ANOTHER BLOW? ONLY TO THE CHAMORRO PEOPLE

The Guam Daily Post article begins: "Attorney General Douglas Moylan has been dealt another blow in his effort to remove the injunction on Guam's old abortion ban..."

Actually, no. AG Moylan has not been "dealt another blow." Removing the injunction on Guam's old abortion ban is not some personal crusade. It's his job. And now that the 9th Circuit has dismissed the appeal, his job is done in this matter.

The AG's job is to enforce the laws of Guam, whether he likes a law or not, whether he believes in a law or not. It is not his job to like, or believe, or even have an opinion about a law, but to enforce the law. He doesn't make the laws, the legislature does.

In 1990, the legislature made this "old abortion ban." Because Roe was the law of the land at the time, the law was immediately enjoined. However, the Legislature never took it off the books. 32 years later, Roe was overturned by Dobbs, and the question became what do we do with this "old abortion ban" that is still on the books. 

Because the only reason the ban was enjoined in 1990 was because of Roe, and because in 2022, Roe was no longer the law, then - because the law was still on the books - the law came to life. 

At that point, the Legislature could have simply introduced legislation to repeal it. But they didn't. Not because they never got around to it, but because it was too hot, too controversial. So our lawmakers did what lawmakers do when things are too hot - they looked (or ran) the other way.

That left it up to the AG. And he did his job. He first took the matter of removing the injunction to the District Court since it was the District Court which enjoined it in the first place in 1990. The District Court did not directly uphold the injunction, but only denied the AG's motion to remove it on the basis of a technicality: "Defendant AG did not respond, the court finds that Defendant AG has not met his burden under Rule 60(b)(5)."

AG Moylan then did what any AG worth his pay should have done and that was to appeal the District Court's decision to the 9th Circuit. 

Meanwhile, Governor LLG did an end run around the 9th Circuit by filing with the Guam Supreme Court for a declaratory judgement on whether or not the ban was either null and void from the outset in 1990, or had been "impliedly repealed" by subsequent abortion legislation. 

In effect, a declaratory judgement is not a judgement but merely an advisory opinion. It is not a judgement, because as the late Senator Bob Klitzkie pointed out in his argument against LLG's end run, there is no "case or controversy" before the court. In other words, the court has no jurisdiction in the matter. (See GHOSTS THAT SLAY)

However, the Guam Supremes disagreed and ultimately "ruled" that Guam's 1990 abortion ban had been impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation, namely: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (2009), Parental Consent for Minors (2011), Informed Consent for Abortion (2012), and the Abortion Reporting Law (2015).

Along with Senator Klitzkie, I testified before the Supreme Court against what I believed was a misuse of the court in both an Amicus Brief and Oral argument. 

I had a very unique interest in thwarting the argument that the ban had been "repealed by implication" by subsequent legislation. I had been the main driver behind all four of the aforementioned laws, an effort that cost me eight hard years of my life. 

Due to Roe, abortion could not be banned. But due to other decisions like Casey and Gonzales, abortion could be regulated. And that's what I set out to do in a total of eight pro-life laws which were enacted between 2008 and 2015. The bills passed and were enacted into law because they passed constitutional muster by not violating Roe.

However, the current governor, in her lust for evermore dead babies, used the fact that these laws had permitted abortion (during Roe), to argue the fact that Belle's abortion ban (1990) had been impliedly repealed by the fact that these laws had not banned abortion (because they couldn't), and thus had "impliedly" permitted it.

The Supreme Court issued its "advisory opinion" on October 31, 2023, opining that the 1990 ban had been impliedly repealed by the four pro-life bills that I helped put on the books. I believe they opined in this way because the matter was already with the 9th Circuit - the proper court for a final resolution on this issue. So in effect, the court punted. But today, the 9th Circuit punted back. 

And that's all they did. 

In the end, it is not AG Moylan who was "dealt another blow," it is the Chamorro People, a People who are committing self-genocide at the urging of their own governor, who have been dealt that blow. 

SOURCE