Sunday, February 26, 2023


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. 


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  • To the extent P.L. 20-134 is not void or otherwise unenforceable, has it been repealed by implication through subsequent changes in Guam law?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


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. 


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. 


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."


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. 

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.


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. 


Public Law No.

Date Enacted



Original Bill No.


Date Introduced

P.L 29-115

Nov. 18, 2008

The Partial-Birth Abortion 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


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

No comments:

Post a Comment