By Tim Rohr
This post is a postlude to the post PUBLIC LAW 20-134 IS REPEALED.
Had Ada and Apuron not co-opted Belle's Bill, Ada, to advance Guam self-determination, and Apuron, mostly to advance himself, the 20th Guam Legislature might have had a reasonable debate over constitutionality, and the bill may have been amended to more closely match Webster (Arriola's inspiration for her legislation).
There is no telling how many unborn lives might have been saved had Ada and Apuron not co-opted the bill and forced a vote. After Ada made it about self-determination and no senator wanted to be against self-determination, and Apuron made it about excommunication, and no senator wanted to be excommunicated, any hope of a healthy debate and an even healthier amendment process went out the window.
A successful pro-life bill, following closely on the heels of Webster, would have immediately paved the way - as it did in the states - for evermore incremental pro-life legislation that did not violate Roe, which is all we could hope for in those days. In fact, the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe in 2022, was a direct result of decades of such incremental legislation, such as bans on partial-birth abortion, informed consent for abortion, and born-alive laws.
But because Ada and Apuron saw an opportunity to advance political and personal agendas, the flawed bill was never amended. And, for forty years, it has not only cost Guam taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation, but, due to the chilling effect of the litigation on future pro-life efforts, for the next 40 years, it has also cost the lives of tens of thousands of unborn Guamanian children.
Note: In 1990, Sen. Arriola estimated that there were 600 abortions per year in Guam. 40 x 600 = 24,000. The abortion numbers only began to decline after The Esperansa Project, in 2008, began shepherding through the legislature several pro-life measures, eight of which became law by 2015, leading to the closure of Guam's last abortion clinic in 2018. Today, no physician in Guam will perform an abortion.
The conclusion is not that Belle's Bill was bad. It wasn't. It was good. And it was introduced in response to similar legislation that had already survived judicial and constitutional muster (Webster). So, as I told the Supreme Court of Guam in July 2023, in arguing against the governor's position that Belle's Law was "void ab initio," Belle's Law "had a shot."
Where to now?
In the previous post, a commenter left the following comment:
AnonymousJune 16, 2026 at 1:50 PM
Because of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, Belle's Law, PL 20-134, can be reintroduced in the Legislature and have it signed by the governor and it becomes the law of the land for Guam only. If the governor vetoes it, which we can expect since she is pro-abortion to the core, let's hope it can be overridden in tbe Legislature. Then we will see who truly supports life of the unborn.
I agree with this. However, it would be best to clean up PL 20-134 by deleting the last two sections of the law, one that bans solicitation for abortion, which creates free speech questions, and the other requiring a referendum. Both are unnecessary and have only added to the trouble from the outset.
Whether or not any senator would do this, now or ever, is doubtful, and precisely because, as the commenter states, "Then we will see who truly supports life of the unborn."
They don't want us to know. And, in fact, it really doesn't matter to them. It's not an issue worth bothering with. There are no consequences to Catholic politicians who support abortion, quietly or loudly.
Archbishop Jimenez recently demonstrated his support for pro-abortion politicians when he interrupted the funeral Mass for Fr. Mike Crisostomo, left the sanctuary, and marched over to Lou and Josh to give them his personal welcome.
In the middle of the funeral!
On another occasion, after blessing Josh's campaign headquarters, he stood on Route 1 and publicly campaigned for the most pro-abortion ticket on the ballot.
So why should we expect any politician, Catholic or otherwise, to care? Dead babies be damned.
