Bush: "We in government have a duty to protect the weak, disabled and vulnerable,"

[Squirt]

TIMELINE:

1999

Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed into law The Futile Care Statute which allows doctors the right to remove life support against the wishes of the parents of a patient, even children, due to the statutes changes in the TX health and safety codes Chapter 166

In 2003

FL Gov. Jeb Bush forced legislation titled "Terri’s Law" Which gave Jeb Bush the right to reinstate a patients feeding tube. The Florida supreme court found Jeb Bush breached separation of powers and the law was found unconstitutional.

Jan 2005

Supreme court refuses to hear Schiavo case.

March 16, 2005

For the first time in U.S. history life support was removed from a pediatric patient against the wishes of the parents. Why? Because of the legislation president George W. Bush signed into law in 1999 (see above) Coverage of the story 1 2 3

March 21, 2005

Bush pushes bill through to force the Federal court to hear the Schiavo case. Stating "..our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life." Huh???

19 judges, in six different courts, over the last 15 years, have had numerous court appointed medical experts testify in the Schiavo case stating she's a vegetable. ALL JUDGES ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo and his right to fulfill his wife’s wishes. Today Mr. Schindler was quoted as saying "All I want is a chance at a fair trial for my daughter" Huh???

Why is it that 6 days after the first child in U.S. history was taken off life support, against the parents wishes, because of legislation president Bush passed, we now see Bush going against the ruling of 19 judges and the non interest of the supreme court, to now force a Federal judge to hear a case where Bush hopes for the patient to live in honor of the parents wishes, even though they are not the guardians & have no legal rights?

Can someone explain why this is happening and why the coverage of Schiavo is out shadowing the coverage of this baby that was killed because of legislation Bush passed? Did anyone even know this baby died solely because of Bush's legislation?

I like the quote on this blog "George W. Bush: bioethical flip flopper. He passes laws while governor of Texas, allowing hospitals to kill children against the wishes of the parents (without adjudication by the courts, btw) and then, as president, sanctimoniously fights a culture war under the pretext of a 'culture of life.' "

[Jasun]

NEVER attempt to confuse Republicans with the facts.

Honestly, Squirt, I bet if the other case got any press, maybe someone would give a rat's ass.

Makes you wanna break something, doesn't it?

[Squirt]

NEVER attempt to confuse Republicans with the facts.

Honestly, Squirt, I bet if the other case got any press, maybe someone would give a rat's ass.

Makes you wanna break something, doesn't it?

Fuck yeah! You know it just adds more credibility to the theory of Jeb fixing the vote in Florida to push George through as president. Jebs passing unconstitutional laws to get his way because judges ruled time and time again in a manner he didn't like. WTF? If he would do that, you don't think he'd fix the vote for his brother to win an election? Doing ANYTHING you can to get your way. The mentality of criminals.

The thing that honestly really got me was Mr. Schindlers statement after 19 judges, over 15 years, in 5 courts, have ruled against him "All I want is a chance at a fair trial for my daughter" WTF??!!! A total waste of taxpayers’ money, resources & legal system. A sad time in America right now

[desslock]

Can someone explain why this is happening and why the coverage of Schiavo is out shadowing the coverage of this baby that was killed because of legislation Bush passed? Did anyone even know this baby died solely because of Bush's legislation?

Not to pick nits, but you may want to look into that Texas legislation you refer to. Bush did not "pass" that legislation. The Democrats controlled the Texas House in 1999, so all he did was sign a bill they passed into law, or at a minimum not veto it. I'd be interesed in knowing that bill that was --- all the bills filed in the 1999 Texas Legislature are online.

Plus I'm just saying that you might be taking that out of context. I am not familiar with that bill, but I can say comfortably that Texas under Gov. Bush did not enact some kind of major euthenasia bill in 1999.

Rather then just trying to shake up something from the past that might conflict with the present activites, I would aim criticism at what exactly people are trying to seek legally. I have tried to look at what Congress passed over the weekend, but the news articles say nothing except that a "federal judge" must look at it. And the judge can at that point do what?

Well I'm not sure what that means legally. The laws cannot be more clearer - that your spouse has the decision authority, not other parties. In fact this is one of the benefits of marriage. Perhaps you can argue that the current administration is undermining the traditional meaning of marriage.

Steve

[Squirt]

Not to pick nits, but you may want to look into that Texas legislation you refer to. Bush did not "pass" that legislation. The Democrats controlled the Texas House in 1999, so all he did was sign a bill they passed into law, or at a minimum not veto it. I'd be interesed in knowing that bill that was --- all the bills filed in the 1999 Texas Legislature are online.

