Opinion: Does the right to life stop when a child is born?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Dale Neumann was convicted Saturday of killing his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, because he prayed for her instead of taking her to a hospital when her undiagnosed diabetes got so bad that she couldn’t eat, drink, walk or speak. She died on the floor of her rural Wisconsin home with her father, mother and a group of people praying for her healing. Neumann says he was simply putting his faith first and following the will of God, but a jury found him guilty of second-degree reckless homicide. Neumann’s wife, who similarly said her daughter’s sickness was a ‘test of faith,’ was convicted earlier this year.
This event raises serious questions about the conflict between individual rights and governmental power, just as abortion does. Both involve innocent and dependent lives with no real power to contest a parent’s choices. And unlike Wisconsin, most states give immunity to those who rely only on faith healing and refuse medical care. Those governments are essentially recusing themselves from any duty to protect the Madeline Neumanns in their communities. According to Wayne Purdin, blogging at Examiner.com,
In 1998, a study of religion-based medical neglect in the journal Pediatrics documented 172 child fatalities over 20 years among 23 religious denominations in 34 states. Faith Assembly in the Midwest led with 64 deaths. The Christian Science Church was second, with 28. The study called the cases the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ since many are never reported. The vast majority of these deaths were avoidable.
Where should the line be drawn between parents’ religious rights and the government’s power to protect the defenseless? Isn’t this a Right to Life issue? And if it is, where are the Right to Lifers?
--Catherine Lyons