MASSACHUSETTS LAW IS NOTHING NEW. LEGAL IN GUAM SINCE 1978.

By Tim Rohr

There is much "ado" (as in "much ado about nothing" - Shakespeare) about the new abortion legislation in Massachusetts permitting abortion up until birth. However, many states, including Guam, permit the same:

Since 1978, Guam law 9 GCA 31.20 (C) has stated that an abortion may be performed:

at any time after the commencement of pregnancy the physician reasonably determines using all available means that there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother. 

The "or mental health of the mother" is the open door. 

In fact, up until November 2008, when the Esperansa Project-backed ban on partial birth abortion was enacted (P.L 29-115), it was legal to abort a child during delivery (by crushing the child's skull in the birth canal). 

And just a reminder that our current governor argued against legislation requiring normal medical care for children who survive a failed abortion - effectively arguing for abortion after birth (infanticide). 

DEAD BABIES BE DAMNED

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This post is a postlude to the post PUBLIC LAW 20-134 IS REPEALED.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.

PUBLIC LAW 20-134 IS REPEALED

By Tim Rohr

It never fails to amaze me, with every election, how the abortion question makes candidates suddenly stupid. They fumble around between "I'm personally pro-life, but..." to "better healthcare for women..." etc., etc., etc. 

Note to candidates. Here's how to answer any question about your position on abortion:

Do you have legislation in mind? If so, I would not be able to tell you my position until I see the legislation, because even if I am pro-life, I would not support a pro-life bill if it were unconstitutional on its face. Such a bill could be very costly to the people of Guam, and in the end, not only do nothing to protect the unborn, but it could endanger the unborn even further.

You can stop here, but if you are so inclined to give a history lesson, I provide the following; 

Case in point: As history has shown, and is still showing, 36 years after it was enacted, the people of Guam are still paying the legal bills for Public Law 20-13. And, as history has also shown, because of the legal mess that followed the law's enactment, the abortion industry in Guam ran rampant and unregulated for the next 30 years* because no legislator in Guam dared to touch the issue.

So show me your legislation, and after I review it, I'll give you my position on your bill. 

*P.L. 20-134 was enacted in 1990. No attempt was made to legislatively regulate abortion until 2008, when The Esperansa Project backed a ban on partial-birth abortion.  Given the 600 abortions annually, estimated by the bill's author, the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola, we can estimate that, in those 28 years, 16,800 children in the womb were aborted. The Esperansa Project backed several more pro-life measures over the next 8 years, 8 of which became law. In 2018, the last abortion clinic closed its doors, and no doctor in Guam is willing to do them. The only abortions occurring in Guam are chemical abortions, and Lou and Jayne had to recruit two doctors from Hawaii to get licensed in Guam to "do" them via "telemedicine" and mail order baby-killer pills.

But back to the abortion question making candidates stupid. Imagine being asked if you, a candidate for political office, favor raising the speed limit on Route 1, given that most drivers exceed it anyway, and you answer: "I personally support the current speed limit, but it's not my place to tell people what to do with their cars." Stupid stuff like that. Apply it to just about every other question, and answering "I personally ...anything" sounds like absolute idiocy, because it is. 

Now, regarding P.L. 20-134, "Belle's Law." The real problem with the law wasn't that it was unconstitutional, even if it was. Legislation that challenges judicial precedent, even on constitutional matters, is how the laws develop. This is exactly how Roe v Wade became the law of the land, and it is also how Dobbs v Jackson overturned it. 

In 1989, given the recent judicial precedent in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, Arriola believed there was an opening to constitutionally challenge Roe (as Webster had done). (Read more about that here.)

The legislation went off the rails when it was co-opted by then-Governor Joseph Ada and then-Archbishop Anthony Apuron as a platform to advance Chamorro self-determination.

