Should Faith Healing practices be protected or prosecuted?

 

Is refusing medical care for one’s children based on religious beliefs child endangerment or protected religious practice? Pennsylvania courts are in the midst of deciding this in the case of Connie and Martin Deimler, who are charged with child endangerment. The couple allegedly failed to provide medical care to their children, leading to the death of an infant and severe illness of a toddler. The couple held sincere religious beliefs in the efficacy of faith to heal the sick, and against the use of medical treatment. I think that in this case, the government has a compelling interest to protect the welfare of children even if it restricts free exercise of religion. 

On December 12, 2025, EMS and State police were called to the Deimler home in Lebanon County, PA in response to the death of their 6-day-old son. The infant died from complications from neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and multiorgan dysfunction. The couple had not received prenatal care or medical care after birth. State troopers also discovered that the couple had another young child with significant medical issues. That child was taken in for surgery immediately, and Connie and Martin were instructed on how to care for that child’s medical and nutritional needs. After the couple allegedly failed to follow those instructions, the child was placed in the custody of Lebanon County Child services on December 29, 2025. On April 23, 2026, both parents were charged with two cases of felony child endangerment. Under the statute they are charged with violating, child endangerment is defined as a parent knowingly endangering the welfare of a child by violating their duty of care, protection, or support. The statute is neutrally written and includes no text allowing for religious exemptions.

The Lebanon Branch of Faith Tabernacle Congregation

Connie and Martin Deimler are members of Faith Tabernacle Congregation. Faith Tabernacle Congregation is a small non-denominational fundamentalist Christian church. Key to the religious practice of Faith Tabernacle is a belief in faith to heal the sick. As an extension of this belief, members of the church completely eschew any medical treatment, including vaccines and lifesaving treatment. Started in Philadelphia in 1897, Faith Tabernacle Congregation has a long history of legal issues due to their trust in faith healing, from a 1906 case of a child dying from untreated typhoid fever to members being forcibly vaccinated in a 1991 measles outbreak. The church has historically been insular and follows a variety of other fundamentalist practices in addition to faith healing.

At the heart of the case is a question over the limits of the state in protecting children from harmful effects of religious belief. How far does the free exercise clause go in permitting parents to subject their children to their religious beliefs? While no Supreme Court cases have directly dealt with similar faith healing situations, a few dealing with the broader issue of parental authority are helpful in understanding the constitutional context of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Martin Deimler and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Connie Deimler.

Prince v. Massachusetts concerns the ability of members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to enlist children to distribute religious literature in violation of child labor laws. Ruling in favor of Massachusetts, the Court decided that the government has broad authority to regulate the treatment of children, beyond what would be considered unconstitutional restriction of free exercise of religion for adults. The majority opinion notably asserts that “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…” This statement has proven to be grimly prescient in the Deimler case. The state has a compelling interest to protect the welfare of the child under the legal principle of parens patriae, and this interest can override the free practice of religion.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court ruled in favor of the old Amish Community allowing them a religious exemption to mandatory schooling laws. The majority opinion appeals to the long history of the Amish in living separately from the world, and to the fact that the contested practice is “intimately related to daily living.” This decision protects the ability to gain exemptions from laws that overly burden foundational religious practices, even if those laws are neutrally written and applied.

While Faith Tabernacle Congregation is not quite as insular as the Amish, I think that it is comparable to the Amish in many ways. Like the Amish, the church has a long history of religious practice that runs counter to the mainstream. If the specific practice were less harmful, perhaps the child endangerment statute could have a religious exemption such as Wisconsin v. Yoder helps establish. It's clear that the statute heavily burdens a practice that is foundational to members of Faith Tabernacle Church: the ability of parents to trust in God to heal their children. However, this situation is a literal case of life and death, which easily meets the standard of a state’s compelling interest to protect a child’s wellbeing. For this reason, I agree with Lebanon County prosecutors that neglecting medical care for children is felony child endangerment. 

Currently, the two cases are being processed by the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas. If the two are found guilty, I think it is unlikely that religious exemptions to the child endangerment statute will be considered, based on both Pennsylvania and Federal precedent. Moreover, under the principle of parens patriae, I feel that the state is fully valid in prosecuting this case.