Perhaps my logic is flawed and Congress isn't the SCOTUS but the situation reminds me of a supreme justice issuing a stay of execution.
Maybe that's what's called for, a stay of execution because I don't think it can be called anything else.
By my lights, it is certainly an execution: intentionally starving someone to death is a cruel death indeed.
It's not a lawful execution, as far as I can see, since the lady was not convicted of any crime, and she has had no opportunity to appeal her non-existent conviction. Even if she were a bloody-handed murderer like Ted Bundy, she would be executed in a far less cruel fashion.
As others have pointed out, try starving your pets or your livestock, and you may end up with a felony charge and conviction depending on what state you live in.