Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The LA Times notes that the provision in the Senate health care reform bill that supports payment for Christian Science faith healing as a legitimate form of medical treatment was supported by prominent members of both parties:
Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.
In one of the few things Nancy Pelosi has done right that I can think of, she stripped it from the House bill:
The spiritual healing provision was introduced in the House by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), whose district includes a Christian Science school, Principia College.Two committees in the House voted to include the measure in their versions of the overhaul, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) stripped it from the consolidated House bill last week after a few members argued it was unconstitutional.
Let's hope the conference committee doesn't include it.
Politics
Comments
So I have to wonder, did they put this in knowing it would get pulled so they could say, "Hey, we tried..."?
Posted by: Don | November 7, 2009 9:48 AM
God may not have any use for medicine, but he does want third-party reimbursement.
Posted by: Dr X | November 7, 2009 4:03 PM
What about the bronze snake on a pole thing? Can I get paid for putting one up at a snake-handling church?
Posted by: kehrsam | November 7, 2009 4:51 PM
So Christian Science people charge for their prayers? Is that what Jesus would do?
Posted by: Horrorshow | November 7, 2009 6:04 PM
If they removed the provision *only* out of Constitutional concerns, I think that only heightens a related concern that was raised in the last post on this subject. Does the bill, as it currently stands, provide taxpayer-supported funding for non-religious brands of pseudoscience, quackery, and woo?
After all, there's nothing "unconstitutional" about guaranteeing coverage for acupuncture, naturopathy or homeopathy. It would just be terribly unscientific and a complete waste of useful funds that could be spent on real medicine instead.
Posted by: Loren | November 7, 2009 8:39 PM
Requiring people to buy health insurance, and jailing them when they do not, is fundamentally unconstitutional. This violation of our nation's Constitution will cause taxpayer money to go to a multitude of religious organizations, Catholic hospitals, Lutheran hospitals, Jewish hospitals, etc, etc. But no one seems to care about that (hypocrisy). Jesus' temporal needs were met by those to whom he ministered. If they had not been, you can be certain he would have charged for his services. It is recorded that many of Jesus' followers continued to practice spiritual healing successfully for about 300 years--until the false opinions of scholastic theology blotted out this central aspect of Christianity. Fortunately, the healing element was revitalized through Christian Science. The vast majority of Christian Science prayer treatments are given out freely for the benefit of all. But to avoid living in the gutter, Christian Science practitioners charge a modest and reasonable fee for the act of spiritual healing. That matter-based healers should be well-paid, but Spirit-based healers shouldn't be paid at all is total hypocrisy. If Christian Scientists don’t use medical services, then they shouldn’t be forced to subsidize medical care for those who do. Let them have a total exemption. Otherwise, it is only fair to reimburse them for their spiritual care; and it is, after all, a mere fraction of the cost.
Posted by: spiritual_life | November 8, 2009 4:05 PM
Spirtual_life, you may or may not have a point about the constitutionality of forcing people to buy insurance. However, reimbursement for spiritual healing should only happen once that spirtual healing has been proven in a double blind, placebo controlled study which has been repeated at least a couple of times by independent groups. Until then it is just another unproven claim. Good luck with that study.
Posted by: Don | November 8, 2009 10:57 PM
Don @ 7 - I would love to get in a betting pool with Christian Scientists on the results of some well-done experiments measuring the efficacy of their "spiritual healing" practices. I'm all in.
In the meantime, when they become able to regenerate limbs without the help of actual medical practioners and science, then please wake me up. Rip Van Winkle.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 8, 2009 11:54 PM
Michael Heath:
Every single person that the CS Church prayed for has either died or will die within the next 150 years. What the heck kind of prayerbased medicine is that?
Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 7:25 AM
Don, I would completely support "a double blind, placebo controlled study which has been repeated at least a couple of times by independent groups." Because the spiritual understanding level and, therefore, the demonstration level of Christian Science practitioners varies widely from individual to individual, I would want only the top Christian Science practitioners to be utilized in these studies. Unfortunately, most Christian Scientists raise theological objections to such studies,--objections I happen to disagree with. There was a father and son team engaged in scientific studies using prayer in control groups for large numbers of plant seeds. As I understand it, their results were very positive and clear-cut. Unfortunately, these two individuals seemed to suffer from mental problems and committed suicide, but their work was published in "A Journey into Prayer" by Bill Sweet (Amazon). The CS Church fought them fiercely, but I believe they were pursuing a spiritually legitimate, and perfectly logical, idea. Today's Christian Science practitioners don't claim to be at the level of healing that Jesus and his disciples reached (if they were, such studies wouldn't be needed), but they are having healings. And those healings illustrate, however faintly at present, the power of Mind over the body.
