THE BLACK LINE HISTORY OF INFORMED CONSENT - PART 3

LINK to online version. Reference links added. 

So if you’ve been following this series (Part 1 on March 27 and Part 2 on April 15), you will know that legislation requiring informed consent for abortion in Guam was first introduced in 2008, morphed through three incarnations, endured blatant attempts by its opponents to kill it, and finally limped into law after a surreal legislative session in October 2012 (as Public Law 31-235).

However, even then the pro-aborts weren't done. Given the upcoming election it was risky to oppose the legislation, so the pro-aborts inserted a time bomb into the bill and set it to go off after the election.

In short, the bomb was language requiring the printed materials (a brochure and checklist) to be approved pursuant to a rule making requirement. The problem was that the printed materials were not “rules.” The sneaky intent of the requirement was to keep the law from ever being implemented.

Here is what then-Governor Calvo had to say about it:

“It is clear under the provisions of the Administrative Adjudication Act…that the ‘printed materials’ and ‘checklist certification’ are not ‘rules’ or ‘regulations’ … they merely reduce to a distributable form the information required under the…Act. Thus the requirement that they be subject to another protracted process that leads, once again, to the review by the Legislature should not serve to provide senators with another proverbial ‘bite of the apple’ to delay the implementation of this law.”

Though Governor Calvo had called out the chicanery, there was no reason to expect any senator to champion the new law through the rule-making barricade. So supporters of the bill (we called ourselves “The Esperansa Project”) got busy.

The Legislature had passed Bill 52-31 just days before the 2012 election, so, aiming at making this “time-bomb” an election issue, we sent all senatorial candidates a letter asking if he or she would 1) vote to approve the printed materials should they pass muster with the rule requirement; or 2) vote to repeal the requirement should the Attorney General opine that the printed materials did not meet the definition of a rule.

Next, given our experience with lawmakers running for cover under the guise of waiting for “an opinion from the AG,” we, the supporters, beat them to it by requesting the AG’s opinion first.

On May 23, 2013, the AG opined that the printed materials “do not meet the definition of a rule.” Thus the path to amend the law was cleared to proceed. We just needed someone to introduce a bill to repeal the requirement.

Newly re-installed Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr. was first to the plate. This was a bit of a miracle. In previous legislatures, and particularly when Aguon was on the 2010 gubernatorial ticket opposite then-Sen. Eddie Calvo, Aguon, along with then-Sen. Rory Respicio, had been the main opponents of the legislation.

After Aguon was released from the bonds of the gubernatorial ticket, a ticket that lost to Calvo, Aguon, always a popular pick, wound up back in the Legislature and became a champion for the unborn, especially in the fight to pass a bill which protected babies who survived failed abortions. Maybe I’ll write about that another time.

To amend the informed consent law and get rid of the rule-making requirement, Aguon introduced Bill 191-32. A few days later, Sen. Dennis Rodriguez introduced similar legislation, Bill 193-32. Even though Rodriguez’ bill was second, I believe Aguon agreed to withdraw his bill and let Rodriguez’ bill proceed since Rodriguez had chaired the committee which had championed the bill through the Legislature.

Bill 193-32 passed unanimously. But the pro-aborts weren’t done. Once again, at the 11th hour, “193” was amended to require the printed materials to be approved by a complicated panel composed of two directors from Public Health, an OB/GYN, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. (See Public Law 32-089)

Well, this is getting too long and I don’t want to do a Part 4. Ultimately, the printed materials were approved and a law requiring informed consent for abortion, after five hard years, was implemented.

Implemented, yes. But never enforced. I followed up with several Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the required distribution of the printed materials. The results were always “none,” even though abortions continued to be performed.

