At 9pm this evening, the House will debate the latest Terri Schiavo bill. Fox News, for one, is carrying it live. Bush is flying in from Crawford to sign the bill. He's leaving again tomorrow - to return to his vacation. He sure takes an awful lot of vacations.

Update: Here is the text of the Senate bill (S. 653.)

Update: The House has passed the bill. It now goes to Bush to sign. He usually goes to bed before 10 pm. Will he stay up late tonight to sign it?

CNN reports that the husband terminated the parents' visitation rights this afternoon for a short period. Bad move. Terri's brother and sister are very good spokespersons for her.

Update: CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen has an excellent analysis of the legal issues, for which you don't need to be a lawyer to follow:

QUESTION: What does all of that mean? Explain it to me like I'm a fifth-grader.

ANSWER: It means that Congress has literally made a "federal case" out of the Schiavo dispute. It means that Schiavo's parents now have a right to assert essentially the same claims they already have asserted in state court in Florida in a new forum-- federal court-- and applying federal constitutional principles instead of state constitutional principles. It means that the federal trial judge who presides over the case must review all of the facts and law from scratch, without deferring to the legal judgments and factual conclusions the Florida courts have reached after many years of litigation-- and 21 separate, written, published rulings in the case. It means that the federal trial judge may order the tube reinserted into Terri Schiavo almost immediately upon getting the case. It means that Congress has interjected itself into a state law dispute, at the end of that dispute, on the side of one litigant over another.

What will happen when it gets to federal court:

Next there would be a race to the federal courthouse. Terri Schiavo's parents would file a lawsuit seeking to exercise the rights that Congress just gave them. And Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, would go into federal court and ask for a ruling that declares the Congressional effort unconstitutional. It doesn't really matter which side gets to court first, though. The cases, the claims, almost certainly would be consolidated anyway before the same federal judge. And then the judge would hold an initial hearing before determining what to do next.

One more point by Andrew Cohen:

QUESTION: What does that concept do the regular give and take between the court systems, the idea of comity and cooperation between judges?

ANSWER: It destroys it. But that's the whole point of this Congressional action. Not liking a particular result in a case that has been litigated fully and completely by a court with competent jurisdiction, Congress now has said that the game must be re-done with new rules that heavily favor one side over the other. The implications of this move are astonishing. Just think about it. Anytime Congress doesn't like the result in a particular case, it could swoop in and call a "do-over," which is essentially what this legislation represents. And this from a Congress that has for a decade or so tried to keep all sorts of citizens-- including disabled employees-- out of federal court. If this law is declared valid, no decision in any state court in the country will be immune from Congressional second-guessing. It would throw out of whack the entire concept of separation of powers. The constitutional law expert Tribe calls it "trial by legislation" and he is right.

As to the lesson in the Schiavo case, Cohen comes to the same conclusion I did here: Get a living will so your desires are known.

Kitt in the comments points out you can get one online for $15 . (No endorsement is intended.)