Posted on 03/31/2005 12:41:54 PM PST by FR_addict
Please consider signing in Terri's honor.
Protection for the Disabled
http://www.petitiononline.com/TerriLaw/petition.html
This was started by Terri’s supporters at FreeRepublic.com
To: US Senate We the undersigned would like to petition the US Senate to please pass the House version of the Bill to protect the Disabled. Bill number H.R. 1151, “Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act”, was introduced by Rep. Dave Weldon on Mar 8th.
With Terri Schindler Schiavo's dehydration and starvation death today, we feel that this bill was the correct version to pass and needs to be resubmitted to the full Senate in honor of Terri. We want this bill voted on, so that we know where our Senators stand on this crucial matter.
A BILL To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide the protections of habeas corpus for certain incapacitated individuals whose life is in jeopardy, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- The Congress finds the following:
(1) Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, `No State . . . shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
(2) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress `to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions' of the Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has held that under this section, while Congress may not work a `substantive change in the governing law' under the other sections of the Fourteenth Amendment, it may adopt remedial measures exhibiting `a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.' Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 21 (2004); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 519-20 (1997).
(b) Purposes- It is the purpose of this Act--
(1) to facilitate balancing the acknowledged right of persons to refuse consent to medical treatment and unwanted bodily intrusions with the right to consent to treatment, food, and fluids so as to preserve their lives; and
(2) in circumstances in which there is a contested judicial proceeding because of dispute about the expressed previous wishes or best interests of a person presently incapable of making known a choice concerning treatment, food, and fluids the denial of which will result in death, to provide that the fundamental due process and equal protection rights of incapacitated persons are protected by ensuring the availability of collateral review through habeas corpus proceedings.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF HABEAS PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General- Chapter 153 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking section 2256 and inserting the following:
`Sec. 2256. Extension of habeas protections to certain persons subject to court orders
`(a) For the purposes of this chapter, an incapacitated person shall be deemed to be in custody under sentence of a court established by Congress, or deemed to be in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State Court, as the case may be, when an order of such a court authorizes or directs the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the person's life. In a habeas corpus proceeding under this section the person having custody shall be deemed to encompass those parties authorized or directed by the court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment, and there shall be no requirement to produce at the hearing the body of the incapacitated person.
`(b) Subsection (a) does not apply in the case of a judicial proceeding in which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person, while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicable law that clearly authorized the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances.
`(c) As used in this section, the term `incapacitated person' means an individual who is presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of food, fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law.
`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States. '.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The item relating to section 2256 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 153 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`2256. Extension of habeas protections to certain persons subject to court orders.'.
(c) Prospective Effect- The remedies specified by this Act shall be available on behalf of any incapacitated person deemed to be in custody by its terms who is alive on or after the effective date of this Act.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
I have heard many people say this, and I have to say, I don't get it. It is difficult to understand why whether a state can order the death of an innocent citizen is a "state issue" over which the federal government can have no say.
Surely, if that is true, then there is no problem in a state legalizing slavery.
I don't want to see this tragedy used to expand the power of government even further.
Can you explain how prohibiting states from ordering the deaths of innocent citizens "expands the power of government", and leaving states alone to order the death of innocent citizens puts less power in government's hands?
She was convicted of no crime.
The "dozens and dozens of hearings" were not evaluating the merits of the case but the process and jurisdiction.
Maybe so. Read Ann Coulter's column today for a different (as always) perspective: http://www.anncoulter.com.
But what about the eigth Amendment? "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." By involving the courts, especially the Federal ones, wasn't that violated. Just for whom were the Rights written anyway? The government, or the governed?
Question: Has any "online petition" actually acheived its stated goals?
great way to generate mailing-lists, though.
I have no idea, whether they have or have not. If they haven't before, hopefully this one will.
I just heard from one of the Congressmen that there is nothing stopping the Senate from passing the same bill as the house. We need to get this law passed.
Are you in Florida? Have you any inside knowledge?
It doesn't say that it won't happen either. People in Florida are absolutely fed up with a few RINO's, if we have to work til the cows come home so be it.
One woman got prayer taken out of school. No one thought she would succeed either.
Several credible-looking commentators have assured us that Michael has been very attentive through the years, and that he has been able to convince the court of his good will because of his (ostensibly) persistent desire to help Terri. But it looks to me like a sham.
As others here have pointed out, his controlling, overbearing resolve to extinguish her life, and topping it off now with ordering the Shindlers and Fr. Pavone out of the room at her last moments, and it proves to me, that Michael has behaved in a premeditated and malicious way.
We are looking at state-sanctioned, cold-blooded murder in the first degree. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance: willful murder of the helpless and meek. It is the worst of all sins. And we as a nation are all guilty, especially those of us who have sat by in silent acquiescence to this abomination of desolation (let the reader understand).
Just as America sat by and watched the legalization of abortion, now America will soon forget nor long remember the demise of this innocent victim of diabolical disorientation and its adherents. The noose tightens around our collective necks. The beginning of life has been successfully attacked and the bastions are breached. Now the end of life is being dissolved into the stoic doldrums of equivocation. Our minds are numbed and our hearts are hardened and God's wrath is justified come what may.
We have laid ourselves wide open for chastisement.
Anyone headed for an amusement park? I don't know how anyone, who understands what just took place, can find entertainment enjoyable today. March thirty-first will never be the same. A day that will live in infamy, for those who give a hoot.
We've been on TEJ since the first article about Greer not filing his oath and not qualifying for office.
Several of those articles were sent to the Gov.
Somebody needs some big bravery and I don't see it in Florida.
Good points!
To make it easier to go to the link:
Protection for the Disabled
http://www.petitiononline.com/TerriLaw/petition.html
This was the compromise bill that was passed by Congress:
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--S.686--
S.686
One Hundred Ninth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fourth day of January, two thousand and five
An Act
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
SEC. 3. RELIEF.
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.
SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
MY point was merely that online petitions are GREAT for producing pinpoint targeted mailing lists.......but the answer to the question I responded to is probably no.
I like this comment made by one of the signers:
This bill needs to be made to say that unless there is an advance directive directly giving permission to withold food and water that it CONNOT BE ORDERED BY GUARDIAN OR COURT!!
We need to add to the bill!
Thank you.
I've signed online petitions before, and never had any trouble with mailing lists. If you're worried about signing, don't sign.
I want Congress to know that their consituents want protection for the disabled.
"Well I think the dozens and dozens of hearings meet the requirement of "due process of law" don't you? Probably not..."
Actually, I have a problem with a death sentence handed down by a CIVIL court, in a civil case. Seems like the death penalty should only be available in criminal cases. I just can't wrap my head around it . . .
That judge should have been removed from the case, there should be some option to have another judge appointed when it becomes so obvious that the judge is biased.
Those two statements contradict each other. If a law demands that they do something, they're going to pass judgement on its constitutionality. That's a pretty basic consequence of Marbury vs Madison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.