you seem to be confusing procedural due process with a substantive due process claim.
She enjoyed the Judicially recoginzed external right of life, and the burden for removing that right is far heavier, and merited far more scrutiny than it was given, at the end.
That was clearly Congress' intent in passing the law, and while you sit here weighing in on what YOU THINK the law means...Many highly skilled legal minds, and the bills chief
stewrads say the opposite.
" for the alleged violation of any right of hers under the U.S. Constitution or laws"
reaches far beyond a procedural due process claim.
FYI, following are some of Sen. Frist's comments regarding the bill:
"There has been a lot of discussion about what this bill actually does. Let me explain: simply put, it allows Terri’s case to be heard in a federal court. This legislation permits a federal district judge to consider a claim on behalf of Terri for alleged violations of Constitutional rights or federal laws relating to the withholding of food, water or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
This bill guarantees a process to help Terri, but does not guarantee a particular outcome. Once a new case is filed, a federal district judge can issue a stay at any time, 24 hours a day. A stay would allow Terri to be fed once again. The judge has discretion on this decision. However, I would expect that a federal judge would grant a stay under these circumstances because Terri would need to live in order for the court to consider the case.
If a new suit goes forward, the federal judge must conduct what’s called “de novo” review of the case. De novo review means the judge must look at the case anew. The judge need not rely on or defer to the decisions of previous judges. The judge also may make new findings of fact. Practically, this means that in a new case, the judge can reevaluate and reassess Terri’s medical condition."