Plus I'm just saying that you might be taking that out of context. I am not familiar with that bill, but I can say comfortably that Texas under Gov. Bush did not enact some kind of major euthenasia bill in 1999.

Rather then just trying to shake up something from the past that might conflict with the present activites, I would aim criticism at what exactly people are trying to seek legally. I have tried to look at what Congress passed over the weekend, but the news articles say nothing except that a "federal judge" must look at it. And the judge can at that point do what?

Well I'm not sure what that means legally. The laws cannot be more clearer - that your spouse has the decision authority, not other parties. In fact this is one of the benefits of marriage. Perhaps you can argue that the current administration is undermining the traditional meaning of marriage.

Steve

Yeah I put a lot of effort into this post last night and provided a ton of links there. I did a lot of research and couldn't find the exact legislation from 99 but I gave you the name of it and links to stories about it and links to the changed health code after it was enacted, as you know, Bush signed it into law. I didn't say Bush "enact some kind of major euthenasia bill in 1999" I stated facts. He brought it into law, as you agree.

I'm deeply saddened that Bush and his brother pass laws, and trample on our civil rights, to suit their needs ( Jebs was judged unconstitutional by the supreme court ). I now think Jeb would be very capable of helping slant an election for his brother.

Our judicial system has taken 15 years, used the resources of 19 judges, expert witnesses, and 5 courts to come to the same judgement each time, the husband has the right to fulfill his wifes wishes in this case. So now congress, Jeb Bush, and G.W. feel that all the doctors, all the judges, all the previous courts were wrong... so they defer it to another court to be heard by another judge. And? I'm sad that the country I love so much, which used to stand up to this kind of government control, sits idly by and does nothing while this president steps over boundaries time after time. I'm not a political person. Dem. Rep. doesn't matter to me. The things Bush has/is allowed to do are amazing and only heard of in dictatorships. It's really sad. America is not what it used to be.

Thanks Steve and Jason for your responses. I'm glad someone out there cares. :high:

[desslock]

For me this is just not really an issue that emotionally effects me. (that is just me, everyone is different) However I'll tell you that I am not comfortable with the bill passed over the weekend, and I think the implications of taking this to a federal review level skates on really thin ice.

This issue to me is a good opportunity to observe how you feel strongly that a serious wrong is occuring here. So why can't it also follow that the President, his brother and the others have similar passionate feelings; they feel like Terry Schiavo is the person being wronged. There's a lot of people who just feel that way. We may disagree with them, and yes it can be frustrating! (hey I resigned to the fact that plenty of people disagree with me a long time ago, so tit for tat)

However. I wouldn't prescribe the Bush brothers' motives or operations as sinister. Similarly, the advocates for letting Shiavo die with dignity are not sinisterly trying to advocate some agenda either.

I'm afraid that this issue will not be settled anytime soon. In the meantime, it is a far cry to allege that the United States operates as a dictatorship. If anything, this is an exercize of the rule of law in a system of government where the executive, legislative and judicial branches work through issues.

Steve

PS: I found that 1999 bill you mentioned on the
Texas Legistature Online - it was SB 1260. I can go more into what I found if you want. I don't think it is topical to this case though.

[Squirt]

For me this is just not really an issue that emotionally effects me. (that is just me, everyone is different) However I'll tell you that I am not comfortable with the bill passed over the weekend, and I think the implications of taking this to a federal review level skates on really thin ice.

This issue to me is a good opportunity to observe how you feel strongly that a serious wrong is occuring here. So why can't it also follow that the President, his brother and the others have similar passionate feelings; they feel like Terry Schiavo is the person being wronged.

It's fine to have feelings that someone is being wronged and to feel passionately about something. As Americans we are supposed to have faith in the judicial system, medical experts and our supreme court. Have faith in the system. Have faith in America and if you feel something is wrong, use our judicial and political processes to change it by bringing it to the American people and having them vote on it.

What the Bushes have done is disrespected all 19 judges that had to sit through and try this case over the last 15 years. They've disrespected every medical expert that has testified to this woman’s condition over the last 15 years. They've disrespected the supreme courts refusal to hear this case. They've disrespected the courts and the American peoples wishes that those courts are ordained to enforce.

My concerns aren't about life or death issues with this woman or political party issues. I think both parties have good and bad points. It is wrong that they can't put her to sleep, but instead have to starve her to death. It's inhuman but that's the law. If the Bushes and congress disagree with the LAW then they should bring it to the public and let us decide... we are a democracy right? Americans did vote and decide that spouses have the right to enforce each others wishes in cases like this.

