THE ARCHBISHOP SHOULD AT LEAST KNOW WHO HE'S WAVING FOR

By Tim Rohr

In the previous post, I referenced Lou Leon Guerrero's 2013 testimony on Bill 195-32. In that testimony, the now-governor testified against legislation which would mandate normal medical care for babies who survive a failed abortion. In short, Lou's position was: let them die. 

The late Bob Klitzkie made her testimony famous on his afternoon radio show, playing the audio of that testimony every Friday over several years. 

The bill eventually went to a vote, passed the Legislature by a vote of 10 to 5, and was enacted into law as Public Law 32-090. 

Since Senator Tina Muna Barnes is on the ticket with Josh Tenorio, who is demonstrably pro-abortion, some are asking about Muna-Barnes' position on the issue. 

I've engaged the senator on the issue over a period of several years while working with The Esperansa Project in our many attempts to enact legislation regulating Guam's almost completely unregulated abortion industry. 

Over a period of eight years, The Esperansa Project helped enact into law, eight laws restricting and regulating abortion in common sense ways using similar legislation in other states as precedent. 

I would characterize the senator's position on abortion as "squishy." The voting record on the aforesaid bill mandating normal medical care for babies who survive failed abortions demonstrates my characterization:

Muna Barnes has a check in the Yea box but also two marks in the Nay box. This means she passed on the first two rounds of votes and only voted yea on the third and final vote. This was a smart move for someone who doesn't want to take a definitive position. She waited to see which way the vote would go and then she voted with the winners. In other words: "squishy."

Meanwhile, don't look for a position on abortion on the Josh & Tina platform. It's an issue they'd rather not be made public. And from a politics perspective, it's a smart thing to do - or in this case - not to do. Abortion isn't an issue in this election. And it's not an issue because Guam voters don't want it to be an issue. As the stats - and the last two gubernatorial elections - show, the majority of Guam voters want abortion on demand. 

However, the archbishop should at least know who he's waving for:

The archbishop's publicly joining this team makes a mockery of the speech he gave just a few days previously on the occasion of Catholic Prolife Committee's 2026 March for Life. 

HE NOW HAS THE ARCHBISHOP

By Tim Rohr

Catholics (and non-Catholics) have worked long and hard to reduce, if not rid, the scourge of abortion in Guam, a scourge that kills more CHamoru's than all the other ethnicities in Guam combined.

 SOURCE

Thanks to their efforts, the last abortion clinic closed its doors in 2018. But as fate would have it, that was the same year "Lou and Josh" burst onto the scene as the next gubernatorial team. I say "as fate would have it," because Lou, and quite proudly so, had been a virulent, if not also famous, advocate for abortion for decades. 

Despite her clear anti-life-in-the-womb record, including her testimony in 2013 against a bill that would mandate normal medical care for babies who survive abortions, Guam voters, the majority of whom are Catholic, elected her over two other clear pro-life candidates (Frank Aguon, Jr., and Dennis Rodriguez). 

True to her promise, Lou immediately initiated efforts to bring abortionists to Guam via the Bureau of Women's Affairs. When there were no takers, Lou and Jane (at the Bureau) shifted gears and began working to bring abortion back to Guam via so-called "telemedicine." 

FOIA requests exposed a string of emails between Lou's government (Jane) and two doctors in Hawaii who agreed to get licensed in Guam for the sole purpose of providing remote medical abortions. The problem was that Guam's informed consent law required an in-person consultation and completion of a checklist certification before an abortion could be performed, or in the case of medical abortions, procured. 

The two Hawaii doctors, with the help of the ACLU, sued Guam and the lawsuit worked its way up to the 9th Circuit before a decision was made that upheld Guam's law. Of course, this cost the Guam taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. What's so amazing about this is that it was the "Lou and Josh" administration, in their strange lust to keep aborting CHarmou babies, that brought the lawsuit. In fact, once you connect the dots, it's not hard to see that Lou and Josh, through the Bureau of Women's Affairs, quite probably invited the ACLU to sue us for the purposes of getting Guam's informed consent for abortion law thrown out. 

Meanwhile, the court loss was really no stumbling block for Lou and Josh's abortion agenda. Medical abortions via "telemedicine" could continue with the stipulation that the woman seeking an abortion met with an authorized person prior to the abortion and filled out a checklist. 

Not long after this, Josh would have an opportunity to be his own abortion champion. In 2023, one of the abortion drugs used in Guam abortions, Mifepristone, the drug which functionally kills the child (another drug expels it), came under judicial fire as being unsafe. After the matter went to the U.S. Supreme Court, Josh, along with 18 other lieutenant governors, signed a statement defending the drug. 

Given that the matter was before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time, this national-level action by Josh Tenorio to defend abortion and ensure that abortions would continue in Guam is an even more significant statement about Tenorio's support for killing babies in the womb than is his outgoing boss's decades of abortion advocacy. 

But no worries. Earlier I mentioned that despite Guam being a majority Catholic population, Guam voters elected Guam's most famous and virulent abortion advocate over two clearly pro-life candidates. And not only that, Guam voters, Catholic voters, re-elected her. Clearly Guam is a majority pro-abortion electorate, even if abortion, according to the reports, is decimating its native population. 

