THE BLACK LINE HISTORY OF INFORMED CONSENT (IN GUAM) - CONTINUED

LINK to online version (Reference links and notes added) 

Informed consent: Black line history continued

First things first. In my last column, I referred to the Fisher-Parkinson bill trashing the law requiring informed consent for abortion as Bill 167-37. That is incorrect. The correct number of the bill is 162-37.

In that column, I told the story of the tortuous journey of what eventually became Public Law 31-235, otherwise known as The Women’s Reproductive Health Act of 2012.

I concluded by letting you know that even though the legislation, which had its start in 2008, was finally signed into law four years later, implementation of the new law would be stalled for another year due to eleventh-hour machinations by the bill’s opponents and that I would soon tell the “rest of the story.”

But first, a little more history.

Laws requiring informed consent for abortion had been found to be constitutional since Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Given that abortion is usually seen as a “difficult decision,” as even abortion supporters admit, it was reasonable, at least in the eyes of the Casey court, that a woman seeking an abortion should be provided medically appropriate information to assist her in making that “difficult decision.”

By 2008, when Guam’s first informed consent bill was introduced, many states had enacted laws requiring some form of informed consent for abortion, so why not Guam?

In his transmittal letter to the Legislature after signing the Act into law, then-Gov. Eddie Baza Calvo wrote: “I cannot even begin to imagine how providing women with information to empower them to make a decision that not only impacts their psychological health, but the life within them, could ever be the wrong thing to do.”

However, the five-year battle (2008 to 2013) to “provide women with information to empower them” demonstrated that there was a majority in the Legislature who did believe it was the “wrong thing to do” – and the latest attack by Sens. Tom Fisher and William Parkinson on empowering women with information is more of the same.

Bill 52-31 was the third attempt to legislate informed consent for abortion. The previous two attempts, Bills 405-29 and 54-30, had gone nowhere. The 29th Legislature ended before 405-29 could be acted on, and 54-30, as I detailed in my last column, was so badly mangled that it ended up accomplishing the opposite of the original intent and was mercifully vetoed by then-Gov. Felix Camacho.

It appeared that 52-31 would suffer a fate similar to its predecessors as the 31st Legislature ground down to its final weeks with 52-31 blotted and bled by then-Sen. Rory Respicio’s black lines. (See previous column.)

Then-Gov. Calvo, who had authored all three informed consent bills, apparently had had it with the senatorial shenanigans and called the Legislature into a special session on Oct. 24, 2012, to address the bill.

The general election was only days away, and Calvo was forcing lawmakers to publicly take sides on an issue that could, in a few days, have decisive election consequences. Thus, the stage was set for one of Guam’s most dramatic and emotional legislative sessions.

There was yelling and crying, accusations and cursing, and drama, drama, drama. And the drama was intensified by the presence of about 50 “Christian Mothers” dressed in their signature white dresses, holding candles and glaring at the senators through the glass separating the audience room and the legislative hall. (You can watch it for yourself on YouTube. Search for “31st Guam Legislature Special Session - October 24, 2012.”)

I wasn’t surprised that the bill passed, but when I saw the names of the bill’s opponents – especially Respicio’s – in the “Yeah” column, I became suspicious.

At some point during the debate, the bill had been amended to include a provision requiring the printed materials required by the bill to be subjected to the rule-making process as set forth in the Administrative Adjudication Act.

This was a stroke of genius by the pro-aborts. They were able to appear “pro-life” by voting for the bill just days before the election but keep the legislation from being implemented for months or even years to come.

I’m out of space for this column, so I’ll continue another time. Meanwhile, the thing that struck me in remembering this history is how it has been male lawmakers who have consistently remained at the forefront of every effort to destroy legislation aimed at protecting the unborn and their mothers, including the latest raid by Fisher and Parkinson.

It’s not hard to guess why.

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

+++++

Bill 52-31 Voting Sheet

LETTER FROM STEPHEN MARTINEZ TO SPEAKER THERESE TERLAJE RE BILL NO. 162-37

February 19, 2024

Speaker Therese M. Terlaje

Guam Congress Building

Hagatna, Guam

senatorterlajeguam@gmail.com

Dear Speaker Terlaje:

Bill No. 162-37 is deceitful and a lie and needs to be rejected.

