Amendment and its California equivalent do not bar defendant's criminal prosecution. (Accord, Craig v. State (1959) 220 Md. 590 [155 A.2d 684, 690]; People v. Pierson (1903) 176 N.Y. 201 [68 N.E. 243, 245]; Owens v. State (1911) 6 Okla. Crim. 110 [116 P. 345, 347-348]; Commonwealth v. Barnhart (1985) 345 Pa.Super. 10 [497 A.2d 616, 623-624]; Note, California's Prayer Healing Dilemma, supra, 14 Hastings Const.L.Q. at pp. 412.)