. . blood . . . ye shall not eat," Leviticus 17:12- 14: ". no soul of you shall eat blood . . . whosoever eateth it shall be cut off," and lastly Acts 15:29: " That ye abstain . . . from blood . . . " Most all other Christian groups believe that these passages refer only to dietary laws, not medical laws.
Jehovah's Witnesses brought suit in opposition to a state statute that allowed the courts to order medical treatment, including blood transfusions, for children without parental consent. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the act of receiving blood or blood products prevents a person from resurrection and everlasting life after death. Along with other groups, they argued that it denied the right to family privacy given to them by the U.S. Constitution's Ninth and Fourteenth amendment. It denied them equal protection under the law since the state protects the religious liberty and parental rights of all other citizens and all other religions. .
The state's highest court found none of these grounds persuasive. The court concluded that "religious freedom does not include the freedom to expose children to ill health," or death, which will be discussed further on. The state has the right to intervene in the name of health and welfare in these circumstances. The California Penal Code says that, "any person who . . . willfully causes or allows any child to suffer . . . or permits that child to be placed where their health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment." The government holds to the fact that .
.
adults are free to choose martyrdom, while children cannot have that thrust upon them. The state has a role as a sovereign guardian to "father its children and persons under disability." .
In a 1996 case, a jury found the parents guilty of reckless homicide and child neglect in the death of their 9- month old girl. Her parents treated her with prayers, fasting, and invocations of Scripture.