UPDATES ON P.L. 20-134 & OTHER ABORTION NEWS

By Tim Rohr

For readers following the very weird twists and turns of the current fate of P.L. 20-134, aka "Belle's Law," there are two updates:

Moylan asks court to dismiss Adelup abortion ban petition - Link

Former GPA legal counsel represents OAG in Supreme Court abortion case - Link 

There is also a national story which will impact another current case relative to abortion in Guam:

As future of abortion pill is weighed, Democrats in Congress see little they can do - Link

The first story references who filed amicus curiae briefs:

The court has now received several amicus curiae briefs - assistive briefs from interested parties - including from the Guam Legislature; lawyers representing Dr. William Freeman, who was the last abortion provider on Guam, and other interested parties; former senator and current talk show host Robert Klitzkie; and blogger Timothy Rohr. 

I don't have copies of anyone else's brief, but for reference, here's mine.

THE ORCS OF ADELUP

By Tim Rohr

Beginning at about 1:27:58 into this past Monday's Tall Tales, the show's host, Bob Klitzkie, takes a call from Senator Chris Duenas relative to what Bob characterizes as a "judicial free-for-all:" 

BOB: "...the Supreme Court is saying for this so-called Declaratory Judgment anybody who wants to can file an amicus brief without going through the process of asking for leave. So they’re turning a horrible judicial procedure - you wouldn’t think they could make it any worse - but they’re turning it into a judicial free-for-all because anyone of your constituents who can put together something that says Amicus Brief on the top and pony up the filing fee can probably go over and file it at the Supreme Court." 

Duenas concurred: 

"...if you look at the April 14th date it’s like general public - so how does general public even know how to prepare a matter to bring before the court in terms of praying on the court for the purpose and especially since really the question is not necessarily about pro or con on the issue it’s about a matter of law. "

Bob then cuts to the chase:

"Now Chris. Stop and step back for a minute and consider - as you say - that anybody can file on the 14th of April. Which side of the game do you think this favors?" 

Duenas responds:

"I mean absolutely. You could see the pile on already." 

What both Bob and Sen. Duenas are referring to is that the governor and her ACLU Orcs are already aggressively positioned to flood the Supreme Court with "template" briefs while the so-called pro-lifers have no leadership or direction even minutely comparable to what the governor and the ACLU is providing to their death-in-the-womb clones.

This, of course, is an indictment of why well-intentioned pro-life efforts, for decades, have failed, and will fail now. Pro-lifers traditionally rely on religious and emotional pleas - stuff legislatures and courts have no room for. 

Note: The Esperansa Project purposely divorced itself from church-based groups and religious and emotional arguments, which is why it was successful in reining in what was, in 2008, the most un-regulated abortion industry in the nation: Guam's. Beginning in 2008, Esperansa saw to the introduction of several pro-life bills, eight of which became law, and three of which the governor is aiming at in her action before the Supreme Court of Guam.

Meanwhile, allow me to demonstrate what Bob means when he asks Duenas "which side of the game do you think this favors?"

Upon the announcement that the Supreme Court of Guam is "asking for interested members of the community to weigh in on whether Guam’s 1990 abortion ban should stand," the Pacific Daily News ran an article which included what appeared to be a helpful note for the average "members of the community:"

"Interested parties can file a so-called “amicus brief” as an adviser to the case. For more information on how to submit a brief, contact the Clerk of the Supreme Court at justice@guamsupremecourt.com."

Pursuant to this very nice advice, I sent the following email:

The Court responded as follows. 

Notice that the Court did not provide any details on HOW to file - which was my direct question - only WHERE to file. Anyone who has ever dealt with the courts will know that HOW to file - i.e. the proper format - means all the difference between whether your "filing" will be thrown in the trash or counted. 

A few minutes later, the Court apparently had second thoughts about it's SPARSE response and sent me this:

However, this was even more insulting in a way. 

What lay person - who has no idea of how to communicate with the Supreme Court of Guam - would even know where to find "RULE 14?" 

Incredibly, but commensurate with Bob's cryptic question ("who do you think this favors?") the Supreme Court of Guam did NOT even provide a link or an attachment to said "RULE 14." 

But you can bet the governor and the ACLU know Rule 14, and have already crafted their template letters for their hordes. 

Having spent the last five years learning how to navigate the judicial system due to a personal matter, I at least knew what to google. Following is my filed Amicus Brief. Perhaps it can be used as a template even if you're not an Orc.

Note: It appears I forgot the "jurat," though I don't know if it's required. But just in case, go ahead and add "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief" before the "RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED..." and then your name. 

PDF here

MY AMICUS BRIEF - CONTINUED

The Supreme Court will consider two questions set forth by the governor for declaratory judgement, the second of which is the following:

To the extent P.L. 20-134 is not void or otherwise unenforceable, has it been repealed by implication through subsequent changes in Guam law? - See Supreme Court Order

The answer is NO. And here's why.

