Tuesday, June 27, 2017


Posted by Tim
Warning: A very uncomfortable topic

Today's story in the PDN about the Mass and burial for unclaimed fetuses retrieved from the GMH morgue recalled to mind some research The Esperansa Project was working on a couple years ago. 

At the time of our research, there were the bodies of 30 infants in the morgue. A source had confirmed that several fetuses were recognizable as developed babies (not pea pods). 

Statistically, these bodies were not the product of a miscarriage, so what were they?

We knew from the personal account of one adoptive father that abortions gone bad end up at the emergency room at GMH. Children who survived an abortion prior to the enactment of THE INFANT CHILD'S RIGHT TO LIVE ACT in 2013 (an Esperansa effort), could be legally left to die. 

In this case, the child survived a saline abortion gone bad and an attentive nurse intervened to save the child who was eventually adopted and is today a happy, healthy, young lady. 

In September 2015, a request for information was made about the number of infants in the GMH morgue and the cause of death. Here is what was returned:

Full document here

Suspicion confirmed. One of the dead infants in the hospital morgue was the casualty of an abortion gone bad. Notice that GMH makes it clear that the abortion was initiated "at the clinic." The method used was saline, which is normally used for late term abortions, so the infant could have been nearly full-sized, and certainly recognizable as a "baby." 

Out of curiosity, we looked up the 2015 abortion report to see if the "complication" had been reported. Apparently it wasn't.

The only complication reported in 2015 was related to a complication involving an IUD. It could be that since the abortion was completed at GMH, that the abortion doctor believed that he had no responsibility to report the "complication," which of course would be bad for business. 

It appears that GMH reported it though:

As a side note, it is worth recalling what the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola said in 1990 about abortions at GMH: 
"Let me tell you, at the rate Guam Memorial Hospital is aborting children, between 400-600 a year, and most of them are not even reported. Where are the lives that we are going to protect and preserve? Here we go talking about indigenous rights and self-determination. What good is all that if we don't have our followers to follow and enjoy the fruits of our labor, of this generation's labor, of your labor and my labor to fix this island and have autonomous rights to govern our people?" - quoted in: Asian/Pacific Islander American Women: A Historical Anthology, pg. 372, edited by Shirley Hume, Gail M. Nomura
17 years later, we see from a partial abortion report that there were at least TEN abortions over a 5 month period in 2007 at our tax payer funded hospital:

(More on abortions at GMH in another post)

Other issues

There are a couple of other issues the  GMH letter raises. What is the hospital's definition of "non-viable?"

A quick google turns up this fact:
"...20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks."
A 2013 inquiry into the policy at GMH turned up this:

Full document here

The policy makes it clear that even at 27 weeks, parents may be advised that there is nothing that can be done to save the child while medical technology now makes it possible to save premature babies at 23 weeks, or even as early as 21 weeks. (Is it a budget issue?)

More disturbing is the policy NOT to give parents a choice in the matter:

(Note: I was told that GMH changed their policy after this inquiry.)

Let's not fool ourselves. Let us approach the issue honest and clear-eyed. Despite the varied opinions about abortion rights, few think that abortion or letting a premature baby die who might otherwise be saved is a good thing. But we can never move towards a solution without the honest data. 


  1. when i watched KUAM news last night I Knew those babies had been aborted. These babies were aborted because Apuron sold his soul to a neo movement that did nothing to stop abortion. Moral evils in Guam are a result of his Leadership. Apuron allowed Satan to work freely in Guam building his evil Kingdom.

    1. Rather, it was a LACK of leadership. Apuron's dilettante "dabbling" in promoting Pro-Life efforts was a weak lip-service attempt to make an external show that he is doing something about moral issues affecting the archdiocese to which his leadership was entrusted. His personal life was a moral disaster. All he cared about was pleasing Kiko and the late Carmen...and the Saturday evening pizza soirees with his bevy of international boys who fawned on him akin to the attention received by Emperor Caligula from his admirers. For Apuron it was the apex of his life goals: to get the attention he craved that his music cds and walls of Tony photos are unable to fill.

  2. The US has been plagued with the same thing for decades. Funeral services for aborted babies are fairly common here.

    Don't expect any support from Rome. Francis officially kicked pro-lifers to the curb. He considers them rigid ideologues and has appointed a prominent pro-abortion Anglican from the UK to his newly formed Pontifical Academy for Life.

    The once-honorable Academy is no longer Catholic. Mainland Catholic media have commented on this and major Catholic pro-life organizations like HLI are understandably stunned. Given that scandalous situation and Rome's disgraceful neglect of the defunct child protection Commission, they will probably exonerate Apuron.