GOV. LEON GUERRERO'S MONKEY TRIAL

By Tim Rohr

Today (July 10 - when I started working on this post) in 1925, the "Trial of the Century," the "Scopes Monkey Trial" began in Dayton, Tennessee. 

As copied here from a post on History.com, the "trial of the century" was a set up:

In Dayton, Tennessee, the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial begins with John Thomas Scopes, a young high school science teacher, accused of teaching evolution in violation of a Tennessee state law. The law, which had been passed in March, made it a misdemeanor punishable by fine to “teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” With local businessman George Rappleyea, Scopes had conspired to get charged with this violation, and after his arrest the pair enlisted the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to organize a defense.

Does that sound familiar? If not, it should. Almost one hundred years later, a very similar conspiracy, perpetrated by Guam's own governor, is presently playing out here and now.

2019

In 2019, Governor Leon Guerrero ("Lou"), through her abortion lieutenant, Jayne Flores, began recruiting two abortion doctors from Hawaii to get licensed in Guam. 

The purported reason for recruiting these doctors was to provide abortions in Guam since none of Guam's 300 plus doctors would do them after Guam's last abortion doctor, William Freeman, retired in 2018.

However, as the following will demonstrate, it appears the real reason for Lou's recruiting these doctors was to set up a law suit, with "the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to sue "us." By "us" I mean "us," the people who live, work, vote, and pay taxes here. 

The suit lists the names of several Defendants. But they are merely names of people in their official capacities. Functionally, the suit is against us in that: 1) the suit seeks to enjoin a law that we, through our elected lawmakers, "said" we wanted (informed consent for abortion); and 2) forces us, the taxpayers, to pay for the suit to sue ourselves. 

One wonders where in the rest of the civilized democratic world do we find a governor who clandestinely conspires to undermine laws said governor is sworn to uphold, and then punishes her own people by forcing them to pay for a lawsuit she herself conspired to bring about. But hey, you voted for her, Guam.

There is much to suggest that Lou is the "Scopes George Rappleyea" in that she appears to have fronted a couple of stooges (Drs. Raidoo and Kaneshiro) in order to enlist "the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to organize a defense" - exactly as Rappleyea did in Scopes. 

The Evidence

Let's start with the correspondence between Jayne Flores, Lou's abortion lieutenant (since it appears Jayne - as Director of Bureau of Women's Affairs - does nothing else but track down baby killers to do business in Guam), and these Hawaii people.

The following is copied from papers retrieved via a FOIA by the Vigilance Committee (the originals of which can be accessed here). I will add my comments in RED:

June 24, 2019, 10:17 AM

Jayne Flores to Bliss Kaneshiro

Subject: Situation on Guam

Hafa Adai Dr. Kaneshiro,

I am the director of the Bureau of Women’s Affairs and am coordinating the effort to bring a doctor (or doctors on a rotational basis) to Guam willing to help our women (and unfortunately some girls) who have a choice to make. Can you please give me a call at your earliest convenience?

Jayne refers to abortion as "a choice to make." As you will see from Kaneshiro's reply, the doctors Jayne is attempting to recruit have no qualms about using the real word: ABORTION. Pay attention to the word "girls." We'll get to that in a minute.

*****

June 25, 2019, 1:10 PM

Bliss Kaneshiro to Jayne Flores

Subject: Connecting you to Planned Parenthood

Jayne,

I’m connecting you to Deb Nucatola, the medical director of the PP clinics in Hawaii. She is cc’ed on this email and is aware of the lack of an abortion provider in Guam.

Kaneshiro doesn't hesitate to read through Jayne's code ("a choice to make"). Kaneshiro blatantly and unapologetically replies with the word "abortion." Why is Jayne so cowardly to call it what it is? 

*****

June 25, 2019, 1:19 PM

Deborah Nucatola to Jayne Flores

Subject: Connecting you to Planned Parenthood

Hi Jayne!

Nice to meet you virtually! 

I do believe you have been in contact with staff at our Patient Access Center. Our Area Service Director, Deighton Kavarne, was planning to reach out to you by phone. I’m not sure if you have already spoke but to close the loop I’m cc’ing him on this email. And, FYI, we have been discussing the need in Guam for several months now and are eager to speak with you to see how we might be able to meet the need.

*****

June 25, 2019, 2:40 PM

Jayne Flores to Deborah Nucatola cc: Bliss Kaneshiro, Deighton Kavarne, Anita Arriola, Dr. Ellen Bez

Subject: Connecting you to Planned Parenthood

Hafa Adai Deborah (and Deighton)!

