The Schiavo parents have filed an amended complaint in the Middle District of Florida action. It's available
here, for those who might be interested.
Obviously, the first question that will probably be asked is "how does this change the case?" The first part of the answer is that it doesn't. AFAIK, the parents have not renewed their motion for a TRO on the basis of the new complaint. Even if they did, it wouldn't likely make a difference.
Why? Because there's no added legitimate legal theory in the complaint. To borrow from Armando, more on the flip.
New claim #1 is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), claiming that the removal of the feeding tube constitutes "unlawful discrimination against her because of her disability." They cite to a federal regulation which says that the ADA does not give a disabled person's guardian the right to refuse treatment on their behalf. However, given that the ADA has never been raised as a basis for the removal of the tube, this claim would seem to be a loser.
New claim #2 is based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forbids discrimination against a handicapped individual by a facility receiving federal funding. The theory alleged is a "right to rehabilitation" under the act. The implications of this argument are interesting, potentially requiring free medical care for all. For that reason alone, I don't see a court buying this.
New claim #3 is probably the most interesting--effectively, it is an attempt to relitigate the state court case, claiming that Terri's substantive due process rights were violated because the state court failed to appropriately apply the standard to the evidence. Because of this, it places the constitutionality of the underlying act at issue, for this is the first claim I've seen in a complaint that really tries to relitigate the state claims.
New claim #4 is a "Cruel and unusual punishment" claim, which frames itself as a "prisoners get better treatment" claim. Again, I don't see this as successful, given that "punishment" has typically been regarded solely in the criminal context.
So while the new complaint is indubitably better and more complete than the prior one, I still don't think it gets them anywhere--it does nothing to change the analysis in this morning's opinion.
[editor's note] I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the (as usual) top-notch work done by Howard Bashman, whose blog remains the best source for breaking legal news and documents.