If so, quote me the language that says it. The amicus brief appears to argue simply that it is 'implicit' in the bill, not that the bill actually orders the feeding tube reinserted.
Stop arguing about the "bill" - I'm talking about a Public Law - not a BILL.
Hello!!!!! Do you have a brain! Good grief.
And if you want the language of the "bill" go to some congressional site and look it up for yourself. I'm not your flunky. Do your own homework if you're going to argue that the bill "doesn't say" - and ignoring the Public Law which DOES SAY.
And .. while you're looking up the "bill" - please read Public Law 109-3 - which says that the feeding tube must be replaced and a de novo review of this case MUST BE DONE.