she was by no means capable of free will to decide not to attend due to the relationship and power held over her by the church.
This statement blows me away. The possibilities of applying this part of the ruling are endless IMO.If a child were being forced by it's parents to refuse a transfussio, the argument pressented and thereby referred to as a an opinion from Bower VS. The WTBTS could state that the parents are not acting upon their own free will in making a decision of their own free will. ( I think 
)Could it possibly open up options for "Concerned Father"? who is suing the society now? "The freedoms are not absoulte and damage supercedes the rights of religion". God I want to read this entire decision. Cassi, of the thinking out loud class tonight and in stunned amazement.