Thank you for reaching out to us here on Guam. Yes, we are in need of abortion services for our women (and unfortunately some pre-teens). We are also in great need of the other services Planned Parenthood provides (free birth control, STD/HIV testing, HPV vaccines, cancer screening, family planning, etc.) 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?

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, Maga’haga Lourdes Leon Guerrero, in November 2018 despite her openly pro-choice stance. So there is hope. 

Here, we have a lot, beginning with a cc to Atty. Anita Arriola and Dr. Ellen Bez, two well-known abortion advocates in Guam; and, in the case of Arriola, not just well-known, but famous, given Arriola's role in opposing her own mother's "Belle's Law," in 1990. 

In the last paragraph, Jayne clearly lays out what we in JW have said many times: Guam is Catholic in name only and is pro-abortion in all measurable metrics.  So according to Jayne: "there is hope." Of course Jayne's "hope" is that we can continue to kill even more CHamoru children. 

SOURCE

Meanwhile, the real red flag in this email from Jayne is the reference to "pre-teens," previously referenced by Jayne as "unfortunately some girls." Hmmmm. "Pre-teens." So 12 and under. WHERE IS THE POLICE REPORTING for girls 12 and under being impregnated? Impregnated by whom? Let me say that again - since Jayne won't: Girls age 12 and under impregnated by whom? Why aren't you asking, Jayne? Instead of asking who the hell is impregnating girls age 12 and under, Jayne and Lou are out there begging for someone to come to Guam and kill their babies - and the evidence. So much for the Bureau of Women's Affairs. Damn.

*****

June 25, 2019, 2:50 PM

Jayne Flores to Bliss Kaneshiro

Subject: Situation on Guam

Thank you Dr. Bliss. I really appreciate your reaching out to me. I just sent an email to Deborah and Deighton. Thank you for connecting us. I look forward to speaking with you at our meeting later this week.

If for no other reason, Lou should fire Jayne for begin stupid enough to subject critical correspondence to a possible FOIA, a FOIA neither Jayne, nor her arrogant employer probably anticipated. But perhaps they didn't care. After all, like Jayne says: "over half of the voting public cast ballots in favor of our first female governor, Maga’haga Lourdes Leon Guerrero, in November 2018 despite her openly pro-choice stance. So there is hope." 

*****

Feb. 6, 2020, 1:40 PM

Jayne Flores to Drs. Shandhini Raidoo, Bliss Kaneshiro and Dr. John Rivera

Subject: Possible UOG collaboration with UH research project

Hafa Adai Drs. Shandhini and Bliss from UH and Dr. John from UOG

Dr. Shandhini and Dr. Bliss, allow me to introduce, through email, Dr. John Rivera, Program Chair of the Public Administration program at the University of Guam. His Mast of Public Administration students often assist with research issues. I think his UOG program would be a great partner for your research project on abortion attitudes on Guam. I spoke briefly with Dr. Rivera about your intent to find a local partner for the project, his email address is cc’d above. Good luck with the project. 

*****

Feb. 17, 2020, 10:15 AM

Dr. Shandhini Raidoo to John Rivera, Jayne Flores, Bliss Kaneshiro, and Jesse John Quenga.

Subject: Possible UOG collaboration with UH research project

Hi Dr. Rivera,

Thank you for your email. We have just submitted our proposal for this project. We are very excited about it and will definitely be in touch with you once we know more about the next steps. Thank you Jayne for the introduction.

 I know John, and have known him for many years before I saw this email. So I contacted John to see what was up. Not much is what I gathered. He was contacted in his capacity as noted above and as far as I know, no such survey was ever done, probably because Lou and Jayne weren't really interested in a survey, they were only interested - as we shall see - in getting the ACLU to sue us.

*****

The FOIA'd paper trail between Jayne Flores and the Hawaii abortion docs ends here, but apparently there were other private communications between the LLG regime and the baby-whackers from Hawaii, because suddenly, both Raidoo and Kaneshiro are licensed to practice "MEDICINE and SURGERY" in Guam:

Jul. 16, 2020 - (LINK to copy of letter)

Nathaniel Berg, MD, Chairperson, Guam Board of Medical Examiners to Shandhini Raidoo, MD

Dear Dr. Raidoo:

Congratulations! The Guam Board of Medical Examiners approved your application for medical licensure during their board meeting held on July 15, 2020, and herby issues you medical license No. M-2222 effective July 15, 2020 to practice MEDICINE and SURGERY in Guam. The expiration date of this license is December 31, 2021….Welcome to the practice of medicine on Guam!

 

Nov. 20, 2020 (LINK to copy of letter)

Nathaniel Berg, MD, Chairperson, Guam Board of Medical Examiners to Bliss Kaneshiro.