And I say "no worries," because not only does Josh have the majority of Catholics on board his pro-abortion platform, he now has Archbishop Jimenez as well. 

GUAM'S QUEST TO...HIDE THE BODIES

By Tim Rohr

In a recent news story about another defeat for Guam's 1990 abortion ban, the reporter states:

Following the 2022 SCOTUS decision on abortion, the Center for Reproductive Rights labeled Guam "hostile" due to its existing laws and the likelihood that a total ban on abortion would be passed on the island.  

I'd like to take some personal credit for getting Guam to "hostile" status. I don't need nor want the credit, but nevertheless, I am proud, along with the people I worked with, to not only get Guam to such a vaunted status, but also for creating the environment which ultimately brought about the complete shut down of Guam's abortion clinics which, until 2018, were butchering hundreds of Guam's children per year, and mostly CHamoru children.

SOURCE

The data begins at 2008 because it was in that year that a friend and I initiated what we called "The Esperansa Project," with the intent to 1) expose the massive amount of baby murder going on right under our noses; and 2) to do something about it. 

Eventually we accomplished both. Between 2008 and 2015, The Esperansa Project helped write, sponsor, and promote (actually wage war for) eight pro-life bills which were enacted into law, turning Guam from one of the easiest places in the nation to procure an abortion to a place where no abortionist now wants to practice.

One of our first actions was to FOIA the annual abortion reports, which had been required by Guam law since the 1990's. There were none. Guam Medical Records, the agency tasked with receiving the data and publishing the report, could only provide scraps of paper with incomplete data. We demanded full compliance with the law and as of 2008, the reports, and in the format required by law, began to be made available. 

The data, as collected by The Esperansa Project, ends in 2018, because that was the year the last abortionist closed his doors. In those years, 2008-2018, eleven years, 2.868 abortions were reported. That's an average of 261 abortions per year or one abortion every 1.4 days. Imagine, we were killing a Guam child at a rate of nearly one child every day...for decades. I say "decades" because the partial data we received prior to 2008 evidenced as many as 600 abortions per year, and that was in only one clinic.

The 600 figure was also mentioned by the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola at the public hearing for the bill that would eventually become the troublesome Public Law 20-134, usually referred to as "Guam's old abortion ban," and the subject of the aforesaid news story.

"Let me tell you, at the rate Guam Memorial Hospital is aborting children, between 400-600 a year, and most of them are not even reported. Where are the lives that we are going to protect and preserve? Here we go talking about indigenous rights and self-determination. What good is all that if we don't have our followers to follow and enjoy the fruits of our labor, of this generation's labor, of your labor and my labor to fix this island and have autonomous rights to govern our people?"

As the same news story reports, abortions in Guam have continued "through medicine prescribed via telemedicine." Per the 2024 report, abortions in Guam in 2024 numbered 36. In short, these abortions are self-administered. While this "telemedicine" (a misuse of the word "medicine") is legal, a personal consultation with an authorized person is required by Guam's informed consent for abortion law, Public Law 31-235.

The law requires the authorized person to proceed through a "checklist certification" with the person seeking the abortion. The certification is then to be filed with Guam Medical Records:

All physicians who perform abortions shall report the total number of certifications received monthly to the Records Section. The Records Section shall make the number of certifications received available to the public on an annual basis.  10 GCA § 3218.1(b)(5)

I filed a FOIA with Medical Records on Feb. 27, 2025 requesting "the number of certifications received" and as required by law to be made "available to the public on an annual basis." The number should have been "36," the same number as the number of abortions reported for the same year (2024).

On Mar. 6, 2025, Lilian Posadas, Director of Guam Memorial Hospital Authority (which is the "Records Section") replied: "GMHA is not in possession of any records responsive to your request." In other words: ZERO. 

On Mar. 7, 2025, I asked the Attorney General, whose job it is to enforce the laws of Guam, to "investigate the facts…and if said facts are found to be true, to bring appropriate legal action against the abortion providers." 

There was no response. So on Mar. 18, 2025, I again sent a request to the AG. Again, there was no response, so I went to the Guam Daily Post with the story which the Post published on March 23, 2025.

Still no response from the AG, so I sent more follow ups on April 11 and April 25.

Finally, a few days later, I received a phone call from an assistant AG. He advised me that upon investigation that the abortion doctors did file the checklist certifications with the Records Section at GMH but the Director (apparently Lilian Posadas) had refused to receive them, and as there is no penalty for refusing to receive the documents, there was nothing the AG could do. 

Just another episode in the long and ugly drama of Guam's quest to kill its own...and hide the bodies.

 

APPARENTLY SHE'D RATHER FIGHT WITH DOUG

 By Tim Rohr

Note: This post is about abortion, the slaughter of the innocents. And lest anyone think such a post is out of context for the Christmas Season, today, December 28, is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the first martyrs, slaughtered by a governor.

"Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Guam has decided that the ban has no force or effect because it was repealed by implication through subsequent laws that allow for and regulate abortion on island." - O'Connor, J. (2025, Dec. 19). Governor opposes rehearing for AG appeal in abortion ban injunction case. Guam Daily Post

As the main mover behind those aforesaid "subsequent laws" which the Guam Supreme Court used to justify its repeal of Guam's "old abortion ban" by implication, I have a few thoughts to share about the current motion for a rehearing on the matter. 