As Vivian Dames observed:

"Once the governor resolved to defend Guam’s ban on abortion against a common foe of Chamorro self-determination, namely, the U.S. Constitution, then the politics of abortion and the commonwealth quest became irrevocably entangled."  - Vivian Loyola Dames in Asian/Pacific Women, A Historical Anthology (2003) edited by Shirley Hune, Gail M. Nomura, Pg. 366

Apuron then jumped on the self-determination bandwagon:

"If you do not know anything about Chamorros and about our struggles, you will miss the point about our decision to protect life…We are proposing a simple idea. We choose to exercise self-determination in the moral imperative even as we pursue self-determination in the political arena." - Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, Ibid, Pg. 365.

Apuron then went further, threatening to excommunicate any senator who did not vote for the bill. At this point, it appears the lawmakers threw up their hands and said, "What the hell," and passed it. They knew the bill was unconstitutional and that the law would be enjoined the minute it was enacted. So why not just vote for it, avoid being labeled as a heretic, and the shame of public excommunication, and let the bill die on its own? 

They were right. The pro-aborts immediately filed a lawsuit, and the District Court enjoined the law. Ada et al. pursued the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case, leaving the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in place:

"Guam contends that the substantive due process guarantee enforced in Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion cases does not apply to Guam because nothing in Guam's Organic Act, codified at 48 U.S.C. § 1421-1424b (1988), so provides...We can scarcely imagine, however, any clearer indication of intent than the language of the Mink Amendment: the relevant constitutional amendments "have the same force and effect" in Guam as in a state of the United States. There is no need, therefore, to go further...Accordingly, we hold that Roe v. Wade applies to Guam as it applies to the states." - Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992) 

The late Senator Ben Pangelinan, during an argument in 2010 over The Esperansa Project-backed legislation requiring informed consent for abortion, estimated the cost to Guam taxpayers for Belle's Law to be several million dollars. Recently, that amount has increased as the current Attorney General has sought to remove the 1990 injunction on P.L. 20-134 on the basis that the Dobbs decision has eliminated Roe, which was the basis for the injunction. 

AG Moylan's job is to enforce the laws of Guam, and, amazingly, P.L. 20-134 remains in the Guam Code, albeit enjoined. Whether Moylan is pro-life or not is not the issue. The law exists, and despite the ridiculous "declaratory judgment" (2023) declaring it "repealed by implication," it is still on the books.

Once again, this is a demonstration of how the abortion issue makes politicians stupid. There is no need to be fighting over this law nearly 40 years later and spending so much money on it. All that needs to happen to end this insanity is for a single lawmaker to introduce a one-sentence bill that reads: "Public Law 20-134 is repealed." And then, if that senator or any senator wants to do the right thing, he or she can introduce a cleaned-up version of Belle's Law, which, in the light of Dobbs, would not have the constitutional challenges from 1990. 

But apparently no one, for forty years, has been smart enough to do it. Either that, or they're scared to do it. Meanwhile, we pay and pay and pay.

ELIZABETH ARRIOLA FOR GOVERNOR

 By Tim Rohr

Today, the Pacific Daily News published the story "Gubernatorial teams share views on abortion, schools at forum." Let's take a look at the candidates' views on abortion. 

However, first, there is the question of why abortion was even a question. Currently, there is no legislation before the legislature either for or against abortion; there is not even a proposal of legislation, nor does it appear that abortion will be a legislative issue in the foreseeable future. There aren't even any doctors in Guam who will perform them. So why was this a question?

The forum says it all: The Women's Chamber of Commerce," a group founded by the now-Governor Lou Leon Guerrero, Guam's most famous and most radical abortion proponent, and most of the Women's Chamber is in the boat with her.

Usually, when abortion is brought up in a campaign, it's a pro-life group that's behind it, like The Esperansa Project was for several years. In fact, since I was one of the founders of The Esperansa Project, I get asked, almost every campaign season, for my thoughts on the candidates relative to the abortion issue. My most recent reply was "abortion is not an issue in this campaign," and it isn't.

But apparently, for the Women's Chamber, it is. The question was asked because the Women's Chamber wants to know which candidate will be the most aggressive in advancing greater access to abortion in Guam. 

Since the last abortionist in Guam closed up shop in 2018, the same year "Lou" began her run for governor, the pro-aborts have been vicious about restoring unlimited and unregulated access to abortion. As soon as Lou got elected, she placed Jayne Flores at the head of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, and from all the evidence, Jayne had one job: get those abortion numbers up.