Dear Dr. Kaneshiro,

Congratulations! The Guam Board of Medical Examiners approved your application for medical licensure during their regular board meeting held on November 18, 2020, and hereby issues you medical license No. M-2234 effective November 18, 2020 to practice MEDICINE and SURGERY in Guam. The expiration date of this license is December 31, 2021…Welcome to the practice of medicine on Guam!

 It's curious as to why there was nearly a four month space between the licensure of Raidoo in July 2020 and Kaneshiro in November 2020. But it's not hard to figure out given what came next.

On Jan. 28, 2021, barely two months after Kaneshiro retained licensure to practice "MEDICINE and SURGERY" (i.e. surgical abortions) in Guam, Kaneshiro and her buddy, Raidoo, sued you and me.

The ACLU, a la the "Scopes Monkey Trial" joined Raidoo and Kaneshiro's lawsuit on the same day. 

Of course, it's laughable - for the intelligent - that doctors who 1) have never been to Guam, 2) have never practiced in Guam, and 3) never intended to practice in Guam, would file suit in Guam and against Guam for not letting them practice in Guam. 

Talk about MONKEY BUSINESS.

 

ATTY ANITA ARRIOLA AND THOSE EVIL MEN

By Tim Rohr

This morning on K57, Patti Arroyo interviewed Attorney Anita Arriola regarding the current status of the Heartbeat Bill. The whole of Arriola's position was functionally: "those evil men," specifically Doug Moylan, Bob Klitzkie, Peter Sgro, and Tim Rohr. And Arriola's charge against said "evil men" was 1) that said men "write letters to the editor," and 2) they are men.

Meanwhile...

• Never mind the fact that the aforesaid letter writers have no public power other than to voice an opinion.
• Never mind the fact that the Heartbeat Bill was actually introduced by a woman lawmaker. 
• Never mind the fact that 4 of the 8 senators who voted to place the bill on the current legislative agenda are female senators.
• Never mind the fact that the real reason abortion is not available in Guam is because women doctors who openly advocate for abortion (and write their own letters to the editor) like Dr. Ellen Bez, an OB-GYN from Sagua Managu, will not provide abortions or even abortion information as required by the informed consent law. 
• Never mind the fact that the current governor, a woman, and a registered nurse - and as such a "qualified person," chooses not to provide informed consent information to women seeking abortion and instead forces women to access the required information via teleconference with doctors in Hawaii who they don't know and who will not be in Guam to care for them should something go wrong with their do-it-yourself, mail-order abortions.

ROE DOESN'T SAY THAT

In opposing the current legislation banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation, Attorney Anita Arriola argued:

"The decision to continue or end a pregnancy is one that must be made by a woman in consultation with those she trusts - not by the government of Guam.  

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized as much in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1973), the Court held that: (1) a state may never ban abortion prior to fetal viability-that is, before the fetus has reasonable likelihood of sustained survival outside the woman’s body; and (2) a state many ban abortion after viability only if there are adequate exceptions to protect a woman’s life and health." 

Arriola references pages 163-164 of Roe. The text from these two pages is copied in bold below:

(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html)

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. 

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. 

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Arriola claims that Roe gives the woman the right to decide "to continue or end a pregnancy," and further posits that the government has no role in that decision.

However, nowhere in the referenced pages do we see any mention of a woman's right to to decide "to continue or end a pregnancy." 

Rather, Roe, here, makes the case for the "State's important and legitimate interest in potential life," after the pregnancy reaches "the compelling point" (viability), and further states that "it (the government) may go so far as to proscribe abortion..." 

And even prior to "the compelling point," the decision belongs not to the woman but to "the attending physician:"

"...for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated."

Note that Roe assumes that it is the attending physician who is consulting with the woman and not, as Arriola says, "a woman in consultation with those she trusts," (obviously) the attending physician, in whose "medical judgement" Roe leaves the decision to terminate the patient's pregnancy.

Continuing on, not only does the remaining text on these pages NOT support Arriola's claims, it underscores and affirms: 1) that the decision initially belongs to the physician, and 2) thereafter, the right of government to intervene:

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. 

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. at 67-72.

To summarize and to repeat: 

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. 

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. 

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Arriola and other abortion advocates would have us believe that Roe gives the woman an absolute right to privacy relative to her decision to terminate her pregnancy. However, once again, Roe doesn't say that:

[154] "...a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization). 

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

[159] "...it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly."

So not only does Roe state that the privacy right is NOT "absolute," it goes on to essentially defeat the "it's my body" argument.

This post is also posted at The Esperansa Project website.