Going back to 1990, when Guam's "old abortion ban" (P.L. 20-134) was first signed into law, or even back to 1989 when it was introduced, then following it through all the recent court battles, I believe it's fair to estimate that this legislation has cost the Government of Guam (i.e. "us") many millions of dollars, and it appears that the battle will continue and so will the dollars.

While I support the AG's attempts to exhaust every last avenue to do what he was elected to do (enforce the laws of Guam), I have to wonder about the Governor's real motivation in keeping this fight alive.

Rather than carry on this multi-million dollar slug-fest, the Governor, who has the authority to introduce legislation (via the Rules Committee), could simply submit a one sentence bill calling for the repeal of P.L 20-134 and all of its effects - or something like that. 

Of course any member of the Legislature can do this too, but - probably because they're afraid to touch it - no one - for 35 years now, has done so. 

So the real "ball" (or in this case, "the baby") is in the Governor's court. The AG has no authority to repeal the law. His only authority (and his job) is to enforce the law. So if the Governor doesn't want the AG to pursue the matter, then it is really up to her to repeal the law and stop the nonsense. 

But she hasn't, and she probably won't. She seems to want the 1990 injunction to remain enshrined into Guam law as a monument to herself - since she was instrumental in getting Guam's "old abortion ban" enjoined back in 1990 - an act which ultimately led to the deaths of thousands and thousands of mostly CHamoru children.

Note: 2008 was the first year, thanks to The Epseransa Project, that the abortion reporting law was enforced. 2018 was the last year an abortionist publicly practiced in Guam. LINK

So like so many things she has done since coming to office, she wastes and wastes...

But back to the Supreme Court and the "repealed by implication" thing. As the aforesaid main mover of the four laws that led to the Court's decision, I had filed an amicus brief (here and here) in the case. My argument was that since Roe was still the law of the land, any attempt to outright ban abortion at the time would have never even made it to a filing let alone a vote. 

There was no option, in those days, other than to regulate abortion pursuant to what was already precedent. Thus we introduced, passed, and enacted: 1) a ban on partial-birth abortion; 2) a requirement for parental consent for abortion for minors; 3) a requirement for informed consent for abortion; and 4) an expanded abortion reporting law. (The Esperansa Project backed a total of 8 abortion-regulating bills into law.)

All four of those laws did not ban abortion because they could not, but limited and regulated it where they could. Thus for the Guam Supreme Court to opine that those four laws "repealed" P.L.-134 "by implication," in my mind anyway, was a stretch, because the overturn of Roe in 2022 completely abrogated, annulled, wiped-out the whole deal and created a brand new ball game, meaning, the Court should have looked at the case post-Roe, and not within it, as it did.

I had made this argument in my amicus brief, but I was really a nobody in this high stakes game between the Governor, the AG, government lawyers and the Justices of the Guam Supreme Court. Yet, I am quite certain that my argument struck a chord given that one of the Justices, writing separately in his concurrence, spent several pages attacking my argument (here and here).

Well, back to the point of this post: It is Governor Lou Leon Guerrero who does not want this issue to go away as evidenced by the fact that she refuses to introduce legislation to repeal the troublesome thing. 

Apparently, she'd rather fight with Doug. 

RELATED POSTS

A Cry is Heard in Ramah, Dec. 28, 2012

Fleeing the New Herods, Dec. 23, 2011

SEN. PARKINSON: FEMALE ABUSER IN CHIEF

By Tim Rohr

On July 31, 2025, the Guam Legislature voted unanimously to pass Senator Will Parkinson's Bill No. 24-38, an act to provide emergency contraception for survivors of rape. 

Given Parkinson's notable track record as one of Guam's most vigorous proponents of unregulated abortion, second only to Governor Lou, it's easy to see where he is headed with this bill.

Emergency contraception (usually Plan B or My Way) is already readily available without a prescription at all island pharmacies and other places like Healing Hearts. 

However, Parkinson, apparently in his blind lust to push abortion, makes things more difficult for survivors of rape by forcing victims to get a prescription from a medical provider when, in his bill, he defines “emergency contraception” as "one (1) or more prescription drugs to prevent pregnancy."

Perhaps there may be prescription drugs which do the same things as the non-prescription drugs, but why go through all this legislative nonsense when a rape victim (or anybody for that matter) can walk up to a counter and buy the stuff? 

Well, we know why. Parkinson wants a platform. He wants to present himself as the hero of sexually abused females when in fact he is the Legislature's female sex-abuser-in-chief:

" …during an emergency legislative session on October 22, 2024, while Senator Joanne Brown was recognized and engaged in debate during Committee of the Whole on the session floor, Senator William A. Parkinson made a disorderly, sexually explicit hand gesture, more accurately described as a hand jerking motion depicting male masturbation angled towards Senator Brown." - Resolution No. 579-37 (COR)

This is better than the infamous 1996 legislative food fight involving Parkinson's father and Senator Orsini - recently recounted in a PDN column by Ron McNinch - and providing us yet more evidence to the proverb that the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

Meanwhile, back to the matter at hand, it appears that the "pro-life" senators (if there are any) bought the propaganda that said "contraception" is only contraception and not an abortifacient. 