In the end, this law and a few others, particularly a 2015 law which put teeth into the abortion reporting law, made performing abortions so burdensome that no Guam doctor has wanted to do them since the last abortion clinic closed in 2018. (See Public Law 33-218)

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

Other References

Bill 52-31: A History-Part 1

Bill 52-31: A History-Part 2

Bill 52-31: Rules Committee Meeting, March 28, 2011, Respicio shuts down the cameras

The Esperansa Project Website

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

THE BLACK LINE HISTORY OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR ABORTION (IN GUAM)

LINK to online version (Reference links and notes added)

Note: 167-37 is incorrect. The correct number is 162-37.

Reading through Bill 162-37 brought back memories. The legislation was introduced by Senators Parkinson and Fisher to “update” The Women’s Reproductive Health Act of 2012, otherwise known as “informed consent for abortion.”

The Parkinson-Fisher bill is a funny exercise in black lines. After the first couple pages setting out the intent and definitions, the rest of the 13 pages is a copy of the 2012 Act with about 90% of it struck-through, black-lined, cancelled, quashed, etc., with no substitute language inserted. So much for “updating.”

Parkinson and Fisher aren’t the first senatorial chair-warmers to draw endless black lines through legislation aimed at providing women information about abortion and its alternatives. That dishonor goes to former Senator Rory Respicio who did it twice.

Respicio’s first black-line slashing of informed consent legislation was Bill 54-30, authored by then-Senator Eddie Calvo. After almost a two year delay in moving the bill through the legislature, a delay, in part, orchestrated by Respicio, Respicio, during a late-night debate on the session floor, introduced a substitute bill, which, like Bill 162-37, was page after page of black lines.

Laughably, the only thing left of the original bill was language which warned the expectant mother of the risks of giving birth instead of the risks of procuring an abortion. Incredibly Respicio’s substitute bill - which accomplished exactly the opposite of the original - passed!

(Note: Respicio's black-lined bill is not available. However, the effect of Respicio's black lines is demonstrated by comparing the original bill to the bill that was substituted and passed [See §3218.1 (b)(1)(B)].)

The next day, I got busy to convince then-Governor Felix Camacho to veto it. He did, and there was no vote to override.

(Note: Govern Camacho's veto letter.)

After Senator Eddie Calvo became Governor Eddie Calvo, he used his organic act authority to introduce Bill 52-31 - another attempt at legislating informed consent for abortion. Once again Respicio played spoiler for the better part of two years.

Finally, the bill had a public hearing.

During the hearing there was an altercation between Respicio and myself. I had handed a note to a friend who was testifying in favor of the bill and Respicio yelled at me. I yelled back and the committee chairman (then-Senator Dennis Rodriguez) had to jump in to “restore decorum.” Things went downhill from there. The fiasco is memorialized in the bill’s committee report.

Despite the contentious hearing, Bill 52-31 received a committee “go” vote. However, the next stop was Respicio’s Rules Committee. Expecting more eleventh hour chicanery like what Respicio pulled with Bill 54-30, I made sure to watch the meeting via video.

Sure enough, when it came time to discuss Bill 52-31, instead of proceeding with the discussion, Respicio began distributing copies of a mystery document to the other members.

After receiving his copy, Senator Chris Duenas attempted to ask a question and Respicio cut him off when he called  over an aid. After whispering something to the aid, the aid disappeared off camera and a moment later the video feed stopped.

I learned later that the mystery document was another Respicio strikethrough of nearly the whole bill. This time the only thing left of the original bill was a 24 hour waiting period.

The waiting period provided time for the mother to review required information in order to make an informed decision. However, Respicio had struck out all the information provisions, so the end effect of Respicio’s black lines was to require a woman seeking an abortion to go to the doctor and then be sent home for 24 hours with nothing.

I got a copy of Respicio’s second slash and burn job and called into a local radio talk show. I was ripping into Respicio when Respicio called in and started ripping into me. It made for great talk radio for a few minutes. But it ended when Respicio angrily hung up. The host and I had a good laugh about that.

