On September 12, Judge Richard Kopf of the U.S. District Court for Nebraska upheld Nebraska’s metabolic screening law against a challenge by followers of the Church of Scientology.  It is the first federal court ruling that a state has the right to require a screening over the religious objections of parents.  It follows upon the heels of Douglas County v. Anaya, 269 Nebraska 552 in 2004, which is the first state court ruling upholding that right.

 

            Scientologists Louise and Ray Spiering of Wahoo, Nebraska, follow the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in Dianetics:  the Modern Science of Mental Health.  Hubbard claims that his “silent birth method” is essential to a person’s physical and spiritual wellbeing.  The method requires that infants not be subjected to stress, pain, loud sounds, or voices during the first week of life.  Other sensory experiences should also be limited as much as possible.  For example, lights must be dimmed in the delivery room.

 

Scientologists believe that when a person experiences pain or is influenced by anesthetics or drugs the conscious mind temporarily shuts down.  The reptilian or reactive part of the brain, however, records all sensory experience.  Later when the person encounters the same sensory data or words, his reactive mind is triggered by the earlier memories.  This may cause flight or fight reactions and reliving the pain of earlier traumas.

 

Because the infant goes through so much pain in the birth process,  any further discomfort, talking, and strong sensory data during the first week of life will be recorded in the infant’s primitive, reactive, non-reasoning part of the brain, Scientologists claim, and, throughout the rest of his life, the individual will have strong fear and tension when he encounters those words or other triggers again.

 

            Nebraska is one of four states that require metabolic screening of all infants without a religious exemption.  Furthermore, Nebraska requires that the screening be done when the infant is between 24 and 48 hours old.

 

The Spierings filed a federal suit against the Nebraska governor and other officials claiming that the law violated their right to free exercise of their religion.  They also claimed that Nebraska’s screening program was an unreasonable search and seizure of their children in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  Lastly, they claimed that the state law violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to care, custody, and control of their children.

 

The court held that the state needs to have only a “rational basis” for a law that is neutral and generally applicable.  If a law singles out one religious practice for prohibition or favoritism by the state, then it must be justified by “strict scrutiny” of the state’s motivation. 

 

The court ruled that Nebraska’s metabolic screening law applied to all infants equally and that the state had a rational basis for requiring the test for all newborns and within 24-48 hours after birth.

 

The Spierings argued that strict scrutiny of the law was required because they had not only a freedom of religion claim, but also a parental rights claim.  They were trying to present a “hybrid rights claim” that the screening law violated two fundamental constitutional rights and therefore triggered the strict scrutiny standard of review.

 

The court, however, held that case law recognized “two competing values of equal worth:  the right of parents to parent and the right of children to safety.”  A challenge yoking parents’ rights to religious rights does not make the law more suspect because those rights must be balanced against the child’s right to protection.

 

The court also held that the screening law was not an unreasonable search and seizure because the parents must first be advised that the test will be done and given an opportunity to object in a court hearing.

 

The Spierings did not appeal the district court’s ruling.