I suppose they can't be blamed since Plan B's website didn't say anything about preventing implantation - which would then make it an abortifacient. However, up until 2015 (when it was removed) Plan B's website stated:

“it is possible that Plan B One-Step may also work by . . . preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).” 

Our lawmakers might have looked a little deeper. The facts aren't hard to find. According to Medical News Today:

Plan B suppresses ovulation, which can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg. Therefore, taking Plan B as early as possible gives the medication the best chance of working. Plan B also makes it more difficult for a pregnancy to implant in the uterus if a person does ovulate. (Emphases added)

This fact brings us to the "when does life begin" debate, which is really not a debate anymore. Science, not religion, has demonstrated for years that life begins at conception. The debate at this point is not when does life begin, but at what point is it okay to end it. 

According to Parkinson, in his Bill 111-37, there should be no limits on abortion including dragging a baby out of the womb and stabbing it in the head (Partial-Birth Abortion). His radical position still places him second to the current governor though, who believes living, breathing, babies who survive a failed abortion should be left to die. (See her testimony on Bill 195-32).

But back to Parkinson's comical "emergency contraception" bill. If in fact getting these pills now requires an examination by a competent medical authority and a prescription, as the bill "prescribes," how much more of an "assault" on a woman is this? 

Per all medical documentation, the woman has up to 72 hours to take the drug to hopefully prevent ovulation, and, in general, the sooner the better. If she now has to seek medical treatment and a prescription, how many more crucial hours are going to elapse? 

As it is now, a woman who doesn't want to conceive, raped or not, can go immediately to a drug store and down the pills. The general cost is $50. If she doesn't have $50, legislation could be enacted which requires the pharmacy to dispense the drugs and be reimbursed by the government pursuant to the buyer signing a simple form declaring she was raped and will seek medical treatment or verification after she takes the drugs. 

But such a simple solution would not have given the Female Abuser-in-Chief his virtue-signalling platform. 

WELL, JAYNE, IS THAT TRUE OR NOT?

By Tim Rohr

This morning, a friend sent the following:

Jayne Flores wrote an opinion piece on your analysis of the Epstein case.  She went off the rails.  Does she really believe you condone and agree with what Epstein was doing with young girls and women?  She obviously doesn't know you that well.  

Secondly, she can't see that you were mocking how loose our society has become with sex. . . You see it in movies, magazines, women wearing flimsy clothes, etc.  Epstein took advantage of this to make money and to share it with the girls he brought to his pleasure island.  They were all seemingly "happy" like those in Sodom and Gomorrah, till they got caught.  

Sure, the girls changed from "thanks for the money" to "I was abused" when they all got caught and shamed in public. Maybe some tried to resist and some were naive.  Who knows. . . and neither does Jayne Flores.  The trouble with people like Jayne, they're so arrogant and think they are so righteous they know best what'd good for Guam and society.  They can't see the truth through their "colored lenses."

. . . and what's happening to our society when people like her are in positions of authority and power and try to push a radical agenda, like abortion is okay.  She also believes selling or giving out free condoms to 18 year olds is okay.  That's opening a Pandora's Box.  Doesn't she know when we were teenagers, we tried to buy cigarettes or beer by asking older teens to buy those items for us?  Or we get fake ID's made to fool the store clerks?

+++++

There is only one thing not correct in the above message. Jayne Flores isn't "giving out free condoms to 18 year olds," she is pushing contraceptives to anyone of any age...some of whom are much younger than 18, not to mention the almost exclusive use of her office and our money to push "legal murder they call abortion" (to quote the Steel Pulse song "Wild Goose Chase").

I haven't read Jayne's piece and I'm not going to. Find it and read it if you want. I'll rely on the above summary because it's already an old story with Jayne and her militant abortion-loving friends, including the governor. 

Back to my Epstein piece, as I shared, it got me CANCELLED from the Guam Daily Post as a regular columnist for nearly two years. I sort of knew it might, but someone needed to tell the truth and that's what I do.

In fact, if you read my Epstein piece carefully there is not a single false statement. And, even though I was being ironic, the truth itself was ironic enough that I didn't need to stretch anything. 

Here were my key points:

1. The girls were paid sex-workers, not victims. As my friend point out above, the only became "victims" after the whole thing was outed.

2. In the context of who can have sex with who, age 18 means nothing given that the age of consent and even the marrying age can be much younger. 

3. We already tacitly condone minors having sex with whoever they want by pushing - as Jayne's office does - free contraception for all and even abortions in case those condoms and pills fail (which they do). 

4. Pedophilia is a sexual preference for prepubescent children, not the adolescents that Epstein and his clients preferred. 

5. Pedophilia is a convenient label to take the spotlight off the real issue: we live in a sex saturated culture and we are already okay with our 14 year-olds engaging in sex or we wouldn't be trying so hard to hand out contraceptives and abortions - as Jayne and her boss do.

