Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RedBloodedAmerican
What I find amazing is that freepers insist that Jeb (and possibly George W.) Bush use an executive order to put Terri's feeding tube back in, but screamed like mad when Clinton used executive orders ("stroke of the pen, law of the land, cool," Paul Begala) to circumvent congress.

What's equally amazing is that the Schindlers waited until this late date to demand that Jeb act. They knew years ago the court cases were going against them. Did they go to the state legislature to ask them to pass legislation which said that nutrition/hydration cannot be withheld from any patient without the patient expressing that in writing and witnessed? Jeb surely would've signed the bill, and without a grandfathering in clause, Schiavo wouldn't have been able to do get a court order to remove the feeding tube.

It's all Jeb's fault.

117 posted on 10/19/2003 7:52:17 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Catspaw
"What I find amazing is that freepers insist that Jeb (and possibly George W.) Bush use an executive order to put Terri's feeding tube back in, but screamed like mad when Clinton used executive orders ("stroke of the pen, law of the land, cool," Paul Begala) to circumvent congress."

Using executive power to prevent a murder, or completion of a murder pending furthur investigation I just can't see as being equivolent of using it to circumvent congress. Apples and oranges.

167 posted on 10/19/2003 10:02:55 AM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

To: Catspaw
What I find amazing is that freepers insist that Jeb (and possibly George W.) Bush use an executive order to put Terri's feeding tube back in, but screamed like mad when Clinton used executive orders ("stroke of the pen, law of the land, cool," Paul Begala) to circumvent congress.

How about demanding that she at least be offered oral sustenance? Denial of oral sustenance, when such denial would kills someone, is expressly forbidden. Of course, Greer's denial of oral sustenance is supposedly for the purpose of ensuring Terri doesn't get fluid in her lungs and develop pneumonia, but I think Jeb could clearly say that--regardless of what Judge Greer claims--that denial of oral sustenance in this case would have the effect of killing her.

255 posted on 10/19/2003 5:16:50 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson