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 Terris 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
I am not. I do not know, let alone "assume", whether she wanted to live. She may or may not have. There was insufficient basis for concluding either. (Which uncertainty alone was reason enough that she should not have been killed.)
Further, whether someone wants to live, I hate to break it to you, has very little bearing on whether for you to kill him is wrong. If you shoot a depressed, suicidal teenager in the head, the fact that he "wanted to die" doesn't make it ok.
That was a perfectly valid assumption in the case of Terri Schiavo,
I disagree.
It is absurd to order someone's death on having made an "assumption" that they want to die, however "valid" one might think that assumption is. That reasoning was the crux of the idiocy of this case.
which is why I didn't raise constitutional objections then
You probably should have. It can hardly be constitutional for a state agent to "assume" that a person wants to die and then order her death on that basis. If people think this is constitutional, that's a problem.
But I'm not about to give the federal government power to decide on its own whether or not that's the case.
That's stupid. The federal government, through the 5th and 14th amendments, most certainly does have the power to deny the states the authority to kill their own citizens. Whether you're "about to give" them that power or not.
I have to wonder, who the heck convinced so many people around here that Letting People Kill People was somehow at the heart of federalism, strict constructionism, and conservatism? *boggle*
Sorry, but that's just one more step down a road that's not going to bode well for the country.
Preventing states from killing innocent people is "one more step down a road that's not going to bode well for the country". Allowing states to kill innocent people, apparently, is the better road, one that bodes well for the country. Understood.
It's idiocy, but understood.
Charles Krauthammer said this last week in his column entitiled 'The Law is Failing Terri', which is posted on townhall.com: "There is no good outcome in this case. Except perhaps if FLorida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones... It will help prevent us having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy."
There are many doors that have been cracked open in this ordeal that would have been better left closed. The question is now, do we have what it takes to close them before they are torn off their hinges?
Would you ping Terri's supporters?
The Schindlers have been informed of this petition.
Perhaps more of Terri's supporters would be interested in supporting a stronger bill for the disabled if they knew about it.
Another freeper is planning to contact some attorneys that came out in support of Terri to tell us if we need anything else in the House bill to prevent activist judges from ignoring this law.
I agree.
I don't want the Feds hovering over my deathbed making sure I suffer as much as possible before I die either!
Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
Ok, Don't sign.
I signed because I don't want a lowly Circuit Court Judge that ignores the laws in Florida to dehydrate and starve me to death and refuse to allow me any type of rehabilitation.
According to the nurses and the medical notes early on Terri was taking food by mouth. The feeding tube was placed in her for the convenience of the nursing staff. Judge Greer refused swallow tests for Terri before he condemned her to death. She could be taught to eat by mouth again. She swallowed her own saliva and did not have a suction tube for saliva removal.
And therin lies the problem with the federal judiciary, they are de facto a law unto themselves.
Ya'll HAVE TO READ THIS!! IT IS HORRIFYING!!!
I found this story this morning....
On Monday, February 20th, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.
I was in Mexico City conducting a pilgrimage and unable to be at her side so there were many questions upon my return. The doctors could not tell me the cause of her death so I began to search for the answers and was fortunate to obtain the hospital chart. It then became very clear that my grandmother had been targeted for euthanasia!
Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between times saying I dont want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordained; I want to see Greta walk. Johnny was her grandson studying in Rome to be a priest and Greta was her new great-grandchild. Even though over-sedation is one of the most common problems with the elderly she was immediately diagnosed as having a stroke. When she became comatose a completely hopeless picture of recovery was portrayed by the nurses and doctors who reported that she had a stroke, was having seizures, going in and out of a coma, and was in renal failure.
The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states no seizure activity and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure! How were we to know that the coma was drug induced and that all the tests were normal? Why would they lie?
Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a no code status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The no code was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope. Minutes after obtaining the no code a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma, slowing the respiratory rate and compromising the cardiovascular system leading to severe hemodynamic instability. The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads Death by natural causes.
My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. More interesting is the fact that the second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death! Obviously these signatures were not obtained before or even upon her admission to hospice. How can this be professionally, morally or even legally acceptable? Can anyone therefore be admitted to hospice to die? It certainly seems possible especially if sedated or unresponsive. In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness.
http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/
Don't you think its kinda funny that these people had 15 years to prove these hearsay statements in court and they couldn't do it?
Agreed.
Ok.
Nevertheless, I had various and sundry disagreements with several of the related statements you made along the way, as seen in my previous post to you.
Bump for Terri!
Please consider signing in Terri's honor.
Protection for the Disabled
http://www.petitiononline.com/TerriLaw/petition.html
I'll only say here that if something's illegal under the 14th amendment, there's no need for Congress to make it illegal. If it's not illegal under the 14th, then Congress has no authority under that amendment to make it illegal.
And therin lies the problem with the federal judiciary, they are de facto a law unto themselves.
I don't consider it a problem that they pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws, but rather that their pronouncements on constitutionality are treated as unassailable fact.
Well, as long as you're specific about where I erred and show why it is so that I erred about your position.
In any case, none of it betrayed any serious attempt at rational discussion.
As opposed to, for example, the post I'm currently responding to.
I'll only say here that if something's illegal under the 14th amendment, there's no need for Congress to make it illegal. If it's not illegal under the 14th, then Congress has no authority under that amendment to make it illegal.
What are you talking about? Specifically? What did Congress "make illegal", or try to? Or are specifics, bearing on an actual point of some sort, too much to ask from someone who purports to crave rational discussion.
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.