Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Google "Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act" and You Get

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 11:30 AM
Original message
Google "Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act" and You Get
Edited on Thu Mar-17-05 11:32 AM by UTUSN
a SLEW of wingnut, fundie sites and items being RABIDLY in favor of it, and nary one, at least in the first couple of pages, standing for patient's and guardians' rights. Also, some advocates for the Disabled are FOR this thing, which is a travesty that will affect everybody who has not been explicit in writing about their own wishes.

Hanging with his scoundrelly brother Jeb Crow SHRUB, Shrub has just been reported as encouraging passage of this thing in time to play politics once again with Terri SCHIAVO.

Here's Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-07,GGLD:en&q=Incapacitated+Persons+Legal+Protection+Act&spell=1

Here's a transcript of Michael SCHIAVO's Nightline appearance: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3281289
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is HR 1151 which was approved on 'voice vote' yesterday
in the House and S539 in the Senate. We need to contact our Senators about this infringement on individual rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. S 539 text
Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act of 2005 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

S 539 PCS


Calendar No. 34

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 539
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.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 7, 2005
Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SANTORUM, and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time


March 8, 2005
Read the second time and placed on the calendar

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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- Congress finds the following:

(1) Under the 14th 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 14th 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 14th 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, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 1986 (2004) quoting City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 520 (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 a 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, 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 date of enactment of this Act.
Calendar No. 34


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 539

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Co-sponsors
Edited on Thu Mar-17-05 01:13 PM by paineinthearse
S.539
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Sen Martinez, Mel (introduced 3/7/2005) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 3/8/2005 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 34.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Alexander, Lamar - 3/15/2005 S
en Brownback, Sam - 3/8/2005
Sen Bunning, Jim - 3/9/2005
Sen Coburn, Tom - 3/8/2005
Sen Coleman, Norm - 3/14/2005
Sen Cornyn, John - 3/15/2005
Sen DeMint, Jim - 3/16/2005
Sen Ensign, John - 3/9/2005
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 3/8/2005
Sen Santorum, Rick - 3/8/2005
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 3/14/2005
Sen Stevens, Ted - 3/16/2005
Sen Vitter, David - 3/14/2005

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. HR 1151 text
109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1151
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.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 8, 2005
Mr. WELDON of Florida (for himself, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PENCE, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. HERGER, Mr. AKIN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. FEENEY, Ms. HART, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Ms. FOXX, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. PITTS, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mr. SODREL, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. COX, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. RENZI, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. MICA, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. KELLER, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. HYDE, Mr. BLUNT, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