It appears the question refers to eight abortion-regulating bills enacted into law as follows:

Public Law No.	Date Enacted	Name	Description	Original Bill No.	Sponsors	Date Introduced
P.L 29-115	Nov. 18, 2008	The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2008	“THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2008. "	Bill No. 374 (EC)	Sens. Eddie Calvo, Frank Blas, Jr., James Espaldon	Oct. 7, 2008
P.L. 31-155	Jan 4, 2012	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Bill No. 323-31	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 5, 2011
P.L. 31-235	Nov. 1, 2012	The Women's Reproductive Health Information Act of 2012	Women’s informed consent required for abortion	Bill No. 54-30 & 52-31	Gov. Eddie Calvo	Jan 25, 2011
P.L. 32-090	Nov. 27, 2013	Infant Child’s Right to Life Act	AN ACT RELATIVE TO PROTECTING INFANTS WHO ARE BORN ALIVE AS A RESULT OF AN ABORTION	Bill No. 195-32	Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr.	Sep. 25, 2013
P.L. 32-089	Nov. 27, 2013	See description	Deleted the provision in P.L. 31-235 requiring the printed materials and the checklist certification to undergo the rule making process pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication Law.	Bill No. 193-32	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Sep. 23, 2013
P.L 32-217	Dec. 17, 2014	See description	Requires abortion providers to include gestational age in abortion reports	Bill No. 412-32	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 14, 2014
P.L. 33-132	Mar. 4, 2016	Unborn Victims of Violence Act	Criminalized harming or killing the child in the womb in acts of violence against the mother.	Bill No. 231-33	Sen. Frank Blas, Jr.	Jan. 19, 2016
P.L. 33-218	Dec. 15, 2016	See description	Increased the penalties of non-compliance of abortion reporting law and added reporting mechanisms to better insure enforcement.	Bill No. 168-33	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Aug. 31, 2015

All of the foregoing legislation included language that continued to permit abortion because they had to. Prior to the Dobbs Decision overturning Roe, banning abortion outright was unconstitutional. 

Thus the foregoing bills were drafted, argued, passed, and signed into law because they only proscribed abortion within the limits of U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing certain regulations relative to abortion.  

The fact that any of these bills still allowed for abortion generally is a function of what was constitutionally required at the time and they do NOT repeal P.L 20-134 "by implication." 

MY AMICUS BRIEF

By Tim Rohr

The Supreme Court of Guam is asking for our input. That's really cool. I don't know about you but I've never been asked to file an amicus brief before. (See: What is an amicus brief.)

From the Guam Daily Post:

Public Law 20-134, the abortion ban of 1990, is a matter of great public interest as its validity and enforceability are in question and the answer will have an impact on many island residents, according to the Supreme Court of Guam, which has called for stakeholders who may be affected by the issue’s outcome to file briefs with the island’s high court. 

Without reading the law, the whole thing sounded weird. 

I get it that the governor might seek a judgment from the high court, but us Tom, Dick and Harry's getting asked to throw in our two cents to help out Guam's most exclusive club, "the Supremes," as Tall Tales talk show host Bob Klitzkie calls them, just sounded...well weird.

On Monday, Bob got a pretty good start in explaining what is really going on, and perhaps today he'll be able to wrap it up. You can catch the first part of Bob's explanation here - which ran until the half time show, and then here after he comes back to it in the second hour. (Note: Bob finished his analysis on Tuesday here.) 

Meanwhile, for those who want to do their own personal dive into the matter, here is the relevant law:

7 GCA § 4104. I Maga’lahi and I Liheslatura May Request Declaratory Judgment.

I Maga’lahen Guåhan, in writing, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan, by resolution, may request declaratory judgments from the Supreme Court of Guam as to the interpretation of any law, federal or local, lying within the jurisdiction of the courts of Guam to decide, and upon any question affecting the powers and duties of I Maga’lahi and the operation of the Executive Branch, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan, respectively. The declaratory judgments may be issued only where it is a matter of great public interest and the normal process of law would cause undue delay. Such declaratory judgments shall not be available to private parties. The Supreme Court of Guam shall, pursuant to its rules and procedure, permit interested parties to be heard on the questions presented and shall render its written judgment thereon. 

So that last line is where we come in:

The Supreme Court of Guam shall, pursuant to its rules and procedure, permit interested parties to be heard on the questions presented and shall render its written judgment thereon. 

However, the part that caught my attention is this:

The declaratory judgments may be issued only where it is a matter of great public interest and the normal process of law would cause undue delay.

Is this really a matter of "great public interest." 

Per the abortion reports published between 2008 and 2018, the most abortions performed in a single year was 327 in 2008:

Source

According to the 2020 Census, Guam's population is 153,836. With a max of 327 abortions in any one year, that's 0.2% of the population. How does that equate to "a matter of great public interest?" 

It appears the only real interest is from the usual few led by the governor who has always been a radical pro-abort. 

Of course whether or not we are okay with killing innocent, defenseless human beings is always "matter of great public interest," however, the governor and her ilk ignore that reality and label said killing merely "health care." 

If abortion is only "health care," then there are certainly many health care concerns in Guam that are of exponentially much greater "public interest." Isn't there. 

And then there is the matter of whether or not the "normal process of law would cause undue delay." 

The governor today could introduce her own bill to ensure abortion is legal, fast track it through committee via her go-for's in the Legislature, then call the Legislature into special session for a vote. 

The whole matter could be wrapped up in a couple weeks. 

So, at least in my view, this declaratory judgment stuff fails on the essential provisions that permits it. I think I'll put that in my brief. 

NOTE: The ORDER pursuant to the Governor's "filing of a Request for Declaratory Judgment" can be found in full here.