WASHINGTON -- Despite pleas for emergency intervention, a federal judge in Florida made no immediate decision yesterday on whether to order doctors to reconnect the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman at the center of a widely publicized legal battle between her parents and her husband.

		Related coverage Analysis: Terri's Law may be constitutional, but is it enough? Delineating wishes before facing death is important Updates from The Associated Press

Doctors have said Schiavo, whose feeding tube was removed midday Friday under a state court order, could die within two weeks if the device is not reinstated. After the two-hour hearing in Tampa yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge James D. Whittemore gave no indication of when he might make a decision .

For now -- after the extraordinary decision by Congress to pass a law signed by President Bush that moved the case from the state to the federal arena -- Schiavo's case is squarely in the hands of the federal courts. It could be decided within days or languish for more than a year.

But the remarkable role that Congress has played in the drama has raised questions about how far some lawmakers would wade into this issue if the courts do not rule in favor of keeping Schiavo alive. And it has given new hope to the advocates who lobbied for Schiavo's parents' position. They believe the intense public scrutiny could lead to new legislation that extends far beyond Schiavo's case -- and would address questions ranging from which relative should be allowed to make life-or-death decisions for an incapacitated family member to whether there should be national guidelines that determine whether a guardian is acting in the best interests of the patient.

Several Republican Senate aides said yesterday they thought it was unlikely that legislation could clear the Senate, and the President's aides repeatedly stressed that Schiavo's case was "extraordinary," but that has not dampened the hopes of the advocacy groups.

In recent days, Schiavo's case has blanketed national cable networks and captured the nation's attention. But long before last week, a broad consortium of groups, including social conservatives, groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and disability advocacy groups, were monitoring the legal struggle. It began in the late 1990s between Schiavo's parents and her husband, Michael Schiavo, who has told Florida courts that his wife would not have wanted to continue living in what some doctors have described as a "persistent vegetative state."

Those groups were instrumental in pressing lawmakers to take action on the case after Florida courts threw it out and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

Some members of Congress said they received a frenzy of calls from members of those groups, who in many cases were being bombarded with e-mails and news bulletins mobilizing them to urge legislators to weigh in and "save Terri."

Burke J. Balch, Director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, said his group hoped to capitalize on the media attention to get broader legislation passed that protects incapacitated persons facing withdrawal of life support.

Stephen Drake, a research analyst at the disability rights organization Not Dead Yet which opposes the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, said some disability rights groups hope that Congress will open a broad investigation into whether hospitals face financial pressure to take disabled patients off life support, whether there should be more uniform guidelines for guardians who make life and death decisions, and even how often doctors misdiagnose patients as being in a "persistent vegetative state."

Some of the groups advocating to keep Schiavo on life support -- both disability groups and traditional anti-abortion groups -- are saying they will press for reconsideration of the far broader legislation written by House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin and Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla.

Heated debate continued yesterday among legal scholars and the American public over whether Congress had already reached too far.

Sixty-three percent of people polled by ABC news on Sunday said Schiavo's feeding tube should be taken out compared with 28 percent who said it should not. And 67 percent of those polled said Congress' intervention in Schiavo's case was for political gain and not out of concern for her well-being. The poll was conducted among 501 randomly selected adults, and had a 4.5-point margin of error.

The strong support for the measure -- which passed the House 203-58 and by a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate -- raised lingering questions about whether members of Congress would intervene again if the federal courts throw out Schiavo's parents' challenge as the state courts have.

But even Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who was one of the most prominent voices pushing his colleagues to take action on the Schiavo case -- and was one of the legislators urging Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist not to let members go home for the recess until Congress acted -- said he thought Congress' role in Schiavo's case was over.

"If a federal court reviews it and [makes a finding] similar to the state court then we've done what anyone can do," Santorum said. "You can't go around and complain about every case -- and I'm not saying we're going to do that -- but at the same time I wanted to make sure that there were adequate safeguards in place and that's why I would be supportive of some sort of broader piece of legislation."

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Swissvale, an anti-abortion Democrat who said he agonized over how he would vote on the Schiavo case late Sunday night, said Congress had already gone too far.

"There's hundreds of cases like this all across America, are we going to start doing these cases every week?" Doyle asked. "Is it proper for Congress to insert itself in an issue that is clearly an issue for the courts and not for a legislative body? I just think we're on dubious ground constitutionally."

Doyle and Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, opposed the House bill that allowed the Schiavo case to move from Florida to federal court. Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Bradford Woods and Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair voted in favor of the measure.