In my Epstein piece, I called out Jayne and her office:

Here in Guam, as advertised on the website for the Bureau of Women’s Affairs, contraception is free at all public health facilities. Apparently there is no age limit. Hmmm. Kids can’t buy cigarettes until they’re 18, but can help themselves to condoms and birth control pills as soon as they’re tall enough to peer over the counter and say “Please Sir, I want some more.”

Well, Jayne, is that true or not?

The fact is that contraception and abortion, Jayne's two beloved step-children, go hand in hand with sex-trafficking. And, more than dirty old men like Jeffrey Epstein, government agencies like the one Jayne runs contribute more to the degradation, defilement, and destruction of the young, especially girls. 

Remember our own Blue House scandal a few years ago? It was functionally a sex-trafficking whore house. Some mamasan was bringing in Micronesian girls, confiscating their passports, and forcing the girls to have sex with the customers, most famously certain police officers. 

Well, in case you didn't know, sex with young women of child-bearing age can make young women child-bearing, so of course putting the girls on the pill, or the patch, or whatever, would have been requisite for mamasan's business. But, as the news exposed, some of those girls still got pregnant and they were hustled down to the abortuaries in Tamuning, which in those days were killing a baby a day.

Contraception and abortion isn't about the rights of females - as Jayne and her ilk would have us believe. It's about covering the tracks of dirty old men like the Jeffrey Esptein's or even, in the Blue House case, some of our own police officers. 

And apparently in Guam, sex-traffickers have no better friend than the Bureau of Women's Affairs, and the woman who runs it.

Note: The Blue House Case was back in the news this past January 2025

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

MIND YOUR OWN F-ING BUSINESS

By Tim Rohr

A few days ago, the Guam Daily Post published the story "OAG asked to investigate 2 abortion doctors." The Post shared the story on its Facebook page. As of today the story had about 20 comments. About half the comments were supportive. The other half were the usual "Mind your own f-ing business" - as one literally said. 

I don't engage comments on Facebook where I am involved with the story, but I can and will engage them here. The point of engaging them though is not to defend myself or even answer back, but to share why it's all of our "f-ing business."

1. Regardless of the issue (abortion), it's the law, and laws are public. It's why when a law is enacted it is given a name beginning with the words "Public Law...." and then followed by a number. The laws are called public laws because they belong to the public. In other words, public laws are our "f-ing business." So we have every right and duty to "mind" them because they are our "f-ing business. 

2. The laws at the core of the story required the publication of annual reports. So there was no snooping around. I simply asked for a copy of the reports which the law, the public law, required to be published and made available to the public. Simple. 

3. When any of us are aware, or even suspect that a law is being violated, it is our civic duty to bring the matter before the proper enforcement authority, which in this case, is the Attorney General. So it's my "f-ing business," and yours.

Beyond the simple and objective facts just stated, who among us would ignore cruelty to an animal? Let's say your neighbor regularly whips the hell out of his dog. And let's say you want to do something about it. But your neighbor says "mind your own f-ing business." 

Or how about child abuse? It's obvious to you that your neighbor's kids are physically abused, neglected, and half-starving. Is that your "f-ing business?" 

No? Okay then I guess neither is the slicing up of children in the womb. 

However, I tend to believe that those who are screaming at me to mind my own "f-ing business" when it comes to complying with a law requiring the filing of a simple piece of paper - and in this case a piece of paper with a number on it - are the same people who'd be calling the cops on an animal abuser. 

But when it comes to a baby in the womb, well that's different. And it's different because of the real reason they want people like me to mind our own "f-ing business." They want us to "mind our own f-ing business" because they don't want to be reminded of theirs. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED TO INVESTIGATE TWO ABORTION DOCTORS

In today's Guam Daily Post (with linked references):

In 2024, 36 women residing in Guam terminated their pregnancies through chemical abortions, according to the 2024 Abortion Report. A request asking the Office of the Attorney General to investigate and bring action against a couple of doctors alleges that reporting requirements were not met.

Abortions are not illegal in Guam. However, there are no doctors who perform abortions on the island. In fact, according to the 2024 Abortion Report compiled by the Department of Public Health and Social Services Bureau of Vital Statistics, the women were given prescriptions for abortion medications by Queen’s University Medical Group in Hawaii through telemedicine.

That is not where Guam resident Tim Rohr, who asked the AG to investigate, found fault.

The Women’s Reproductive Health Information Act of 2012 states that a physician or qualified person who is performing the abortion needs to provide the woman with printed materials related to the procedure at least 24 hours prior. The woman must then certify “in writing on a checklist certification” that the materials were provided.

Rohr sent a Sunshine Reform Act request for the “total number of checklist certifications by month for calendar year 2024" to the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority, which is responsible for keeping records. He found none.

“Pursuant to a letter received from Guam Memorial Hospital Administrator Lillian Perez-Posadas, MN, RN, on March 6, 2025, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request: 'GMHA is not in possession of any documents responsive to your request,'” Rohr said in his request to the AG.

According to the Bureau of Women’s Affairs, “currently, no physicians in Guam are publicly providing either medication abortion or surgical abortion. The option for medication abortion is available via telemedicine.”