At first, Jayne tried to entice Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, to set up a clinic in Guam. In an email to Deborah Nucatola, MD, the medical director for Planned Parenthood in Hawaii, dated June 25, 2019, Jayne wrote:

"Hafa Adai Deborah...we are in need of abortion services…We are currently trying to quietly survey clinics on Guam that would allow visiting physicians to perform surgical abortions. Another option, if PP wanted to open a clinic here, is that we do have a medical clinic that recently closed. Would there be a possibility that PP would be interested in leasing this space to set up its own clinic?"

Jayne then went on to add:

"I would describe the atmosphere on our island, with its 165,000 population that is majority Catholic, as initially hostile toward this issue. However, over half of the voting public cast ballots in favor of our first female governor…despite her openly pro-choice stance. So there is hope."

(The full email string can be accessed here.)

So "there is hope!" Yes, there is hope that with the election of Lou Leon Guerrero, the people of Guam might continue their genocidal slaughter of their own children, as the following graph demonstrates:

(Copies of the official abortion reports are here.) 

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. The loudest pro-aborts in Guam are also the loudest advocates for preserving the Chamorro (old spelling used on purpose) language and culture, etc. How do you do that without succeeding generations? As the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola said during a debate over her now famous "Belle's Law:"

"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?"

By the way, before going on to analyze the candidates' responses, Lou and Jayne, in their lust to abort more Guam babies, would fabricate the events that set up the ACLU lawsuit in 2021. In other words, Lou and Jayne were behind the lawsuit, which effectively amounted to us suing ourselves. Read more here.

So, the Women's Chamber is just continuing the Lou and Jayne agenda, and now that Lou, Guam's abortion queen, is coming to the end of her reign, the Women's Chamber, Lou's creation, wants assurance that women, particularly Chamorro women (given the data), can continue aborting their babies. Thus, the abortion question at this forum.

The PDN article begins: "Across a two-hour panel at the Crowne Plaza in Tumon, the teams addressed reproductive health care..."

Seriously, is there any other area in the practice of medicine where the direct killing of a human being is called "health care?" In fact, can the direct killing of a human being even be labeled "the practice of medicine?" The fact that the pro-aborts cannot call it what it is should tell us everything we need to know.

Joe San Agustin and Dwayne San Nicolas

Former senator and school counselor Dwayne San Nicolas, running for lieutenant governor with Sen. Joe San Agustin, said their team supports protecting personal decision-making while maintaining a pro-life stance.

“Every election, we always struggle with these questions about abortion and women’s rights,” he said, further telling the audience that as a former school counselor he listened to girls who have gone through sexual trauma.

“Joe and I are both pro-life, but we want to protect your right to make that decision for yourself,” he said.

San Nicolas described abortion as an experience that can have long-lasting emotional effects on women and stated that its impact may continue for many years afterward. He said the ticket would “do whatever we can to be compassionate, and you know, provide the necessary programs to assist our women in that regard.”

This is the old "I'm personally pro-life, but..." argument, originally made infamous by the late Mario Cuomo, the former mayor of New York, and since championed by more famous Catholic politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi. 

It's usually followed by some statement of compassion and assurances to better "assist women, "just as San Nicolas does here. It's interesting that San Agustin let San Nicolas do the talking on this. San Agustin is a big shot at the Yigo church and appears to have his pastor's protection. Of course, that's the real problem. But we'll address that another time.

Therese Terlaje and Sabina Perez

Sen. Therese Terlaje, who is running for governor with Sen. Sabina Perez, focused on access to reproductive health services and medical infrastructure gaps.

According to sworn testimony from career nurses and a former acting chief public health officer at the Department of Public Health and Social Services, Terlaje said that the prolonged closure of the Mangilao clinic significantly reduced access to health care services for pregnant women and children in Guam.

Terlaje said she fought hard to have Public Health’s Mangilao clinic, which closed in 2019, reopened.

