Semantics notwithstanding, the important point here is that Bush is 100% culpable.
If that is the point, then that point is 100% wrong. Never use an absolute or you'll be absolutely wrong.
I'd say that if we're to use your definition of abortion as "Killing a Child", then he is still not culpable merely because he did not allow a Law to take place.
The purpose of laws are to universally create a set of rules which a person cannot break without punishment. America is a Secular (not atheist but secular) Nation in that it does not allow the merging of church and state. GWB swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America. If he had allowed his Christian values to influence him there then he'd have been guilty of yet again contravening the constitution. He's broken it so many times that any time he DOESN'T is a cause for smiles.
Christians are allowed to live by their laws and morals, however while they're encouraged to spread the word, they're not encouraged to force others to live by their morals and laws. If a person chooses to break what Christianity sees as "Gods Word", then they're committing a sin (in the eyes of Christianity) and will have to take the consequences of that act. There is a lot of information on how god and Christianity views abortion, the person sins at their own risk and should be allowed to take the consequences.
The only people culpable for the abortion are the Abortionist, the Mother who chooses it, and whoever pays for it, if not the mother.
Remember that the wayward son committed crime after crime after crime and yet the father still loved him. His brother did not love him nor accept him. Eventually the son returned to the father and was welcomed back. His brother did not welcome him back nor attend the party for his return. Who was rebuked? The wayward son, or the always faithful son?