My concern is the same as yours in regards to this to federal review through congress. My concern is J.W. making a law that was judged unconstitutional by the supreme court, just to get his way, even though temporarily.

Am I the only one that sees what trouble we're in here with the Bushes in the positions of power they're in doing what they please and not being held accountable? It really saddens me. Where are the investigations into their actions? Where do they have repercussions for breaking the law?

P.S. I checked that link you gave abou the bill. No meat and bones about it's contents just the timeline of it's inception to activation.. did I miss something?

[Slade]

I'm afraid that this issue will not be settled anytime soon. In the meantime, it is a far cry to allege that the United States operates as a dictatorship. If anything, this is an exercize of the rule of law in a system of government where the executive, legislative and judicial branches work through issues.

Steve

I respectfully disagree with you. This is one of the biggest ABUSES of power that has come down the line in a long time.

I'm not going to go into why I think that now because it's already been posted in this thread..(agree with those that have posted already).

Bottom line is this: When this all shakes out, I think it's going to be very clear that this is PURE politics, and there is truly not this huge amount of human compassion involved (by Repubs or Demos) as it is being portrayed.

But to the majority who elected this President..I hope you are happy with a government that NOW feels it has a MANDATE to LEGISLATE MORALITY (does that sound familiar when the Conservatives criticized the liberals years ago for the same thing) according to IT'S moral views.

That IS abuse!

[Squirt]

But to the majority who elected this President..I hope you are happy with a government that NOW feels it has a MANDATE to LEGISLATE MORALITY (does that sound familiar when the Conservatives criticized the liberals years ago for the same thing) according to IT'S moral views.

That IS abuse!

I agree. This is another abuse that Bush has put upon the American people.

This just occurred to me. President Bush has fought tooth and nail against Gay marriage because it would moraly violate the sanctity of marriage.

Now the sanctity of marriage is what gives the husband, in this case, the right to fulfill his wife’s wishes since being in this vegetative state. Bush has violated that sanctity of marriage. Even his supporters have to take a step back and see the contradiction here.

America cannot afford to have rogue leaders like this. I don't care about rep. dem. ind. etc. I'm not a party line person. I cannot get it around my head how people in both parties don't try and stop this man.

[DigitalJay]

It's creepy and disgusting that they would stand in this woman's room for hours upon hours with a camera, repeating her name, to get footage that makes it appear that she is responsive and aware. What people will do for money, power, or attention never fails to disgust me. People, especially religious fanatics, will use any justification they can find for the destruction of natural selection and natural death through medical "maricles."

If the next life is so beautiful and wonderful, what is wrong with going there? Even those without religion believe in the circle of life and nature's abilities to take care of life worth preserving.

1984 here we come. The judicial branch needs to quit getting crapped on and manipulated.

[gaystoryman]

Well you can add another court/judge to the roster who agrees with the wishes of the husband..

CBC Article

We had a similiar case awhile back, Sue Rodriquez (not sure on spelling) who sought the right to die, it is a tough call morally and politically but it was left to our courts to determine, just as same sex marraige has been left. As much as our own Conservatives want to change it, the people don't and that is the bottom line. Up here the people make their views known, in short we actually VOTE...

Problem as I see it for the USA is that while 53million voted for Bush and 51million opposed him, 100 odd million simply didn't vote so this is what you get for sitting at home on election day.

Just my view.
Ian

[Lee]

Just think, only 2 years and 4 days ago we liberated Iraq and not much has changed LOL

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

Well you can add another court/judge to the roster who agrees with the wishes of the husband..

CBC Article

Problem as I see it for the USA is that while 53million voted for Bush and 51million opposed him, 100 odd million simply didn't vote so this is what you get for sitting at home on election day.

It's not surprising the Federal judge ruled the same as his 19 predisesors.. but I've already expressed my views about why it's wrong it all happened this way.

I agree with you about the voting! Remember the voting problems we had last election? The long lines? Could you imagine what it would be like if even 50 million more people voted the next election? WOW!

[GLBTcity]

At least we KNOW that Bush won't be president again!

That doesn't go without saying that we might get another bad apple.

PapaBear

[Squirt]

At least we KNOW that Bush won't be president again!

That doesn't go without saying that we might get another bad apple.

Jeb Bush - They say he's not going to run in 2008 but it seems they've been elbowing him in as a possibility. Could you imagine Jeb Bush as president? :eek: