PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-3.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Mar 21, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the Senate passed version is repeated here.)
Grants jurisdiction to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo (Ms. Schiavo) for the alleged violation of any right of hers under the U.S. Constitution or laws relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
Grants standing to any parent of Ms. Schiavo to bring a suit under this Act. Allows suit to be brought against any other person who: (1) was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain Ms. Schiavo's life; or (2) may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that in such a suit the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Ms. Schiavo's within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. Directs the District Court to entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
Declares that, notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after its date of enactment.
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to: (1) create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States; (2) confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related to assisting suicide, or a State law regarding assisting suicide; or (3) constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation.
States that nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.
Declares the sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.
People & committees
Sen. Frist, William H. [R-TN] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-3.
Became Public Law No: 109-3.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 182 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S. 686 with 10 minutes of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 203 - 58 (Roll no. 90). (text: CR 3/20/2005 H1700-1701)
House roll call 90 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 203 - 58 (Roll no. 90).(text: CR 3/20/2005 H1700-1701)
House roll call 90 · Individual votesDEBATE - Pursuant to a previous special order, the House proceeded with 3 hours of debate on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 686.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1700-1723, CR 3/21/2005 H1723-1728)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S3099-3103; text as passed Senate: CR S3103; text of measure as introduced: CR S3105)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S3099-3103; text as passed Senate: CR S3103; text of measure as introduced: CR S3105)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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 S.686 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 S.686 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 S.686 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 S.686 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.