According to Post files, when the 2024 Abortion Report came out, Pro-Life Committee Chair Sharon O’Mallan said that when a woman terminates a pregnancy, she must meet with a “person here who does the in-person counseling,” then the woman is referred to the Hawaii-based abortion doctors before the abortion prescription is mailed to the woman.

The 2024 Abortion Report identified the providers who performed the abortions as Queen's University Medical Group Drs. Bliss Kaneshiro and Shandhini Raidoo, who are listed as abortion providers at the Guam Bureau of Women’s Affairs and are licensed to practice on the island.

According to Rohr, off Guam or not, the law needs to be complied with, including “in-person informed-consent” certifications. He alleged the abortion doctors failed this requirement, despite the preliminary injunction which enjoined the enforcement of the informed-consent requirement being vacated.

“Drs. (Raidoo) and Kaneshiro are also the two doctors who initiated a lawsuit in the Guam District Court against the attorney general of Guam and other defendants in January 2021 in order to enjoin the in-person informed-consent requirement of 10 Guam Code Ann. § 3218.1. 6 While their suit initially succeeded with the Guam District Court, as already stated supra, that decision was vacated by the 9th Circuit and physicians providing abortion services in Guam, telemedicine or otherwise, are required by law to comply with all the requirements set forth in 10 Guam Code Ann. § 3218.1,” Rohr said in his request.

With no paper trail, Rohr levied the allegations and called on the AG to “bring action against the physicians who provided the abortions in calendar year 2024 for not complying” with the law.

“Given the foregoing, it appears that 36 abortions were provided in Guam in calendar year 2024 without informed consent, as required by 10 Guam Code Ann. § 3218.1. Wherefore, I request the Attorney General of Guam, whose job it is to enforce the laws of Guam, to investigate the facts as set forth herein, and if said facts are found to be true, to bring appropriate legal action against the abortion providers,” Rohr said in the request.

The request was stamped received by the attorney general’s office on March 7, but when The Guam Daily Post asked AG Douglas Moylan to confirm receipt and what if any action his office would take, he said it was the first time he'd seen Rohr's request.

“We will review and contact Mr. Rohr,” Moylan told the Post on Saturday.

 

GOOD NEWS!

LINK to online version

Good news! According to the 2024 abortion report - as compiled by the Department of Public Health and Social Services Bureau of Vital Statistics - no one identifying as Chamorro (the report uses this spelling) procured an abortion in 2024.

That’s good news because between 2008 - when The Esperansa Project began requesting the reports - and 2017, the last full year an established abortion practitioner practiced in Guam, women identifying their ethnicity as Chamorro accounted for 1,502 abortions - about 60% of the total.

After the last abortion doctor retired in 2018, no local doctors were willing to openly offer abortion services, so there wasn’t much data for a few years. However, that changed a couple years ago when two doctors in Hawaii got Guam medical licenses and now do chemical abortions via teleconference and mail-order abortion drugs.

A Freedom of Information Act request to Jayne Flores, Director of Bureau of Women’s Affairs, turned up documents demonstrating that Jayne (and presumably her boss) actively recruited the Hawaii physicians to abort Guam babies, and beyond that, to initiate a lawsuit against our own government with the help of the ACLU.

The two doctors are Shandhini Raidoo and Bliss Kaneshiro, and their services are advertised on our taxpayer funded Bureau of Women’s Affairs website. The medical practices of Raidoo and Kaneshiro are private businesses and they are getting free advertising thanks to Jayne and our tax dollars. What a deal!

Moving on.

The thrust of the suit from these two doctors was to get rid of Guam’s in-person counseling requirement for women seeking an abortion. The Guam District Court initially ruled in favor of Jayne and her abortion friends, however, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court ruling and upheld Guam law.

The short of it is that these doctors can oversee chemical abortions in Guam from Hawaii so long as women seeking abortions get the required local counseling first. According to the 2024 report there were 36 abortions in Guam but no information about who is providing the required in-person counseling.

Meanwhile, whoever is providing the counseling is very probably counseling local women to identify their ethnicity as “Pacific Islander” and not “Chamorro.” This appears to be the only explanation for how Chamorro abortions went from 60% of the total for at least a decade down to nothing, and Pacific Islander abortions, since 2017, jumped 625% and now account for 80% of the total.

The dramatic shift in the ethnic numbers appears to be a response to the increasing cries of “Chamorro genocide” by myself and others. What else can it be called? According to census numbers, Chamorros account for only 30% of Guam’s population, yet the abortion reports, at least up until the latest report, show Chamorros accounting for 60% of all abortions.  

So, the response to our cries of “Chamorro genocide” from the pro-aborts appears to have been “stop checking the Chamorro box and just check Pacific Islander.” And voila! No more abortions of Chamorro children.

This is rather sad and laughable given that the biggest public promoters of abortion are also the biggest public promoters of distinguishing the cultural and ethnic identity of the Chamorro from the generic “Pacific Islander.”

Even the U.S. Census makes this distinction: “In 2020, Guam’s population was 153,836…The Chamorro population was the largest detailed Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group.”

However, when it comes to abortion reporting, or at least now in 2024 and presumably going forward, suddenly the Chamorro is just a “Pacific Islander.”