The first sentence of page two says: “It is essential to recognize that women and pregnant individuals have the right to make informed decisions about their own bodies, including the option to terminate a pregnancy.”

It is deceitful to say “terminate a pregnancy” without also adding “…and kill the living child inside her.” For the fact is, it is not just the woman’s body involved in every pregnancy. There is also another living, breathing body of a child within the pregnant woman. To allow a woman to “terminate a pregnancy” is to allow one human the right to terminate the life of another human. Yet the proposed bill ignores this fact all together. If this is the intent of the bill sponsors, to grant a woman the right to determine the fate of another human being, then the bill should be amended to clearly state this reality.

It is even more deceitful, rising to the status of a lie, to say the intent is to allow a woman to “make informed decisions”. Section 2 removes the 24 hour informational requirement, which a previous legislature found was essential to allow the woman ample time to weigh the critical decision she will make on another human beings’ life or death. But even more contrary to the stated intent of this bill, the authors spend most of their effort to eliminate vital information  which is currently required by law. They propose to strike the age and anatomical features and development of the child, but desire only to retain the risks to the mother should they choose to not abort the child. Such an imbalanced approach to this grave decision is completely contrary to the stated intent of an informed decision. Section 3 of the current law advises the mother of various medical and public assistance available to both the mother and the child, but the authors of this bill want to repeal this section in its’ entirety. And Section 4 provides information in a written form so there will be no misunderstanding about the decision a mother needs to make before going ahead with an abortion. Section 6 currently requires a written certification by both the mother and the doctor that the required information was received/provided, but, again the authors of the bill wish to remove proof that any informed consent was provided to the mother. And, many citizens and voters are curious as to why Section 7, (which outlines responsibilities for material production required in the “informed consent”) is also eliminated. Obviously, if the true goal of Bill 162-37 is to actually provide informed consent, then none of these sections should be eliminated. Maybe the authors should suggest even more informational requirements in this bill to conform to their stated intent. But that is clearly not the case.

Speaker Therese M. Terlaje

Page Two of Three

Therefore, I suggest the intention of the bill, on page two, be rewritten as follows:

“It is essential to recognize that women and pregnant women have no right to make informed decisions about their own bodies, including the option to terminate a pregnancy and kill the living child within her.” This would at least be an honest and straightforward statement of the actual intent of the bill and its’ modifications to existing law.

But, unfortunately, the deception does not end here. The second paragraph on page two says the Legislature wants “…to eliminate the risks posed by unsafe, clandestine procedures and provide a regulated environment with qualified medical professionals.” Are they saying that current abortions are basically unsafe? Are they saying more regulation is required, implying that the current regulations are inadequate? Well, I must have an incomplete version of Bill 162-37, because no where in my copy do I see language providing for more regulations to make abortions safer. If unsafe and clandestine abortions are taking place in our Territory (where abortions are still currently legal) why are there no current laws to protect our mothers and children? Perhaps you can ask the authors of this bill to provide a true solution to the unsafe/clandestine procedures they imagine happening.

The next few paragraphs discuss the importance of reproductive healthcare for all, the need for comprehensive sex education and contraceptives, the importance of personal choice, and religious freedoms. That all sounds very nice, but again, there appears to be nothing in the bill to try and achieve these goals. Just deceptive comments to eventually eliminate information crucial for a pregnant mother’s decision to have her baby killed or carried to full term.

If reproductive health care were essential, then why don’t the authors provide mandatory and free pre-natal care so that mother and baby are protected? The authors’ use of reproductive healthcare seems to imply that pregnancy is a disease of some sort, or inherently unhealthy. However, mothers of more than 300 million US citizens might not agree with this implication.

Lastly, as far as personal choice is concerned, the government has restricted a woman’s right to choose in many instances, and those restrictions have been unchallenged. 

