READ THE GUAM SUPREME COURT ORDER HERE

REQUEST OF LOURDES A. LEON ) GUERRERO, I MAGA’HÅGAN ) GUÅHAN, RELATIVE TO THE )VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF PUBLIC LAW NO. 20-134.

READ THE ORDER

DEATH PENALTY: TOO BAD "IL PAPA" DID NOT MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT

By Tim Rohr

On Monday, Feb. 27, at about 1:44:30 on Tall Tales hosted by Bob Klitzkie, a caller brought up the issue of "Capital Punishment." 

As I was not able to hear the entire show, I do not know the context in which the caller brought up the topic. 

Nevertheless, the call afforded Mr. Klitzkie the opportunity to restate why he is OPPOSED to Capital Punishment...and I agree with all three.

In summary, and you can listen to Mr. Klitzkie's summary here, Klitzkie's three reasons are:

1. Opposition to Statism: the STATE determines who lives and who dies.
2. Capital Punishment is Final - which relates to reason No. 3
3. Many on Death Row are wrongly CONVICTED and Wrongly EXECUTED - and said wrong convictions and executions CANNOT be reversed.

As a footnote, new technologies, such as the advancement in DNA evidence, are opening new doors that have heretofore never been opened, i.e. HOW WRONG we could be - and have been - on so many now-executed inmates, not to mention those still on Death Row. 

So for that reason alone I agree with Klitzkie that Capital Punishment should be permanently abolished. 

Too bad the POPE did not listen to TALL TALES. He should. He should also read JW. 

TO BE CONTINUED

CHEMICAL ABORTION - THE FDA CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE

While the issue of chemical abortion in Guam - or more precisely - the requirement for performance of the informed consent component of the law before baby-killing chemicals can be administered, has now worked its way up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, two lawsuits relative to chemical abortions, with national implications, are also working their way through the courts.

The first is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

Information on exactly what this lawsuit is about is difficult to find since the usual Media is pretty much ignoring the facts of the suit and appears to be much more interested in hanging the word "Trump" around the judge's neck in this matter. 

So here's what the Alliance website says:

By illegally approving chemical abortion drugs, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women. The FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.

The "Alliance" website has posted all of the filings in the matter for the public to educate itself.

Meanwhile, twelve "blue states" are suing the same FDA for placing “'burdensome restrictions' on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a chemical abortion," according to the Daily Caller.

Note that the Daily Caller properly refers to the use of drugs to end a pregnancy as a "chemical abortion," and not a "medical abortion," as the pro-aborts adamantly term it. Medicine is meant to cure and promote health, not kill someone. Chemicals can do either.

The Caller says this about the suit from the "blue" states:

Twelve blue states filed a lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for placing “burdensome restrictions” on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a chemical abortion.

The lawsuit claims that current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions on mifepristone, which include limits on “who can prescribe and dispense the drug” and documentation of the patient’s use “for the purpose of abortion,” violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In the same paragraph, the Caller, in an act of responsible reporting, makes known the opposite suit:

The debate around abortion pills is increasingly prompting legal action from states, lawmakers and advocacy organizations, with nearly every state taking sides in a separate Texas case brought by pro-life medical organizations against the FDA that could overturn the agency’s approval of abortion pills altogether.

The Caller then goes on to note:

An amicus brief filed in the Texas case by Human Coalition notes that there have been “1,048 hospitalizations, 604 blood transfusions, and 414 infections (including 71 severe infections)—with a total of 4,213 adverse events” reported after using the pill as of June 2022. Other opponents cite concerns of coercion that could result from dispensing the pill without restrictions.

***** 

SOMETHING PERSONAL

Now, please permit me to personally wander into a bit of common sense - or just stop reading here. 