Why do they want to hide? Didn’t our governor and culture warriors like Michael Bevacqua preach to us about how abortion was and is a venerable cultural practice and in fact a demonstration of a Chamorro woman’s “symbolic societal power?”

Quoting Bevacqua: “[W]omen in Guam were more than merely vessels for their communities—they were empowered to make decisions about their bodies and families…we see clear matrilineal/matrifocal dimensions, where lineage and symbolic societal power resides primarily with women…research has also found evidence dating back to the 18th century showing that women in Guam…have utilized a variety of methods to induce miscarriage or end their pregnancies, as well as to use birth control and other methods to control their fertility.”

Given that as of 2024 the number of abortions for Chamorro women was zero, women in Guam are apparently no longer interested in asserting “symbolic societal power” by exterminating their own offspring. They’re leaving that to the “Pacific Islanders.”

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com     

WHY HIDE THE CHAMORU?

 

LINK to online article

Of the women, 81%, or 29 out of the 36 women, identified themselves as Pacific Islander.

O’Mallan, however, pointed out the report does not break down ethnicity further.

“How many of that are CHamoru and how many of that are outer island people? It’s not distinguished there. So, that’s one of our concerns,” she said.

MY NOTE: It's "interesting" who we want the CHamoru to NOT be lumped in with "the rest" of "Pacific Islanders" in just about everything, except for when we count abortions. Why hide? 

Governor Lou Leon Guerrero, her abortion lieutenant Jayne Flores, and columnist Michael Bevacqua have publicly bragged about how abortion has a special cultural heritage in CHamoru history. But now they're hiding it? Why? 

The previous abortion reports always distinguished the CHamoru as its own ethnicity, and reports showing the CHamoru as the leading procurer of abortion should make the above named people proud. Right?

In any event, we can solidly assume that the ratio is the same.

BTW. The U.S. Census distinguishes Chamorro (CHamoru) from other Pacific Islanders.

Demographic Characteristics

In 2020, Guam’s population was 153,836. The profile released today provides demographic characteristics about the population, including information on racial and ethnic composition.

• The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population was the largest race group, with 70,809 people identifying as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone. Overall, 83,368 people reported Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone or in combination with another race group, such as Asian.
  • The Chamorro population was the largest detailed Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group.
    • In 2020, 50,420 people identified as Chamorro alone with no additional detailed Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group or race group.
    • In 2020, 63,035 people identified as Chamorro alone or in any combination with another detailed Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group or race group, such as Pohnpeian or Asian.

ABORTION REPORT-GUAM: 2024

Copied from the website of the Guam Pro-Life Committee:

The Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee has recently obtained the “2024 Abortion Report” from the Bureau of Vital Statistics of Guam’s Department of Public Health and Social Services. Guam law (10 GCA 3218) requires abortion providers to submit basic information about abortions committed on Guam to the government and for the government to produce and make available an annual report of those records.

Here is a summary:

• 36 chemical abortions were reported. All were voluntary, none were done “therapeutic”.
• All were performed by prescriptions issued by the Queen’s University Medical Group in Hawaii.
• In all cases the gestational age of the fetus was 11 weeks or younger.
• 29 out of the 36 mothers (81%) identified themselves as “Pacific Islander”.
• 26 of the 36 mothers (72%) were 23 years of age or older. 1 out the 36 mothers (3%) was a minor.
• 24 of the 36 mothers (67%) had previous pregnancies.
• 22 of the 36 (61%) mothers had other living children.
• 19 of the 36 mothers (53%) were married.
• 17 of the 36 mothers (47%) had a college degree or some college education.

One or more of the following is more likely than not to be true about a mother pursuing abortion on Guam: she is older than 23, married, was pregnant before or has other living children. Nearly half of the mothers had at least some college education.

Here is the report that you may download and view: 

GET YOUR ABORTIONS HERE!

As posted on the website of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, Government of Guam. 

It's what you're paying for. It's what you voted for. Twice.

The need for children is great, says The Economist: “According to one study published in 2006, there were around 1m parents in America who wanted to adopt a child, yet only 51,000 children were placed with agencies for adoption each year.” That’s obviously because about 950,000 American babies are aborted each year. If none of them had been aborted, perhaps all those parents would have been able to adopt a child. - SOURCE

 

THE DEATH OF GUAM'S AUSCHWITZ FOR CHILDREN

By Tim Rohr

There was a recent article in the local paper about troubles happening at the now abandoned building which once operated as the Guam Polyclinic. The title of the article refers to the building as a "public safety issue." 

I couldn't help but think of the irony of the words "public safety issue" now that it is abandoned given that it was in this building that thousands of Guam's children were put to death over a period of about 30 years by Guam's most prolific abortionist, a certain Dr. Griley. 

At the time The Esperansa Project began accessing the abortion reports required by law in 2008, even from the incomplete and fragmented records, it appeared that Dr. Griley was averaging close to two abortions per day in this building. 

I often wondered how he disposed of all those bodies. The dumpster?

There's a few more ironic points in the story. 

