- WASHINGTON (Christian Wire
Service) -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is calling on Congress
to enact a bill to be introduced by Representative Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-Fl-15)
that would give the Schindler family access to a federal court to argue
for the life of their daughter, Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
-
- "Congress can act to ensure a federal court hearing
on whether or not Terri will die of starvation and dehydration," said
Lori Kehoe, Congressional Liaison for NRLC's Robert Powell Center for Medical
Ethics. "A proceeding known as the 'writ of habeas corpus,' which
is protected by the U.S. Constitution, has been used for centuries to give
a hearing to those whose liberty has been constrained by state courts in
violation of the Constitution or federal laws. We call on all citizens
to immediately contact their U.S. Senators and Representatives and urge
them to support Representative Weldon's bill to amend the Habeas Corpus
Act to allow its use when a state court orders denial of food or fluids
in cases like Terri's."
-
- Representative Weldon has announced that he will introduce
the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act on Tuesday, March 8, 2005.
-
- NRLC is the nation's largest pro-life organization, with
50 state affiliates and approximately 3,000 local affiliates nationwide.
NRLC works through legislation and education to protect those threatened
by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.
-
- (Photo) http://www.earnedmedia.org/Bobby%20and%20Bob.JPG
-
- Terri Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, speaking at a
Jacksonville, FL press conference on Feb. 28, also in photo is Terri's
brother, Bobby Schindler
-
- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE FEDERAL "TERRI'S LAW"
-- THE INCAPACITATED PERSON'S LIFE PROTECTION ACT
-
- What is "habeas corpus"?
-
- "Habeas Corpus" is the Latin name for a special
procedure, dating back to England in the Middle Ages, by which a court
can review whether someone is being unlawfully deprived of liberty. It
was used by English courts long before Parliament gave it statutory form
in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. Brought over to the American colonies,
it was considered such a fundamental source of protection of liberty that
it was protected from suspension, except in cases like rebellion or invasion,
by the U.S. Constitution.
-
- Under "habeas corpus," how does a federal court
review a state court decision?
-
- When every state court effort has failed, the person
denied liberty files a petition in federal district court, which considers
whether federally protected rights have been violated and which, in appropriate
circumstances, can conduct fact-finding procedures. The losing party in
federal district court can appeal to a federal circuit court of appeals.
The Supreme Court can choose to hear an appeal from the appellate court.
-
- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Terri's case.
Does that mean lower federal courts can't do so?
-
- No. When the Supreme Court chooses not to hear a particular
appeal, that is not a ruling on the merits and sets no precedent. In fact,
most habeas corpus proceedings in federal district court come after the
Supreme Court has refused to consider a "direct" appeal from
the highest state court.
-
- Isn't habeas corpus for people who are in jail?
-
- Habeas corpus began as a means for prisoners to get court
review of their detention, and the law refers to those who are "in
custody." However, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in a 1968 case,
"[T]he use of habeas corpus has not been restricted to situations
in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody. ... [I]n the state
courts, as in England, habeas corpus has been widely used by parents disputing
over which is the fit and proper person to have custody of their child
.... History, usage, and precedent can leave no doubt that, besides physical
imprisonment, there are other restraints on a man's liberty, restraints
not shared by the public generally, which have been thought sufficient
in the English-speaking world to support the issuance of habeas corpus."
-
- Why does Congress need to act?
-
- Although Terri's case fits well conceptually with habeas
corpus, it is unclear that the current statutes and precedents give her
a right to it. Since the Constitution went into effect, Congress has frequently
expanded, contracted, and modified both who has a right to habeas corpus
and the standards for habeas corpus review. It has the clear constitutional
authority to amend the law to make provision for cases like Terri's.
-
- When a case like Terri's has been considered by the state
courts, why should we add an extra layer of federal court review?
-
- To avoid the danger that an innocent person might be
put to death, those whom state courts have convicted of mass murder or
other capital crimes have long had the recognized right to federal court
habeas corpus review. If we accord that right to someone like John Wayne
Gacy or Ted Bundy, shouldn't we give at least equal protection to someone
with a disability, charged with no crime, who is at risk of being starved
and dehydrated to death?
|