• Every living thing is designed to reproduce. Designed by who or what is a different matter.
• Since reproduction is the most basic function of every living thing, it is also the most natural.
• Anything that interrupts this most natural function is by definition: contrary to nature. 
• Anything contrary to nature usually has a consequence - a damaging one (i.e. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature").
• When a woman becomes pregnant, everything in her body "naturally" orients itself to support that new life. (Of course there are exceptions. But they are exceptions.)
• To suddenly and violently interrupt a pregnancy, regardless of how it is done, suddenly and violently interrupts nature at its most primitive and basic level: the life impulse - "the force" itself...if we want to avoid religious language.
• Abortion is an absolute abuse of one's body, no different than abuse via alcohol, narcotics, gluttony, sloth, or any other life-damaging things. (This assumes that the person procuring the abortion insists that it is "her body.")
• Nature will require a price. Just like those things.
• And a price will be paid.
• To the intelligent, there is no need for "studies." As a wise man once said: "God forgives. Man forgives. Nature NEVER forgives."

But just in case you are looking for studies to refute what I have just shared, never mind. I've already done it. It either won't be found or it will be contradicted. Abortion is a politically protected issue, so we really can't expect the truth from anyone or anywhere. However, the point is: listen to your body, listen to "nature." And ask yourself the question: "Since when is ingesting chemicals to counter if not attack what my body is designed to do naturally a good thing?"

Spoken "like a man?" Yes.

MEANWHILE IN CHINA

While Guam Governor Lou Leon Guerrero is doing everything from begging baby killers to come to Guam to pestering the Supreme Court to what appears to be a clandestine effort to create a rigged scenario to get the ACLU to sue ourselves, China, which has killed babies for decades under its One Child Policy, is suddenly scrambling to up its birth rate.  

Why One of China’s Largest Provinces Is Lifting Birth Limits—Even for Unmarried Parents

- Time

A Chinese city is offering couples almost $2,900 to have a third child and some others are giving newlyweds paid marriage leave to help boost the birth rate

- Business Insider

Chinese localities introduce, expand financial incentives for having more children

- Global Times

China Province: Single Women Can Legally Have Babies

- VOA News

WHY OUR PEWS ARE EMPTY - PERHAPS

By Tim Rohr

I have referenced this Guam Daily Post story in previous posts. However, there are a few other things in the same story that I want to address and shall do here. Excerpts from the Post story are indented and in bold and my comments follow. Highlights are my emphases. 

I. 

"The 1990 Legislature didn’t have the authority to criminalize abortion health care or speech regarding this care in the first place. The arguments that this “ban” could be enforced over 30 years later doesn’t make any sense, especially when we now have several other laws that clearly permit abortion care. The Guam Supreme Court can now put these arguments to rest,” (Attorney Vanessa) Williams told The Guam Daily Post.

Alleging that "we now have several other laws that clearly permit abortion care," is Williams repackaging of the governor's third question submitted to the Supreme Court for declaratory judgment: 

• To the extent P.L. 20-134 is not void or otherwise unenforceable, has it been repealed by implication through subsequent changes in Guam law?

The question is a head fake by the pro-aborts and here's why.

1. Neither the Governor nor Atty. Williams identify what those "subsequent changes in Guam law" are. (So I will.) 

2. After the constitutional shelving of Belle's Law in 1990 (or soon thereafter) the issue of abortion was not addressed again until 2008 when The Esperansa Project backed a ban on partial-birth abortion - which passed unanimously and was signed into law. 

(Apologies, but I am wont to remember my own daughter's testimony at the hearing pursuant to the bill banning partial-birth abortion - a particularly horrific method of dispatching a nearly born child. As a BTW, the "Tina Blas" next to Mia, is the mother of Sen. Frank Blas, Jr., whose present position will be addressed later in this post.)

3. Then between 2008 and 2015, Esperansa backed several more bills to regulate Guam's functionally out-of-control abortion industry - which, as of 2008, and compared to a study by Americans United for Life - was the least regulated abortion industry in the nation. 

4. Eight of those bills were eventually signed into law. (A table of this legislation is set out at the end of this post.) 

5. So it must be assumed that the Governor and Atty. Williams is referring to these eight laws when the aforesaid pro-aborts refer to "subsequent changes in Guam law" (relative to abortion) and "other laws that clearly permit abortion..." ...since there are no other "laws."

6. The pro-aborts, (LLG, Williams, J. Flores, et. al) are referring to language included in those laws which continued to acknowledge the then-constitutional right to an abortion APART from what those same laws sought to regulate within constitutional limits: a ban on partial-birth abortion, parental and informed consent for abortion, normal medical care for children who survived abortions, etc.