The Tamuning mayor is quoted as saying how potential buyers for the building are "scared away." The mayor is referring to the loitering and vandalism, however, given the number of deaths in that building, perhaps prospective buyers are scared away for other reasons. I don't know what the owners are asking for the building, but the building is in a high-demand location so maybe something else explains why it hasn't been sold and continues to rot away. (Satan eats his own.)

The mayor also said:

“We have an outstanding community that cares, and so a lot of individuals take part in the neighborhood crime watch chat. We have chats for different areas, so anything suspicious or things like that, criminal activity, they’re asked to report it on the chat."

Apparently killing two babies a day for thirty years wasn't "suspicious or things like that."

The mayor also referenced the bus stop in front of the building:

"Even with the bus stop that’s right there in front by that building, it was just painted, sponsored by Home Depot, and it’s already graffitied. There's just a bunch of people that are just doing the wrongdoings and finding places that have no activity."

Well, once upon a time there was regular activity at that bus stop, and it wasn't people waiting to catch a bus. It was a regular "bunch of people" who actually did care about "criminal activity" in that building, the butchering of thousands of children whose silent screams were never heard and whose bodies lay buried in our landfills.

At the time of this picture (2012), shutting down Guam's bloodthirsty abortion machine seemed impossible. But due to the persistence of a few (2 of them are my daughters), Guam's Auschwitz for Children is as abandoned and forlorn as the former Nazi extermination camp. 

As a "by the way," directly beneath the above-referenced story in the Guam Daily Post in the print edition was another story titled: SaguaMPG clinic to close February 2025. I don't know if any abortions were ever performed there, but given the very public advocacy for abortion by some of Sagua's more well-known doctors, you might say the story was well-timed...and placed.

I HOPE YOU DIDN'T

By Tim Rohr

Anonymous at November 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM apparently took issue with my post IF HE WON'T SAY IT, I WILL, wherein I call out Archbishop Jimenez for not being straight up about who not to vote for when I said:

All he has to do is say: 

DON'T VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SUPPORT OR ADVOCATE FOR ABORTION AND ESPECIALLY THOSE CANDIDATES WHO HAVE INTRODUCED ABORTION LEGISLATION.

So Anonymous left this comment:

Tim, take note of the first five sentences in the letter:

"The Church equips its members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church. Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere "feeling" about what we should or should not do. Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil. Conscience always requires serious attempts to make sound moral judgments based on the truths of our faith.”

To which I replied:

Yes, a quote right out of the Faithful Citizenship document which Cardinal Burke blamed for handing Obama the election in 2008 and again in 2012. It’s another one of those “sounds good” but no cigar. A simple “you must vote against candidates who support abortion in anyway” is what is needed.

Plus it says “The Church equips its members…” Really? I don’t recall a single attempt from the pulpit to “equip its members.” Instead we get this single letter that few will even know about a couple days before the election.

Here is the link to what Burke thought of this very harmful document.

https://1timothy315.blogspot.com/2011/09/the-usccb-vs-ppaca.html

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, blamed the document “for the abandonment of pro-life teachings by voting Catholics.” He said the document “led to confusion” among the faithful and led ultimately to massive support among Catholics for “the most pro-abortion president in U.S. History.” The problem, the Archbishop pointed out, was that the document did not make the ”necessary distinctions” between abortion and other life issues such as war, capital punishment, and poverty.  

"Faithful Citizenship" was first released in 2003 and is "brushed up" by the bishops upon each presidential election year. The current edition has made some progress over the edition Cardinal Burke criticized, but the problem remains. Despite referring several times to abortion and euthanasia as "pre-eminent" issues, those references are always immediately followed by a list of other issues which diminish the meaning of "pre-eminent."

(Actually, I would argue that euthanasia, as unjust as it is, should not be equated with abortion. There is the chance that the person to be euthanized at least might have a say in the matter or the ability to scream in protest, but not so the unborn child - at least not a scream than can be heard as it is chopped to pieces.)

Here is an example:

27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church's defense of human life and dignity:

28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

(So you see, they do a good job of telling us that the destruction of innocent human life is "not just one issue among many," but now they will follow it with a list of other issues that leads to the likes of a Nancy Pelosi who believes she is pro-life because she opposes the death penalty (except for the unborn, of course):

29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. The current and projected extent of environmental degradation has become a moral crisis especially because it poses a risk to humanity in the future and threatens the lives of poor and vulnerable human persons here and now. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, pornography, redefining civil marriage, compromising religious liberty, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

By the time you get through that second paragraph (29) the average Catholic (if the average Catholic will even read this) is thinking "I'm going to vote for the candidate who is for clean water and against war," and abortion is not even on the moral radar.

Moreover, there is a real problem with statement such as this:

It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. (30)

We generally don't vote for political programs or individual laws during elections. This only happens when there is a referendum, and those are rare. We vote for persons who either support or oppose those political programs or individual laws. 

So what needs to be said is this:

It must be noted also that a Christian with a well-formed Christian conscience does not vote for candidates who support a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. 

And if abortion really is the "pre-eminent" issue, then those bishops and ours only need to say one thing:

DON'T VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SUPPORT OR ADVOCATE FOR ABORTION AND ESPECIALLY THOSE CANDIDATES WHO HAVE INTRODUCED ABORTION LEGISLATION.

I hope you didn't.