It's Wrong 'Cause They're Christian Science.

From the New York Times today, an article on the provision proposed for the health care bill that would cover prayer for the sick, submitted by the Christian Science church:

Although the Christian Science measure calls for reimbursement for some basic forms of care for the sick, like helping them eat and bathe, the prayer component has drawn fierce opposition from various civil liberties groups and child-protection advocates. They say it would violate the separation of church and state and could endanger the lives of minors whose parents turn to prayer rather than medicine when their children are ill.

In the past, some members of the church, formally known as the Church of Christ, Scientist, have been prosecuted for allowing children to die instead of treating them medically. But such cases are rare. And while healing through prayer remains their central belief, church officials say they do not forbid conventional medical treatment.

The church has had powerful allies. Earlier this year, its reimbursement measure passed two committees in the House and one in the Senate.

The Senate health committee acted at the behest of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, where the church has its headquarters, and Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican who is a Mormon and has said the measure would ensure that the health legislation “does not discriminate against any religion.”

In the end, critics said it was unconstitutional, and the measure was dropped from the final House bill and from the Senate version being debated now.

Of course it's unconstitutional to allow the Christian Science church to insert their faith-based prayer coverage into health care cause they're well, unAmerican, a cult, you know, not real Christians. But let every other tax-exempt Catholic or evangelical backed group push to limit reproductive rights, gay rights, elder rights and well, it's ok?

Senator Nelson said this week that he is waiting for the USCCB to weight in on his Stupak-Pitts-like anti abortion amendment before he poses it to the Senate. Perfectly fine and constitutional, right? The title of the article is, witlessly, "To A Divisive Debate, Now Add Religion." As if religion is only making an entrance when it is backed by the Christian Science church?