7. Language acknowledging a woman's right to abortion under Roe and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases was intentionally included in order to assure that these new laws would not suffer the same fate as "Belle's." 

8. The subject legislation (as set forth below) proscribed certain aspects of abortion and abortion procedures pursuant to concessions set forth in significant U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)  - which opened the door for state regulation of parental and informed consent and Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) - which permitted bans on certain abortion procedures. 

9. In short, this legislation included language compliant with Roe AT THE TIME because it had to. There was no intent to further enshrine the right to an abortion into law. The intent was to limit abortion to the extent it was then constitutionally possible.

10. Of course, the Governor and Williams know this. But they think we don't. In fact, it appears - given the governor's third question - they apparently think the Supreme Court Justices don't know either.

II.

While others, such as Bob Klitzkie, an attorney and former judge and senator, remain steadfast in their anti-abortion belief. His weekday radio talk show frequently covers legal and policy updates on abortion nationally and locally.

While the position of the pro-aborts is characterized in terms of "rights" and "care," the position of the anti-aborts is usually sidelined as "belief" or "personal view."

Behind the pro-abort's characterization of the anti-abortion position as a "belief," is the false argument of "separation of church and state" wherein the factual position of the anti-aborts, like Mr. Klitzkie's, is reduced to just a personal opinion or a (religious) "belief."

Thankfully, Mr. Klitzkie has a forum (Tall Tales radio show on The Point) wherein he can set his own record straight.

But the rest of us do not. So for now, call into Tall Tales and go on the attack - especially when the papers don't print your letter to the editor - or wait so long that your letter is no longer relevant to the news of the day. 

Also, you can always post your comments to JW. We get nearly 20,000 views a month from every corner of the planet, which is a much larger readership than what the local media is getting. And, if your comment has significant import, we may make a post of it as well. 

III.

Klitzkie told the Post residents should not be surprised if he ends up filing an amicus brief in support of the local abortion ban, but also advocated for those who oppose abortion not just to involve themselves in the Supreme Court case, but also to push lawmakers to pass legislation to settle the matter.

Klitzkie agreed, whether a new statute solidifies the ban or repeals it, senatorial action could render the case “moot.”

“I don’t understand why people who are committed to either part of the issue would wait for the courts - that’s how we got in this mess in the first place, when the judiciary stuck its nose into something where it didn’t belong,” he said, adding that, in his opinion, lobbying the Legislature should have started “yesterday.”

He also questioned the local court taking up the case now, when another legal matter on Guam’s abortion ban is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which he argued may have “primary jurisdiction” over the matter.

“The Supreme Court could have easily declined jurisdiction or abstained, since what (a federal court judge) does could very well 'moot out' what the (Guam) Supreme Court sets out to do,” he said.

In the meantime, lawmakers “could and should” take up the issue through legislation, Klitzkie stressed.

I set out this whole section from the Post story in full to give context to the last entry: "...lawmakers 'could and should' take up the issue through legislation, Klitzkie stressed."

This is exactly the issue. 

On Tall Tales, Klitzkie further set out the problem saying that for nearly FIFTY years we have been waiting for the opportunity the Dobbs Decision has given us: the opportunity to decide the issue at the local level.

And what are our lawmakers doing? 

Running back to the Court - or more precisely running for cover.

This is why the Governor laughs at our Legislature whenever it tries to assert itself as a separate branch of government. It's not. At least not now. The Governor is playing her "lessers." She knows she's secure in her job and she knows her legislative adversaries are not. 

IV.

The Guam Daily Post reached out to Sens. Chris Duenas and Frank Blas Jr. on the matter. Duenas deferred to the AG’s position, as it is with Moylan's office and is legal in nature. 

 Sorry. But this is a "punt." Even Klitzkie, who usually holds Duenas in high regard, said on Tall Tales upon reading this: "C'mon Chris."

V.

Sen. Blas shared his personal view, which he stressed was not a reflection of the legislative body.

Sen. Blas, as the record will show, has been a real pro-life champion in the Legislature for many years. So one wonders why he now wants to separate his "personal view" from that of "the legislative body." 

Why does that matter? The whole point of a legislator's office is to assert one's personal views onto the legislative body and effect legislation said legislator was elected to do. So why the sudden timid tone from both senators?

Perhaps it is this.

Duenas and Blas, politicians who need to be re-elected every two years, are functionally numbers people. And they are not wrong. 

I'm not speaking for them, but if they've done what I've done, and that is analyze the numbers, they already know that the majority of Guam voters simply DO NOT CARE about abortion. 

This isn't a guess. 

The current Governor, Lou Leon Guerrero, who was elected and re-elected over pro-life candidates, has been the most vicious, vehement, and radical promoter of killing children in the womb - and mostly CHamoru children in the womb - than any other person in Guam's history. (See Table below: Abortions by Ethnicity.)

And Leon Guerrero has been publicly and proudly outspoken about her position since at least 1990 when she was "elected president of People for Choice (Guam's first organization) to advocate for...abortion as a fundamental right."  - Dames, Vivian Loyola, Asian/Pacific Islander American Women, Chamorro Women and the Politics of Abortion in Guam, Pg. 375

One can't help but think that Senators Duenas and Blas, despite their "personal" positions on this issue, are looking at the numbers. And the numbers show that the majority of Guamanians simply do not care about abortion as a political issue - or even a moral one - given the election and now re-election of the Catholic, communion-going governor (who, by the way, happens to "own" the bank which functionally "owns" the local Catholic Church - but that's another story.)

Also, the highest number of abortions reported in a single year was 327 in 2008. 

SOURCE

According to the 2020 Census, Guam's population is 153,836. That means that abortion affects, at most, only 0.2% of the population.

So abortion, by the numbers anyway, is simply not a political hill worth dying on.

But that is not to let our "pro-life" legislators off the hook. 

Instead of "waiting for the courts," at minimum, if they aren't going to introduce legislation, they should be arguing against the governor's misuse of 7 GCA § 4104 which licenses the governor to submit - for declaratory judgment from the Supreme Court of Guam - certain matters which are of "great public interest."

0.2% of the population does not qualify as a "matter of great public interest." 

Meanwhile, voters, especially CHamoru voters, need to take a hard look at why they continue to support this self-genocide.

SOURCE

And Catholic voters - especially clergy -  need to take a hard look at why so many Catholics don't care. Maybe our pews are empty because so many of our own never made it from the womb to the pew. 

LAWS ADDRESSING ABORTION ENACTED BETWEEN 2008 AND 2016

Public Law No.	Date Enacted	Name	Description	Original Bill No.	Sponsors	Date Introduced
P.L 29-115	Nov. 18, 2008	The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2008	“THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2008. "	Bill No. 374 (EC)	Sens. Eddie Calvo, Frank Blas, Jr., James Espaldon	Oct. 7, 2008
P.L. 31-155	Jan 4, 2012	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Bill No. 323-31	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 5, 2011
P.L. 31-235	Nov. 1, 2012	The Women's Reproductive Health Information Act of 2012	Women’s informed consent required for abortion	Bill No. 54-30 & 52-31	Gov. Eddie Calvo	Jan 25, 2011
P.L. 32-090	Nov. 27, 2013	Infant Child’s Right to Life Act	AN ACT RELATIVE TO PROTECTING INFANTS WHO ARE BORN ALIVE AS A RESULT OF AN ABORTION	Bill No. 195-32	Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr.	Sep. 25, 2013
P.L. 32-089	Nov. 27, 2013	See description	Deleted the provision in P.L. 31-235 requiring the printed materials and the checklist certification to undergo the rule making process pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication Law.	Bill No. 193-32	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Sep. 23, 2013
P.L 32-217	Dec. 17, 2014	See description	Requires abortion providers to include gestational age in abortion reports	Bill No. 412-32	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 14, 2014
P.L. 33-132	Mar. 4, 2016	Unborn Victims of Violence Act	Criminalized harming or killing the child in the womb in acts of violence against the mother.	Bill No. 231-33	Sen. Frank Blas, Jr.	Jan. 19, 2016
P.L. 33-218	Dec. 15, 2016	See description	Increased the penalties of non-compliance of abortion reporting law and added reporting mechanisms to better insure enforcement.	Bill No. 168-33	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Aug. 31, 2015

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT OF AN UNBORN BABY?

