Why, Exactly, is She Still Being Starved?

Here's a subject of no small confusion to me: it's a virtual certainty that, by early tomorrow morning, the country's laws will be changed to allow an appeal by the Schindlers to federal court. Even those opposing the bill don't think they'll prevail, at least in the short term. Once that happens, it's clear that a stay will be issued on the order allowing the denial of nutrition to Terri Schiavo, and her feeding tube will be reinserted.

That said, all that's been true, and clearly true, since some time yesterday. That there was strong support in both houses of Congress (and in the White House) for some kind of legislative solution that would spare Terri's life at least temporarily has been obvious since yesterday afternoon.

So why is it necessary to wait until the bill is actually passed? Shouldn't the fact that legislative action is likely that will change her legal rights be sufficient to grant at least a temporary stay on the denial of nutrition? As we wait for the formalities of bicameralism and presentment to be satisfied, the woman is starving to death. What if she doesn't make it? Even if she does make it, why impose the additional suffering of two days additional starvation as we dot the i's and cross the t's?

By way of analogy: a condemned man is set to be executed at midnight. As the witching hour approaches, the state legislature works furiously to amend the homicide statute. There's a clear majority in favor of making the specific crime he committed - say, felony murder - no longer a capital crime, and to having that determination apply retroactively. As the clock strikes 12, the bill is still not finished. Should the man be executed? He was after all duly convicted of what is still a capital crime in the state and the assigned time for his execution has arrived. And yet, who wouldn't grant a stay in those circumstances?