Wild horses could drag me into liberals' camp...

Oh, how I love it when an issue comes along that makes me jump the political fence. It doesn't happen very often, so it's great fun when it does.

I read a news story on MSNBC recently that disturbed me a great deal. Apparently, an old law that protected the American West's wild mustangs from slaughter has recently been repealed, leaving thousands of them now subject to being killed for horsemeat.

You've got to be kidding me. Is this the best we can do?

Wild mustangs aren't like grizzly bears or mountain lions, which, magnificent animals though they are, pose a danger to humans if there are too many in proximity to towns and cities. Nor are they like deer, which proliferate like mad, and are (unfortunately) rather dumb beasts with a propensity for running out into traffic.

Wild mustangs are, like bald eagles, one of the most powerful and majestic symbols of the American landscape. And now we want to slaughter nearly 10,000 of these gorgeous creatures?

For Heaven's sake, America. We decimated the buffalo population. We wiped out the carrier pigeon. We brought the bald eagle to near-extinction. Haven't we learned our lessons yet? I am all for farming and ranching, but surely it isn't necessary to slaughter our beautiful mustangs to accommodate more cows.

What's Wrong with Judge Greer?

Like a lot of others, I have been following the Terri Schiavo case with interest for months now. But during all of the legislative, executive, and judicial tapdancing about whether Governor Jeb Bush could step in, whether the so-called "Terri's Law" was unconstitutional, my mind was elsewhere.

And now, it seems - finally? - the attention has come to the issue that has baffled me for months: Why is Michael Schiavo still Terri's guardian? Why was he ever named her guardian? Why has he not been removed as her guardian and someone else replaced? What's the matter with Judge Greer that he has been unwilling to do this?

As an attorney - and one who has served as a court-appointed guardian ad litem ("guardian at law") years ago, I know that it is not uncommon to have family members named as guardians in cases involving disabled loved ones. But I also know that, whether the named guardian is a relative, spouse or stranger, they must have the represented individual's best interests at heart, and can have no conflict of interest.

Michael Schiavo fails this test on multiple counts.

First, there are allegations of possible spousal abuse. It remains to be seen whether this can be proven from the bone scans and the investigation that the Florida Department of Children and Family has asked for. But I don't think it's necessary to prove that to disqualify Michael as Terri's guardian.

Years ago, Terri won a jury verdict of at least several hundred thousand dollars, which was to have been used to support her and provide her with rehabilitative care. After a brief aborted effort, Michael Schiavo abandoned all attempts to rehabilitate Terri, and the rest of that money is just sitting there. And this despite the testimony of numerous doctors who attest that at least some improvement in Terri's condition is possible. Who gets the money if Terri dies? As surviving spouse, Michael does. This is a clear-cut conflict of interest. Why is Judge Greer overlooking this?

And this brings us to another matter that Judge Greer seems completely unwilling to consider. Is Michael still married to Terri because he loves her? Clearly not. He has long since abandoned her, taken up with another woman and fathered two children with her. So why not divorce Terri? Because then he wouldn't get her money when she dies.

Michael claims that he is fighting this battle to preserve his wife's wishes. Garbage. If he really loved her, he would have spent every dime they were awarded on her care and rehabilitation. He would not have gotten involved with another woman and started another family. And if he were even just a garden variety sort of cad, he would have quietly divorced her, turned her assets over to her parents who want desperately to care for her, and moved on with his life.

But Michael Schiavo is not a garden variety cad. He is the lowest sort of creep. It isn't enough to cheat on his disabled wife. He won't rest until he has her killed and takes her money. And he wants the sanction of the legal profession on this.

And this person is the individual that Judge Greer continues to prop up as Terri's rightful guardian? The one that the legal system claims is best positioned to protect her interests? We know what kind of person Michael Schiavo is - now the question is, what kind of jurist is Judge Greer?

It is often said that "hard cases make bad law." Some say that the Terri Schiavo case is a "hard case." As an attorney, I don't think so. Under Florida law, Terri could have, if she wished, made out a living will and other corresponding legal documents that told medical care professionals she would not wish to receive nutrition and hydration if she were ever in the state in which she is now.

But she did not do that. And so the Florida legal system is scrambling to try to figure out, after the fact, what she would have wanted.

The legal answer to this question should be simple - either you provide written documentation of your wishes in advance, or the law will protect you - and others like you - by keeping you alive. If you find that prospect horrifying, well, that's an added incentive to get your paperwork in order.

Anything else opens up the horrifying prospect we now see playing out in Terri Schiavo's case - elderly, sick or disabled individuals unable to defend themselves against people trying to kill them who have a financial interest in doing so. As an attorney and a judge, Judge Greer should see this as the horrible precedent it is.

Judge Greer should remove Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo's guardian immediately, and without further delay.

I'm back, after a long hiatus

I am finally able to post again, after about three months away. Funny how that coincides almost precisely with the first trimester of the pregnancy I am currently in.

Yes, that's right, folks. We have another one on the way. And although I was sick when pregnant with my second son, it was nothing like this. Forget blogging - it was all I could do to hold body and soul together, hold down a job, keep a house, care for a husband and a toddler. Thank God for Zofran - that's all I can say. It's an antiemetic (that's anti-vomiting for the rest of you lucky people) drug that is frequently given during chemotherapy, and they are having some success using it to treat morning sickness. (By the way, who coined that phrase, "morning sickness," anyway?? How about "all-day-every-day sickness"?)

Anyway, I am back now, and hope to begin doing regular posts again. I know it will take awhile for my former regular visitors to drop by again. That's ok.