This is a very impactful story. 

In short, a pregnant woman shoots and kills another woman. The killer ("the woman") is imprisoned. The woman argues that her unborn child is a legal person and is being unlawfully and harmfully detained. The woman "is arguing to be released, citing the wrongful detainment of her innocent unborn child in addition to the 'dangerous' prison environment for the baby."

Of course, imprisoned women have delivered their babies before and not necessarily on prison cell floors - at least not in America. So the question really isn't about whether or not this accused killer should be released from prison. The real story is whether or not the baby in her womb is a "person" pursuant to the Constitution and has his or her own rights - even before birth - and should be "released" from prison. 

Which of course is the central argument regarding abortion. 

Florida woman charged with murder sues state over wrongful imprisonment of her unborn baby  

WOW! CHECK OUT THIS GUY. SOUNDS FAMILIAR. HIS NAME IS EVEN "ANTONY"

Episcopal Celibacy and the Case of Bishop Antony

Cathy Caridi

Feb 23

Q: Many priests and people of Mysore Diocese [in India] begged the Vatican for years to investigate the scandalous activities of their Bishop William Antony.  The Bishop has many different mistresses and illegitimate children, and has [allegedly] stolen money from the Church.  Some diocesan priests who complained were murdered. The Bishop has some supporters, but […] CONTINUED

I THINK... MAYBE NOT

By Tim Rohr

In the previous post, I praised Atty. Pauluhn for "doing his job," i.e. defending a Guam law relative to an abortion matter before the Ninth Circuit. 

I don't know enough about standards of review and that sort of thing to know if Mr. Pauluhn argued effectively to the satisfaction of the Court. It was just nice to see someone professionally argue the law and not the issue.

In this regard, Mr. Pauluhn's argument stood out in clear contrast to his adversary, the ACLU lawyer, who appeared wholly ideologically motivated. But then that's what the ACLU is. 

There is one thing though that bothers me and I'm not sure why lawyers say this, and both lawyers said this when arguing before the judges and that's: "I think..." 

Several times both attorneys, in responding to a question from the Court, began with "I think..." 

When listening to the rest of the answer that began with "I think..." it is clear that the answer could have stood on its own without the preface of "I think..."

"I think..." moves what follows from what may well be a fact down to the level of a personal opinion. 

My gut reaction to a lawyer saying "I think" is "I don't care what you think." I want to know what the law says, or at least the position you are arguing."

In other words, "opining" is something the Court does, not the advocates. 

Thus, "I think..." that even if one is unsure of the answer, "I think..." it's better to just give the answer without prefacing it with "I think..." 

It just sounds better. 

I also hear this "I think..." from the pulpit quite a bit, when there's usually no reason for it. It would be much better to say "the Catholic Church teaches in Paragraph 2734 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that ... " (or whatever document or source can be referenced. In fact, some of the most compelling preachers consistently reference what the saints have said.)

If asked what I think about something, my favorite way to answer is to answer without saying "I think," and then end with "what do you think?"

By the way, here's a little help if you must say "I think."

MR. PAULUHN DOES HIS JOB

By Tim Rohr

I don't know who this rockstar is. 

I had read his filings and took him for a pretty da*m good attorney, but I had never seen him - until this video (below). 

In fact, by his haircut - or lack of one (LOL) - I almost took him - as the video began - for some dude hired to arrange stuff for the actual hearing.

I was wrong. Really wrong. 

Mr. (Jordan) Pauluhn - in his argument before the Ninth Circuit -  did a damn good job. But let me qualify that. 

Mr. Pauluhn did exactly what we are paying him to do. 

Regardless of any personal beliefs or proclivities relative to the issue at hand (ABORTION), Mr. Pauluhn, representing the Office of the Attorney General of Guam, DID HIS JOB before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by doing EXACTLY what he is being paid to do: Defend the Laws of Guam.

What a pleasant surprise - given what we have come to expect from partisan politicians AND (some) attorneys - some of whom have occupied the Office of the Attorney General of Guam. 