----------------------------------------------------------------------


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.
END

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Co-sponsors
Bill Summary & Status for the 109th Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R.1151
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Rep Weldon, Dave (introduced 3/8/2005) Cosponsors (126)
Latest Major Action: 3/10/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(126), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 3/8/2005
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 3/8/2005
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 3/10/2005
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 3/15/2005
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 3/8/2005
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 3/8/2005
Rep Bilirakis, Michael - 3/8/2005
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. - 3/15/2005
Rep Blackburn, Marsha - 3/8/2005 Rep Blunt, Roy - 3/8/2005
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. - 3/10/2005
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 3/10/2005
Rep Burton, Dan - 3/10/2005
Rep Camp, Dave - 3/10/2005
Rep Cannon, Chris - 3/10/2005
Rep Cantor, Eric - 3/8/2005
Rep Carter, John R. - 3/10/2005
Rep Chabot, Steve - 3/8/2005
Rep Chocola, Chris - 3/8/2005
Rep Cole, Tom - 3/10/2005
Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 3/10/2005
Rep Cox, Christopher - 3/8/2005
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. - 3/14/2005
Rep Crenshaw, Ander - 3/8/2005
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 3/15/2005 Rep Davis, Geoff - 3/8/2005
Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 3/8/2005
Rep Deal, Nathan - 3/10/2005
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln - 3/8/2005
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario - 3/8/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 3/8/2005
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 3/10/2005
Rep Feeney, Tom - 3/8/2005
Rep Ferguson, Mike - 3/14/2005
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. - 3/8/2005
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff - 3/10/2005
Rep Foxx, Virginia - 3/8/2005
Rep Franks, Trent - 3/8/2005
Rep Garrett, Scott - 3/8/2005
Rep Gibbons, Jim - 3/14/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil - 3/10/2005
Rep Gohmert, Louie - 3/10/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 3/10/2005
Rep Green, Mark - 3/8/2005
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 3/8/2005
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 3/10/2005
Rep Harris, Katherine - 3/10/2005
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 3/8/2005
Rep Herger, Wally - 3/8/2005
Rep Holden, Tim - 3/8/2005
Rep Hostettler, John N. - 3/8/2005
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 3/10/2005
Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 3/8/2005
Rep Inglis, Bob - 3/8/2005
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 3/8/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 3/10/2005
Rep Jenkins, William L. - 3/15/2005
Rep Johnson, Sam - 3/8/2005
Rep Keller, Ric - 3/8/2005
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 3/8/2005
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 3/14/2005
Rep King, Peter T. - 3/10/2005
Rep King, Steve - 3/8/2005
Rep Kingston, Jack - 3/14/2005
Rep Kline, John - 3/10/2005
Rep Latham, Tom - 3/10/2005
Rep Lewis, Ron - 3/10/2005
Rep Lipinski, Daniel - 3/8/2005
Rep Lucas, Frank D. - 3/14/2005
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. - 3/10/2005
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 3/15/2005
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn - 3/10/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. - 3/14/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 3/8/2005
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. - 3/8/2005
Rep McHugh, John M. - 3/10/2005
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 3/8/2005
Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 3/15/2005
Rep Melancon, Charlie - 3/14/2005
Rep Mica, John L. - 3/8/2005
Rep Miller, Candice S. - 3/14/2005
Rep Miller, Jeff - 3/8/2005
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. - 3/8/2005
Rep Murphy, Tim - 3/10/2005
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. - 3/8/2005
Rep Myrick, Sue - 3/8/2005
Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 3/10/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 3/10/2005
Rep Nussle, Jim - 3/14/2005
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. - 3/8/2005
Rep Pence, Mike - 3/8/2005
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 3/10/2005
Rep Peterson, John E. - 3/10/2005
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 3/8/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell - 3/8/2005
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 3/15/2005
Rep Price, Tom - 3/10/2005
Rep Putnam, Adam H. - 3/10/2005
Rep Radanovich, George - 3/15/2005
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II - 3/8/2005
Rep Regula, Ralph - 3/10/2005
Rep Renzi, Rick - 3/8/2005
Rep Rogers, Harold - 3/14/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 3/15/2005
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 3/10/2005
Rep Ryan, Paul - 3/15/2005
Rep Ryun, Jim - 3/8/2005
Rep Saxton, Jim - 3/14/2005
Rep Sessions, Pete - 3/14/2005
Rep Shadegg, John B. - 3/8/2005
Rep Shimkus, John - 3/10/2005
Rep Shuster, Bill - 3/10/2005
Rep Skelton, Ike - 3/10/2005
Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 3/8/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. - 3/8/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 3/8/2005
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 3/8/2005
Rep Stupak, Bart - 3/8/2005
Rep Sullivan, John - 3/8/2005
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 3/8/2005
Rep Taylor, Gene - 3/8/2005
Rep Weldon, Curt - 3/10/2005
Rep Weller, Jerry - 3/15/2005
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. - 3/8/2005
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 3/10/2005
Rep Wilson, Joe - 3/8/2005

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks for the 2 Lists & Text. The Usual A-holes & Blowhards
Edited on Thu Mar-17-05 02:30 PM by UTUSN
I didn't know Lamar ALEXANDER was still alive, much less that he is still a senator--am only slightly exaggerating.

In another thread, somebody asserted that we should study the facts of the case before "bloviating". Imho, there are only 2 general issues involved, which apply to ALL such cases:

1) The individual's decision and choices as effected by an honest and responsible Guardian.

2) NOT religious and governmental entities DECIDING for individuals based on their theology.


Where there is nothing in writing, the usual procedure is for the next of kin (starting with the spouse) and other WITNESSES to lodge statements about what the person wanted. If a Guardian is acting dishonestly, criminally, CONTRARY to what the individual would have wanted, that Guardian would be removed by the similar process of statements of the variance of the Guardian from what the individual wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is what happens when medically ignorant politicians
try to practice medicine. I wish these fools could each don scrubs and spend a week working in an institution where the severely brain damaged are being kept alive by extraordinary means because their families aren't quite ready to let go. They'd emerge as firm believers in euthanasia.

Just as government has no business dictating to religion (beyond forbidding things like animal and human sacrifice and the ritual abuse of children), government has absolutely no place in medicine, beyond setting standards for education and safety.

If they think there's a nursing shortage now, let them keep every severely brain damaged person in the country alive on life support. No one will be left to care for the sick people who have a chance of getting well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Wouldn't surprise me if this issue would have been resolved 14+ years ago
if Terri were black and on welfare - players the same in every other aspect . . . Repukes would be disregarding the "sanctity of life" due to the fact that she'd been tying up taxpayers' dollars . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC