Replies

Here's the ACLJ Amicus Brief:

As it reads after applying Rule of Terri #2

AMICUS BRIEF OF CONGRESSMAN DAVE WELDON, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, AND LIBERTY COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ARGUMENT

This is not a “right to die” case. Rather, this case is about efforts to protect a vulnerable, disabled young woman from harm at the hands of those with manifest conflicts of interests.

This case has a long and complex history. The overriding question here, however, is whether to restore the status quo -- food and fluids for Terri Schiavo ~~-- so that she~~ will ~~not~~ die before the various important questions at issue can be duly sorted out.

I. Life-threatening situation

Terri Schiavo’s life is in imminent jeopardy. Her death will irreparably prejudice the proceedings herein. An injunction can always be reversed. But this Court has no power to resurrect the dead. Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 283 (1990) (“An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment . . . is not susceptible of correction”).

To delay is to sentence Terri to an inhumane death. If she were a cat or a dog, her death by starvation and dehydration would not be tolerated. If she were a convicted felon, her death by starvation and dehydration would not be tolerated. Cf. State ex rel. White v. Narick, 170 W. Va. 195, 292 S.E.2d 54 (1982) (convict has no right to starve to death, even voluntarily); People ex rel. Ill. Dep’t of Corrections v. Millard, 335 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1070, 782 N.E.2d 966, 969 (2003) (same) (citing cases).

That she is a gravely mentally disabled woman should not place her beyond basic human decency.