It does not matter that this particular action involves the particularities of the "in-person" mandate as set forth in Guam Law requiring informed consent for abortion. 

The Office of the Attorney General's job description is to defend the Laws of Guam - and Mr. Pauluhn did exactly what he was paid to do. 

I made many notes and will have some - if not several comments - in future posts. But for now, here is the argument before the Ninth Circuit. 

Regardless of the outcome, Mr. Pauluhn deserves his pay and here's a note to his current boss to keep paying him. 

Date Argued: February 16th, 2023

Docket Number: 21-16559

Judges: Carlos T. Bea, Daniel Paul Collins, Kenneth Kiyul Lee

Also available at Court Listener here

ACLU LAWYER: "PEOPLE WERE AFRAID"

By Tim Rohr

Governor Lou Leon Guerrero and her pro-abort comrades (Atty. Vanessa Williams, Jayne Flores, et. al) continue, via their ACLU attorneys, to play the fear card.

From the Guam Daily Post:

Physicians on Guam are unwilling to provide abortion care and are afraid of retaliation for doing so, or for even being known to be formally affiliated with abortion providers, she added.

“It was a mistake for Mr. Pauluhn to suggest that physicians could just fly out to Guam to provide this care. They did want to try to do that, and they could not find any place that was willing to let them set up and actually provide the care because people were afraid,” Kolbi-Molinas said.

Let's clarify about what the in-person mandate requires. It requires only that a person seeking an abortion be given certain information. It does not require the person giving the information to perform the abortion. 

So what is there to be afraid of?

Nothing.

However, it's the only card LLG and the ACLU has.

So since "fear" is the only argument they have, then the OAG should argue that said "fear" be demonstrated, or at least that it cannot be demonstrated. Maybe Mr. Pauluhn did. I don't know. The story doesn't say. 

The fact is, of course, is that it is a lie. The local population embraces abortion as evidenced by a decade of abortion reports, and as also evidenced by the election and re-election of the most radical and public pro-abort in Guam's history, the governor herself. 

Several local doctors, including Annie Bordallo and Ellen Bez have already been very public about their support for abortion. So where's the fear? 

Are they afraid of the few people who stand on the sidewalk for an hour a week?

Of course they aren't. 

MY AMICUS BRIEF - CONTINUED

The Supreme Court will consider two questions set forth by the governor for declaratory judgement, the second of which is the following:

To the extent P.L. 20-134 is not void or otherwise unenforceable, has it been repealed by implication through subsequent changes in Guam law? - See Supreme Court Order

The answer is NO. And here's why.

It appears the question refers to eight abortion-regulating bills enacted into law as follows:

Public Law No.	Date Enacted	Name	Description	Original Bill No.	Sponsors	Date Introduced
P.L 29-115	Nov. 18, 2008	The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2008	“THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2008. "	Bill No. 374 (EC)	Sens. Eddie Calvo, Frank Blas, Jr., James Espaldon	Oct. 7, 2008
P.L. 31-155	Jan 4, 2012	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Bill No. 323-31	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 5, 2011
P.L. 31-235	Nov. 1, 2012	The Women's Reproductive Health Information Act of 2012	Women’s informed consent required for abortion	Bill No. 54-30 & 52-31	Gov. Eddie Calvo	Jan 25, 2011
P.L. 32-090	Nov. 27, 2013	Infant Child’s Right to Life Act	AN ACT RELATIVE TO PROTECTING INFANTS WHO ARE BORN ALIVE AS A RESULT OF AN ABORTION	Bill No. 195-32	Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr.	Sep. 25, 2013
P.L. 32-089	Nov. 27, 2013	See description	Deleted the provision in P.L. 31-235 requiring the printed materials and the checklist certification to undergo the rule making process pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication Law.	Bill No. 193-32	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Sep. 23, 2013
P.L 32-217	Dec. 17, 2014	See description	Requires abortion providers to include gestational age in abortion reports	Bill No. 412-32	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 14, 2014
P.L. 33-132	Mar. 4, 2016	Unborn Victims of Violence Act	Criminalized harming or killing the child in the womb in acts of violence against the mother.	Bill No. 231-33	Sen. Frank Blas, Jr.	Jan. 19, 2016
P.L. 33-218	Dec. 15, 2016	See description	Increased the penalties of non-compliance of abortion reporting law and added reporting mechanisms to better insure enforcement.	Bill No. 168-33	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Aug. 31, 2015

All of the foregoing legislation included language that continued to permit abortion because they had to. Prior to the Dobbs Decision overturning Roe, banning abortion outright was unconstitutional. 

