Enough, says Carolyn Tomei.

Enough, says Bruce Starr.

These two Oregon lawmakers occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they've reached the same conclusion about child protection:

One standard for all parents. Equal treatment under the law, with equal measures of toughness and compassion.

Not a separate legal system with special privileges for certain parents with certain religious beliefs.

"It just has built up over the years," says

the state's epicenter of faith-healing deaths. "And when you go the cemetery and look at the headstones and see all those children's names, you say, 'This is enough.'"

In the early and mid-1990s, Oregon exempted people who treat their sick children solely with prayer from most prosecution for mistreatment, homicide and other offenses. Lawmakers acted in response to pressure from the Christian Science Church, the nation's largest religious organization favoring faith healing. Also, they didn't want to subject parents of faith to the increasingly harsh penalties favored for serious crimes.

The decision made some sense at the time. Lawmakers weren't fully aware of the many deaths of children whose parents belong to Followers of Christ, a church based in Clackamas County that requires members to shun medical care. They didn't know that medical experts would classify dozens of these children's deaths as likely preventable.

They didn't know about the headstones, row after row.

They do now.

In 1999, after a string of high-profile child deaths, Oregon stripped away some of its legal protections for faith-healing parents. However, several remain. Oregon is one of a tiny handful of states, along with Arkansas and West Virginia, to automatically shield faith-healing parents from prosecution for homicide or first-degree manslaughter.

"Oregon is a very tolerant state, and that's good, in a way," says Rita Swan, president of

that advocates on behalf of injured children in faith-healing families. "But not when it comes to the mistreatment of children."

Swan says she and her husband have temporarily moved to Salem from Iowa to fight for change.

sponsored by Tomei and others, would remove the remaining religious exemptions for serious crimes involving victims younger than 18. It also would remove language singling out faith-healing parents for lighter sentences in certain crimes, or for favorable consideration in child-endangerment cases.

Oregon courts would still be able to exercise considerable discretion through the charging decisions of prosecutors, the oversight of judges and the latitude of juries. But the discretion would be the same for all parents, regardless of their religious beliefs.

"What I want," says Starr, "is equality under the law."

Starr, a

has worked on this issue for more than a decade. He says he's gotten some criticism along the way from fellow conservatives who ask why he isn't more deferential to those who believe so fervently in prayer.

"As a Christian," he says, "I absolutely believe in prayer. ... But my bottom line is, if my wife and I did not provide medical care to our kids, and something terrible happened, we would be held accountable."

In 2009, two Followers of Christ parents were prosecuted for the

who died of untreated pneumonia and an infection. Last February, two other parents were prosecuted for the

who became sick and died from an untreated urinary blockage. This year,

for letting their baby girl suffer from an untreated hemangioma that disfigured her face and may have compromised her vision.

Each case sparked revulsion and disbelief. Each forced a debate about religious freedom and criminal culpability. Each raises interesting philosophical questions about how best to punish parents who appear mostly unswayed by earthly consequences.

I do think the justice system should always take motive into account, whether parents are mentally ill, drug addicted or following a fringe religion. I also think the state should continue giving a wide berth to parents with unconventional beliefs, as long as children aren't endangered by their actions.

But Oregon can't keep treating the lives of certain kids as automatically less valuable. And Oregon can't keep sending the message, through its laws, that it's sometimes OK to let children suffer or die in the name of religion.

We've let this go on long enough.

-- Associate editor

The Oregonian