The House of Representatives met in an extraordinary session on Sunday because a much-loved disabled woman in Florida has been ordered to die by starvation and dehydration. We met because Terri Schiavo's family, including her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, refuse to allow their precious daughter -- who is not in a coma or terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state -- to be killed by starving her to death. 

    Regrettably, Terri's case has been confused with those cases in which families confront the decision to remove a terminally ill loved one from life support. 

    My family and I faced that decision, and it was one of the hardest moments in my life. My father, Bern Smith, after fighting end- stage stomach cancer with multiple complications, went into a coma. We were advised by numerous doctors that there was no hope. He died within minutes of being removed from the respirator. Terri Schiavo's case is completely different. It is a disability case. She is not dying except by court order. 

    Disabled people like Terri Schiavo deserve no less than everyone else. They deserve to have their fundamental human rights protected and properly asserted. We acted, in a bipartisan way, because there are serious questions about whether Terri Schiavo's estranged husband, Michael, who has abandoned Terri for another woman and has had two children with the other woman, should be trusted as a legal guardian for a woman for whom he has sought death for many years. 

    Terri Schiavo has been in a hospice for five years. My mother was in a hospice. She had brain cancer and was dying. One enters a hospice when one is dying. Terri was not dying, but her estranged husband warehoused her for years in a place equipped only to treat those who are dying. 

    Many who argue that Terri should die claim that everyone agrees she is in a persistent vegetative state. That is simply not true. No less than 14 independent medical professionals, including six neurologists, have said she is not in a persistent vegetative state. 

    Dr. William Hammesfahr, a board-certified neurologist who was nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in the treatment of neurological diseases, said in his affidavit this month to the court: 

    "I have personally examined Terri Schiavo ... Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state ... When I examined her approximately two years ago, she was not PVS or MCS, she was in an alert state, able to follow commands, able to respond to language, and able to swallow ... Terri Schiavo deserves to have the benefit of further treatment ..." 

    More than one doctor who has examined Terri says she could be receiving therapies, medical and otherwise, that would make her situation all that much better. All of that has been denied to her. Since 1993, she has been denied by her estranged husband basic medical provisions and procedures that could enhance her life. 

    In her affidavit, nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who cared for Terri at the hospice for more than a year, testified that Terri was "alert and oriented." Iyer said Terri would try to speak and communicate through moving her arms, legs and full body to express happiness, pain or discomfort. 

    Most people do not realize that Terri is not on a respirator, is conscious and has the ability to swallow on her own. They don't realize that Michael Schiavo never mentioned to anyone that Terri had said she would not want to live "like that" until he had collected money in a lawsuit seven years after her injury. It never came up for seven years. 

    Terri's estranged husband, who is her legal guardian, has blocked attempts at therapy or rehabilitation and won't even allow her to be taken out of her room for fresh air. She is not dying; she is disabled and deserves proper therapies. 

    Most people also do not realize that only one trial judge and one appellate court panel heard any of the evidence in this case. The other courts declined to review the case without reviewing the record. This is hardly an acceptable review for someone's death sentence. A convicted murderer has more protection of his rights than this woman, whose only fault is that she became disabled. 

    Thankfully, Congress during the debate had much time to review and consider these important facts. I believe that is why the legislation was supported unanimously in the Senate and by nearly 4-1 in the House of Representatives. It was a bipartisan victory, as evidenced by the vote of House Democrats, who split almost evenly (47 in favor and 53 opposed). 

    At the very least, Terri should be re-evaluated and re-examined. At the very least, Terri should be able to eat and drink while some of these questions are answered. At the very least, Terri should not be starved to death while her mother, father, sister and brother sit on the other side of her closed window trying to save her.