Thus the foregoing bills were drafted, argued, passed, and signed into law because they only proscribed abortion within the limits of U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing certain regulations relative to abortion.  

The fact that any of these bills still allowed for abortion generally is a function of what was constitutionally required at the time and they do NOT repeal P.L 20-134 "by implication." 

MY AMICUS BRIEF

By Tim Rohr

The Supreme Court of Guam is asking for our input. That's really cool. I don't know about you but I've never been asked to file an amicus brief before. (See: What is an amicus brief.)

From the Guam Daily Post:

Public Law 20-134, the abortion ban of 1990, is a matter of great public interest as its validity and enforceability are in question and the answer will have an impact on many island residents, according to the Supreme Court of Guam, which has called for stakeholders who may be affected by the issue’s outcome to file briefs with the island’s high court. 

Without reading the law, the whole thing sounded weird. 

I get it that the governor might seek a judgment from the high court, but us Tom, Dick and Harry's getting asked to throw in our two cents to help out Guam's most exclusive club, "the Supremes," as Tall Tales talk show host Bob Klitzkie calls them, just sounded...well weird.

On Monday, Bob got a pretty good start in explaining what is really going on, and perhaps today he'll be able to wrap it up. You can catch the first part of Bob's explanation here - which ran until the half time show, and then here after he comes back to it in the second hour. (Note: Bob finished his analysis on Tuesday here.) 

Meanwhile, for those who want to do their own personal dive into the matter, here is the relevant law:

7 GCA § 4104. I Maga’lahi and I Liheslatura May Request Declaratory Judgment.

I Maga’lahen Guåhan, in writing, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan, by resolution, may request declaratory judgments from the Supreme Court of Guam as to the interpretation of any law, federal or local, lying within the jurisdiction of the courts of Guam to decide, and upon any question affecting the powers and duties of I Maga’lahi and the operation of the Executive Branch, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan, respectively. The declaratory judgments may be issued only where it is a matter of great public interest and the normal process of law would cause undue delay. Such declaratory judgments shall not be available to private parties. The Supreme Court of Guam shall, pursuant to its rules and procedure, permit interested parties to be heard on the questions presented and shall render its written judgment thereon. 

So that last line is where we come in:

The Supreme Court of Guam shall, pursuant to its rules and procedure, permit interested parties to be heard on the questions presented and shall render its written judgment thereon. 

However, the part that caught my attention is this:

The declaratory judgments may be issued only where it is a matter of great public interest and the normal process of law would cause undue delay.

Is this really a matter of "great public interest." 

Per the abortion reports published between 2008 and 2018, the most abortions performed in a single year was 327 in 2008:

Source

According to the 2020 Census, Guam's population is 153,836. With a max of 327 abortions in any one year, that's 0.2% of the population. How does that equate to "a matter of great public interest?" 

It appears the only real interest is from the usual few led by the governor who has always been a radical pro-abort. 

Of course whether or not we are okay with killing innocent, defenseless human beings is always "matter of great public interest," however, the governor and her ilk ignore that reality and label said killing merely "health care." 

If abortion is only "health care," then there are certainly many health care concerns in Guam that are of exponentially much greater "public interest." Isn't there. 

And then there is the matter of whether or not the "normal process of law would cause undue delay." 

The governor today could introduce her own bill to ensure abortion is legal, fast track it through committee via her go-for's in the Legislature, then call the Legislature into special session for a vote. 

The whole matter could be wrapped up in a couple weeks. 

So, at least in my view, this declaratory judgment stuff fails on the essential provisions that permits it. I think I'll put that in my brief. 

NOTE: The ORDER pursuant to the Governor's "filing of a Request for Declaratory Judgment" can be found in full here.