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
http://www.petitiononline.com/TerriLaw/petition.html
Question: Has any "online petition" actually acheived its stated goals?
Signed:)
Nope.
I don't think euthanasia should be legal.
That's your opinion. You don't have to sign.
Our right to life is guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
Hear Hear.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1373930/posts
Florida lawmaker says he will consider impeaching Schiavo Judge Greer
Well I think the dozens and dozens of hearings meet the requirement of "due process of law" don't you? Probably not...
Fed Judges were supposed to review Terri's case de novo...they didn't.
They all need to be impeached!
They legislated from the bench by their refusal to obey the law that was just passed.
They even went so far as to say it was unconstitutional when that was not even the issue that was before them to consider.
Right now the way it stands, the state can murder you on hearsay evidence from a husband-in-name-only.
Terri's case is a precedent. The bar has been lowered. She had no living will. Yet that didn't matter to the state of Florida.
Clearly?
Just who's definition of clearly will we use?
The states? A Priests? A ministers? A Rabbis? A Freepers?
No thanks, and I only got to "clearly" as a definition you want to use to clarify my living will.
Interested? Any gas left?
David Simmons, aka Don Quixote.
Also, Rep. Conyers continually says he will consider impeaching Pres. Bush.
Saying you will consider something is bascially doing nothing at all.
Absolutely not!
The Florida statue was violated. The law is written only to apply to those who have a living will. The judge "interpreted" the law to include hearsay evidence. He did not consider the hearsay evidence from Terri's friend, only the hearsay given by Michael S. and his family, seven years after her collapse.
In the lawsuit Michael says he would use the money to take care of Terri for the rest of his life. He only said Terri expressed her wish not to live with tubes, years later, when he hooked up with Felos. If you believe him now, he committed perjury during the trial, but that doesn't matter in Florida. He has not filed annual guardianship papers in years. These are required by law, but that doesn't matter in Florida.
I don't consider one lowly district court judge's decision to end Terri's life, "due process".
Criminals get "due process" over and over again. A jury of their peers decide their guilt or innocent, not one lone judge that was breaking the law when he acted as her guardian ad litem and her judge at the same time.
They even went so far as to say it was unconstitutional when that was not even the issue that was before them to consider.
=======
My hat is off to you for your bravery. The courts will undoubtedly now be attempting to starve and dehydrate you to death... to shut you up permanently !!! ;-))
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.