Why would he sign legislation preventing a woman's legal guardian from making her end-of-life decisions for her, yet, as governor of Texas, sign a law which gives hospitals the authority to take terminally ill patients off life support against the wishes of their spouses or parents if doctors deemed it medically appropriate?
I don't understand. Could a Bush fanatic explain this to me?
2007-03-07 02:52:27 · 6 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I assume you are talking about Terry Shaivo. What is even more amazing to me is the fact that the Senators approved this bill "unanimously". One hundred percent of the Senators voting, voted for and approved it. Do you know how many Senators voted??? There were three of them. 97 did NOT vote. I am extremely concerned that only 3 Senators can approve a bill.
2007-03-07 02:59:21 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe if the terminally ill patient was annoying like you, Bush would have a leg to stand on.
2007-03-07 13:05:34 · answer #2 · answered by Chicka B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For all of his religious talk, Bush is just a politician, pure and simple. When he was governor of Texas, he didn't have as big a fish to fry as he has being the president.
2007-03-07 10:58:39 · answer #3 · answered by tangerine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Republicans only want to make end-of-life decisions for US troops.
2007-03-07 10:57:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a choice between appeasing the extreme right, and being rid of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton once and for all.
2007-03-07 10:57:03 · answer #5 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
he thought flip-flopping would make him more like john kerry and appease the dems.
2007-03-07 11:14:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