PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 16, 2005
Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to authorize an incapacitated person (person), or the person's next friend, to remove to the U.S. district court, for the district in which it arose or was heard, within 30 days after available State remedies have been exhausted, any claim or cause of action in which the State court authorizes or directs the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the person's life.
Defines: (1) incapacitated person as a born individual presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of food, fluids or medical treatment under applicable law; and (2) next friend as an individual who has some significant relationship with the real party in interest, including a parent.
Exempts from such removal authority any claim or cause of action 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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the U.S. district court, in hearing and determining such a claim or cause of action removed under this Act, to consider only whether authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the person's life constitutes a deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Declares that: (1) the court shall determine any such claim or cause of action de novo; and (2) no bar or limitation based on abstention, res judicata, collateral estoppel, procedural default, or any other doctrine of issue or claim preclusion shall apply.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1599)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1599)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1332.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1599-1604)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1332 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1332 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1332 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1332 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.