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This post is a postlude to the post PUBLIC LAW 20-134 IS REPEALED.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.
How can our Archbishop publicly support any of our gubernatorial candidates, especially the Democratic team of Tenorio/Muna-Barnes? It’s time for all of us to write to our Archbishop reminding him that, as the Shepherd of the Mariana Islands, he must uphold the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the Respect for Life from the moment of conception, and that abortion is immoral. How can our AB publicly support political candidates who have consistently voted against any bills to regulate abortion?!!!
ReplyDeleteAbortion is discussed under Part Three of the Catechism, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 5 and Roman Numeral 1: Respect for Life, (subsections 2270-2276). Subsection 2273 specifically says:
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80
It is time to send letters to AB Jimenez, and if he ignores us, it is time, once again, to pick up those signs and march in front of the Cathedral. Let us NOT wait for the election results in November! Our signs could say: AB Jimenez, Renounce Abortion Candidates!
Excellent comment, Mary. Yes, let's send letters. Even if he doesn't listen, we will have done our part.
DeleteI would also add regarding the archbishop's joining the Tenorio campaign to wave on Route 1 that he is either not very bright (to say it nicely), or he is very bright, and deliberately joined the wave to boost his own political capital. The last two gubernatorial elections clearly demonstrated that the majority of Guam voters are pro-abortion. And, for years, the abortion report numbers have demonstrated the same. Jimenez, an obvious careerist, is simply doing what's best for Jimenez, which also explains why he interrupted Fr. Mike's funeral, left the sanctuary in the middle of Mass, paraded right in front of Fr. Mike's family without acknowledging them, and marched straight to Lou and Josh to give them a hearty welcome. That's sick, but that's who Jimenez is.
ReplyDelete