How Pro-lifers Rationalize Bush's law...

Any truth to this post? It's obviously going to be Bush's defense of the law he signed letting doctors pull the plug in Texas (though pro-lifers still ought to be disturbed he'd let guardians like Michael Schiavo pull the plug):

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=231&forumid=1

I researched the bill that the then Gov. Bush signed into law.
In 1999 the then Gov. Bush signed into law that says guardians could make the choice. The bill was ameneded in 2003 to allow doctors to make that choice, they have to go thru a medical ethicts boards first. To blame Pres. Bush for what happened to Sun Hudson is ridiculous since he was President at the time the bill was changed, There's no "hypocrisy" on the part of President Bush in this situation.
I personally find the law abhorent.

But the 1999 law clearly states that the doctor can pull the plug over the wishes of the next of kin

Period. End of sentence.

Did is specify they could pull the plug?

I mean, the first case study was a six month old.

From what I read the other day on another thread, the law Bush** signed into law in 1999 as TX governor gave hospitals the authority to pull the plug on adults on life support over the wishes of the legal guardian. In 2003 it was amended to expand that authority to children on life-support, like Sun Hudson.

before he was born what his syndrome was, they wouldn't have put a respirator on him in the first place -- and -- if his mother had prenatal care, any irregular ultrasounds would have probably led to amniocentesis, and then, most probably, the pregnancy would have been terminated.

The problem people have with * stepping in for one person, given his record of changing this Texas law to give authority to doctors over and above a guardians' wishes is that it his hypocrisy. The doctors in this particular case, those who treat Terri on a daily basis, all have testified that their isn't a chance for recovery, that she is in a permanent state of PVS. Then it would be a matter of the law/ethics committee determining what the cutoff for permanent states of PVS was, not the family members, if the Texas law applied here (which it doesn't).


edit: clarity

The mother may have been able to decide to have a late term abortion, not sure what Texas law is on late term abortion. If these fundies have their way, they would force her to carry that child. Then turn the right of termination over to the hospital after it was born.

least from how I understand the law (I may be wrong, it's late...). Depends on how old she is, and how many ultrasounds she would have had. If it was discovered after the cutoff point for an abortion, her doctor would have probably informed her of what was going to take place, and why, and would have given her time with her son until he died. Since she had no prenatal care at all, it would be hard to determine how quickly the syndrome could have been diagnosed under typical care.

edit: clarity