But the newspaper notes supporters of the First Amendment principle of th
e separation of church and state are concerned that the provision would amount to federal funding of religious services.
Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert and dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, told the newspaper, "I think when Congress mandates that health companies provide coverage for prayer, it has the effect of the government advancing religion."
Sen. Hatch said he was pushing the provision because "everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare."
A pediatrician and medical ethicist at the University of Wisconsin said the provision, however, should be dumped because it would pay for services that are not medical.
"They want a special exception for people who use unproved treatments, and they also want to get paid for it," said Dr. Norman Fost. "They want people who use prayer to have it just automatically accepted as a legitimate therapy."
Post new comment