1. A woman cannot drink alcohol until she is 21. What happened to her right to choose?
2. A minor woman cannot have bariatric surgery, but a 16 year old woman can have an abortion without her parents’ consent. What happened to the obese minor’s right to choose?
3. A woman cannot drive at 50 miles per hour on Guam. What happened to her right to choose?
4. A woman cannot drive a car at any age without wearing seatbelts. What happened to her right to choose?
5. Smoking in public places is banned, viewing R-rated movies below a certain age is banned, voting rights…and the list of government restrictions goes on and on.

Speaker Therese M. Terlaje

Page Three of Three

So why doesn’t the government also restrict a woman’s right to choose when it comes to abortion? Especially when her decision to have an abortion gives a death sentence to an innocent child. If the “right to choose” is really an essential tenet of governance, then there are many laws and regulations that should be immediately amended or abolished. Is this really the conversation that needs to take place? Or perhaps the “my body/my choice” argument is nothing more than a deceptive lie as well.

As far as Bill 162-37 is concerned, for the many reasons stated within, I urge the Legislature to reject the bill in its entirety.

Sincerely,

/s/

Stephen Wm. Martinez

Mongmong, GU

COUNTDOWN TO GET RID OF PARKINSON AND FISHER

By Tim Rohr

Yesterday, August 8, 2023, Senators Parkinson and Fisher introduced a bill that brought back memories. 

Parkinson and Fisher probably don't even know that their Bill 162-37 laughably resembles former Senator Rory Respicio's "markup" of a bill back in 2011.  

In 2011, informed consent for abortion was still a bill in committee. Rory was the Rules Committee Chair.

Prior to a committee meeting wherein there was to be a vote to place the bill on the legislative agenda, Rory produced a version of the bill wherein he basically did a "strikethrough" of 99% of the bill.

Later that day, I engaged Rory on Ray Gibson's show. Rory went nuts, started yelling at me, and hung up. Ah, those were the days. * (BTW, I'm quite sure if you called Ray and asked him about the time Rory hung up on Rohr, he would remember!)

It would take another year of hellacious fighting to get informed consent for abortion through the legislature and signed into law. But last minute tricks by the pro-aborts delayed actual enactment for another couple years. Still, we (and when I say "we," I am referring to a very few who kept up the attack from every angle) overcame each setback and saw to the full enactment of informed consent for abortion. 

Now, Senators Parkinson and Fisher want to get rid of that same law, and their bill looks so much like Rory's 2011 markup of the bill that eventually became the law that Parkinson and Fisher now want to get rid of. Their markup is about as "struckthrough" as "Rory gone nuts in 2011." Here's a sample:

At the time (2011), Rory was "heir apparent" to the Democratic throne and all but coronated as Guam's next two-term governor. 

However, after the firefight a few of us brought to Rory's table upon his 2011 antics, Rory was soon thereafter booted out of the legislature, sidelined from politics, and is probably only still a name due to his  being rescued by his fellow pro-abort, the current governor. **

In short, no one fell as fast as Rory.

Parkinson and Fisher would do well to study what happened to King Rory after 2011. And it has nothing to do with the public attitude about abortion since - as we all know - Guamanians embrace abortion.  

Meanwhile, the next general election is scheduled for Nov. 5, 2024. So here's the countdown to get rid of Parkinson and Fisher:

Election 2024

* Rory's strikethrough was only part of the story. Later I retrieved a DVD copy of the recording of the meeting. The recording clearly showed Rory ordering the cameras cut after Senator Chris Duenas asked Rory why he had demolished the bill. Note: I have all of this in writings and recordings somewhere, and I can find it with some effort. But probably no need. The real story now is Parkinson and Fisher. 

** Since in 2011 it was well known that a certain Lou Leon Guerrero was calling the shots for the Democrats, it was also generally assumed that Rory was simply executing LLG's marching orders. Less than a decade later, Rory would be well rewarded for his obedience to LLG after LLG became governor and Rory became one of GovGuam's highest paid officers - for doing a job he has no qualifications for. 

Apparently, in Guam, it pays to kill babies.