The bill did not change existing law governing the granting of temporary injunctive relief. Frist confirmed that.
No, Frist asserts two separate things, first that no Law is changed, then he asserts that it is fairly evident that because of what the bill requires She must be kept alive....and as i pointed out in order to have that be the actual state of things you need to rely on First speaking casually, and Reject Santorum speaking casually, and the Main men behind the legislation briefing the Court on it.
Going further if Whittemores decision isnt activism what is?
In Count 6 or 7 he asserts that they have no claim against Hospice, because Hospice is following the Order of a State Court, he then in Count 10 rejects the Substantive Due process claim, because there is No State actor?