She reminded voters that “while the Supreme Court of Guam, and Guam law currently allow access to abortion services here under very limited conditions, Guam law also contains some of the strictest provisions, including consultation, counseling, disclosure, and reporting requirements.”

Terlaje said her priority would be addressing the factors that can make pregnancy difficult for women and ensuring comprehensive support for children born on Guam, including the approximately 700 children in the foster care system. She referenced her legislative record of increasing financial, medical, housing, and transportation assistance for foster children and their families, strengthening protections for victims of criminal sexual conduct, and expanding drug rehabilitation programs and customs enforcement efforts.

Terlaje demonstrates here why she is the smartest of all the candidates: she doesn't address the issue of abortion at all, other than to say "Guam law...contains some of the strictest provisions." She's wrong here. She's referring to the informed consent law, which many other states have, and it's only "strict" if it's enforced. It's not. 

The law requires the counselor to submit a document called a "checklist certification" to the Records Section at GMH. The certification is proof that the woman seeking the abortion went through the required in-person counseling process. 

On February 6, 2025, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Lillian Perez-Posadas, MN, RN, then the Administrator for Guam Memorial Hospital, the agency that includes the "Records Section," identified in the law requiring informed consent for abortion. I requested the "total number of checklist certifications" as required by 10GCA § 3218.1 (b)(5), for calendar year 2024. 

On March 6, 2025, Posadas replied: "GMHA is not in possession of any documents responsive to your request." Meanwhile, Vital Statistics at DPHHS reported that there were 36 abortions for the calendar year 2024. 36 abortions and 0 certifications. 

I followed up on the matter with the Attorney General. On March 23, 2025, the Guam Daily Post did a story about my efforts: "OAG asked to investigate 2 abortion doctors." At the end of the story, Attorney General Douglas Moylan is quoted as saying: “We will review and contact Mr. Rohr." Actually, I went to the Post with the story after two unsuccessful attempts to get a response from the AG: here and here. 

After the story of my attempts to get an answer appeared in the Post, I still had to file two more requests with the AG: here and here. A few weeks later, the AG finally called me. The answer was that GMH had refused to accept the certifications, and there was nothing the AG could do.

This was a sort of head-shaking moment for me. Raidoo and Kaneshiro, the two abortion doctors from Hawaii who had been recruited by Lou and Jayne to do chemical abortions via tele-appointments, with the help of the ACLU, had sued the AG (and others) to bypass the in-person consultation requirement. The fight went all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which means the fight was very costly), where the Court ruled against Raidoo, Kaneshiro, and the ACLU and preserved Guam's right to require in-person consultation prior to an abortion. 

After winning the expensive, two-year-long battle, I thought the AG might be interested in following up to see whether the law was actually being complied with. Oh well. 

By the way, in case you want to know Terlaje and Perez's real position on abortion, both Terlaje and Perez voted against Bill 291-36, a bill that would have prohibited abortion of an unborn child with a detectable fetal heartbeat.

The vote really says more than the vote. Everyone knew that Governor LG would veto the bill, which she did, and that it would come back to the legislature and die a quiet death, which it did. 

So voting "nay" really had no meaning other than to make a statement that, on principle, the "nay" voter believed that an unborn child has no right to life, even if the child has a detectable heartbeat, if the mother wants the child dead. So stop with the "healthcare" bullshit.

Frank Blas, Jr. and Mary Okada

Speaker Frank Blas Jr., speaking alongside running mate Mary Okada, told forum attendees that although he and Okada support “the sanctity of life,” their administration would not move to take away abortion rights while strengthening support systems around women.

“We also recognize that while we’re pro-life, it doesn’t mean taking away a woman’s dignity and right to choose,” he said.

Blas said their administration would focus on education, services and support so that women do not face decisions in fear or isolation.

“I think it is incumbent upon our administration, coming upon the government, to be able to provide the educational resources necessary to make those decisions,” he said. “To provide a strong supportive network, so that this decision doesn’t come out of fear, doesn’t come out of rhetoric, but comes out of the person’s decision, rightful decision, and recognizing what services are available, how to get the support, and to be a better person.”