Posted by: spiritual_life | November 9, 2009 9:45 PM
spiritual_life:
"There was a father and son team engaged in scientific studies using prayer in control groups for large numbers of plant seeds. As I understand it, their results were very positive and clear-cut. Unfortunately, these two individuals seemed to suffer from mental problems and committed suicide, but their work was published in "A Journey into Prayer" by Bill Sweet (Amazon)."
And I would value their research almost as much as the divinations from a ouija board.
Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 11:08 PM
Democommie, If Mayo Clinic or John Hopkins did the exact same studies with Christian Science practitioners, and arrived at the exact same results, I suspect you would still "value their research almost as much as the divinations from a ouija board."
I would recommend that you read (National Public Radio's) Barbara Bradley Hagerty's book "Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality." Though I completely disagree with her, in my opinion, spiritually ignorant assessment and interpretation of Christian Science, and her inane belief that spiritual experiences can be reached through the use of drugs, I will say that, on other points, she presents an effective challenge to the so-called hard sciences crowd who reject the mental phenomenon we've been discussing here.
Posted by: spiritual_life | November 9, 2009 11:45 PM
It's very telling that you ignore the (multiple) studies that indicate prayer has no effect on sick patients, but decide that one about plants is relevant. Why do you care more about plants than people?
Posted by: Kyorosuke | November 9, 2009 11:51 PM
Spiritual-life @ 12:
Why use of the descriptor "so-called"? I've been hanging out at ScienceBlogs.com for years now and I find we are unabashedly "hard", where I assume you mean we adhere to scientific methodology and don't extend our assertions beyond the empirical evidence.
If Ms. Haggerty's challenge was effective, she would have citations of empirical evidence. Could you please provide that evidence, i.e., the citations themselves, not a mere book? If it's merely an aesthetically pleasing argument to some while totally lacking any convincing, peer-reviewed, and independently validated empirical evidence, than how is that challenging?
Science is challenging because it meets those lofty standards. The woo-meisters don't even try, merely making up arguments or misrepresenting others' work. I don't know Ms. Haggerty's work, but I'd be surprised if she's empirically discovered something spiritual given that would be a first in the history of humankind. So I kinda think all of us would have heard about it. But please, surprise me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 12:16 AM
Your premise, Kyorosuke, is that the prayers in those prayer studies were substantially equivalent to the prayers in Christian Science treatment. Not so. Prayer in Christian Science treatment is from a completely different standpoint than prayer in other religions. And that is why, in the history of Christian Science practice, the results have been completely different.
So all scientists who ever worked with plants are illegitimate and uncaring? Nonsense! For two lone researchers, working with thousands of plant seeds is certainly easier than working with thousands of people. You have to start this type of research somewhere, and that is as good a place as any.
Posted by: spiritual_life | November 10, 2009 12:31 AM
Not to be disrespectful, Michael, of the great and noble achievements of human science, but I believe there is a greater reality, and in that greater reality, a divine Science of Mind, a Science of Spirit, over and above human science. For you, that remains to be seen. For me, perhaps my experience has shown me tiny hints of it.
As for Hagerty's book: Amazon (dot) com. Go for it.
Posted by: spiritual_life | November 10, 2009 12:49 AM
spiritual_life stated:
If it's greater than what we understand through the scientific method and discernable as reality, shouldn't we be able to both validate its existence and then measure the fact it's greater?
And again, no to the book. When it comes to learning about the sort of stuff you are discussing, I only read that which reports and explains peer-reviewed empirical evidence, the vast majority of which has been independently validated post-publication and peer-accepted. Those include both positive theories/hypotheses explaining science's findings along with notions and hypotheses which have been discredited and often outright falsified. I've learned that any notions and adherents to such that resist do so knowing their notions couldn't withstand such scrutiny.
Such reluctance by Christian Scientists to be scrutinized according to your posts here and other CS adherents I've queried (I didn't realize you posted @ 10 until reading your post @ 16) appears to remain their status quo, i.e., Christian Science resists efforts to establish any such empirical evidence or have had previous efforts falsified. I know very little about this group but I'll assume your assertion is correct that there is no evidence of efficacy. That's no surprise on my end.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 7:01 AM
"Your premise, Kyorosuke, is that the prayers in those prayer studies were substantially equivalent to the prayers in Christian Science treatment. Not so. Prayer in Christian Science treatment is from a completely
Okay, now I'll call bullshit.
The CSC couldn't even save itself from being nearly bankrupted and riven with all sorts of internal partisan warfare some years back. Christian Science may well be christian, it sure as shit ain't science. Your prayers are worth precisely as much as my rabbit's foot for good luck. And, as some wag suggested a long time ago; the rabbit had four feet, look where they got him.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 8:18 AM