Wow. I expected more of Frank, given his pro-life voting record. It would have been best for him to do as Terlaje did and steer clear of the question. The last paragraph would have done it. However, he began by saying that he and Okada "support 'the sanctity of life,'" but then goes  on to say that he "would not move to take away abortion rights..." 

This is another "I'm personally pro-life, but..." mumbling that Democrats are known for, except Frank is a Republican. Actually, no one cares what you or any other politician are "personally" for or against. What we care about is what you will DO if elected. So drop this "sanctity of life" bullshit. The translation, in case you need one, is that Blas and Okada support abortion. Man, now I don't know who I am going to vote for.

Tony Ada and E.J. Calvo

Vice Speaker Tony Ada, running for governor with businessman E.J. Calvo, framed his position in faith and legal compliance.

“I believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe every human life has value, including the unborn,” he said. “That belief is rooted in my faith and my family values. As governor, I will uphold and follow the law, while ensuring that women have access to legal health care services and accurate medical information.”

He said the issue is personal to him as the father of three daughters and a daughter-in-law, all of whom are young adults. He added that he wants women on Guam to have access to quality health care on the island so that families do not need to travel elsewhere for medical services that could be provided locally.

Ada said his administration would focus on “improving health care access, expanding maternal and prenatal care, supporting adoption services, strengthening family support programs, and ensuring women have access to legal contraception and reproductive health information.”

Calvo tied their approach to legal standards and social supports.

“Regarding abortion, we will respect the law while focusing on policies that help women choose life by making sure they’re not forced into difficult decisions because of financial hardship, lack of health care, or lack of support,” he said.

He said their administration’s approach will be centered on compassion, respect, and practical solutions.

“We may not all agree on this issue, but I believe we can agree that fewer unintended pregnancies, healthier, healthier mothers, stronger families, and better outcomes for children should be what we all share,” Calvo said.

This is pathetic. More "sanctity of life" bullshit. The "we will respect the law" means Ada and Calvo are just fine with abortion "at any time after the commencement of pregnancy," which means up to full term and to the time of delivery. 

Under 9 GCA 31.20, and since 1978, abortion is legal in Guam "at any time after the commencement of pregnancy the physician reasonably determines using all available means that there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother." 

This is the usual language, since Roe v Wade, used to support abortion for any reason and at any time, and it is still very legal in Guam.  Apparently, Ada and Calvo are just fine with that.

Joshua Tenorio and Tina Muna-Barnes

Sen. Tina Muña-Barnes, running for lieutenant governor with Lt. Gov. Josh Tenorio, who is running for governor, said she supports reproductive autonomy while personally opposing abortion.

“A long time ago, when I was 17 and unwed, I had to make the hard choice, and I chose life,” she said. “I will always choose life, but I believe that the government has no business making that choice for others.”

She said decisions about reproductive health care should remain personal and supported through medical, social and family systems.

Tenorio warned that reproductive rights face political pressure nationally.

“These rights are under fire right now, the most violent way we’ve ever seen in the nation,” he said.

He mentioned a Medicaid waiver set to take effect on July 1 that will allow Medicaid to cover doula services. He also said his administration is focused on supporting women in recovery, particularly those preparing to reunite with their children, through housing assistance and long-term support services designed to help them overcome challenges and achieve stability.

Barnes stoops to the "I'm pro-life, but..." thing, saying "I will always choose life, but I believe that the government has no business making that choice for others." Of course, with that logic, we should make paying taxes voluntary as well. What business does the government have making choices for any of us? Right? 

Tenorio, however, makes no concessions. While he steers away from outright saying "let's kill more babies," there is no question that if you want Planned Parenthood to set up shop in Guam, then Tenorio is your man, which, given his political lineage, should be no surprise. 

Tenorio is also on record going to bat for abortion in Guam, when, in 2023, as one of 18 Democratic Lieutenant Governors, he signed a statement defending access to chemical abortions. 

So, there you have it. This supposedly "Catholic" island has not a single candidate for governor who would legislatively oppose killing children in the womb.

I think I'll write in "+Elizabeth Arriola" for governor. 

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.