The yelling and screaming wasn’t over though. In an attempt to get the bill passed, Governor Calvo called the legislature into a special session to try to force a vote. The session was only a few weeks before the next election and some of the senators were wild with rage at being forced to take a position so close to an election. Some were even sobbing. It was a real spectacle.

(Note: LINK to the video recording of the special session.)

Bill 52-31 passed but not without more eleventh hour shenanigans which delayed enactment of the bill for another year. I’ll write about that next time.

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.

Relevant Links:

History of Bill 54-30 (Then-Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr., whose committee controlled the bill, was, with Respicio, the nexus of the nemesis which tried to deep-six the bill. Later, Aguon had a change of heart and helped champion the legislation through to enactment.)

Bill 54-30 has been accepted (Nov. 26, 2010)

Conspiracy in the Guam Legislature, July 7, 2011

Bill 52-31 COR Mtg 03/28/11 (Notes on Respicio's Committee on Rules Meeting. The video recording of the meeting is no longer available. I'll see what I can do to fix that.)

Rohr vs Respicio on K57 (The recording is no longer available, however the text of the call is transcribed here.)

Continued at Part 2

FROM 2012. A LETTER FROM TIM ROHR TO THEN-SENATOR BJ CRUZ

Posted by Tim Rohr 

From about 2009 to 2012, I (Tim) had many heated public battles with then-Senator BJ Cruz. However, during a vote re the Esperansa Project backed bill for informed consent for abortion, Senator Cruz did the right thing, and I told him so. Note: this bill, as enacted into law, is now at the root of the ACLU suit to permit telemedicine abortions. 

TIMOTHY ROHR
THE ESPERANSA PROJECT
October 25, 2012


RE: BILL 52-31
  
 
Dear Senator Cruz, 
 
 
There is probably no other senator with whom I have battled more in public than yourself. It is certainly no secret that you and I have been on very opposite sides of some very sensitive issues. And there certainly has been no love lost between us over the last few years. 
 
The reason for the letter is to thank you for being the voice of reason yesterday. I'm sure you did not like the spectacle that Bill 52 had become any more than anyone else did. However, you put your feelings aside and spoke clearly about what Bill 52 was actually about, saying:
 
"It's not what anybody else thinks what it is. It's not going to affect whether or not one is pro-life or pro-choice. It's just allowing the women to be informed."
 
No clearer words were spoken yesterday. But beyond that, you said something even more true when you said at some point "this problem is going to have to be treated holistically."
 
You are so right. A society's abortion rate is a measure of its inner collapse. Informed consent legislation is really only a last gasp bandaid to try in some small way to slow the bleeding of a society that has already cut itself - as our newspapers so often remind us.
 
I believe your Bill 415, despite the reservations with some elements in it which I shared in my written testimony in support of your bill, is a large step in the right direction. 
 
I admit, given our previous battles, I was suspicious of your intentions. I even said so on TV. Unfortunately, most of my relations with the Legislature have been immensely soured and my suspicions raised since the night of November 26, 2010 (the debate over Bill 54-30), and a six-month long battle to obtain a copy of the journal for that session.
 
However, your clear and reasoned approach to the issue at large yesterday, in the midst of so much emotion, was a true example of how personal feelings could be put aside and the true work of the legislature can actually get done. 
 
Coming towards the end of the session as it did, your words brought a certain peace to a terribly turbulent situation. And I confess to being the one that probably started that turbulence. I make no apology. I have been fighting to have a fair debate on informed consent legislation since February of 2009 when Bill 54-30 was first introduced. 
 
Whether Bill 52-31 would have ever seen the light of day had I not attacked those who attacked it, is anybody's guess. But we're beyond that now. And again I simply want to thank you for what you said yesterday and I want to express my support for Bill 415, at least in its intent if not in detail - something I would be willing to work with you on.
 
In fact, Senator Cruz, you have my vote. In fact, this is why I am sending this letter and making it public, and copying it to the press. In fact, Senator Cruz, if you had voted "no" on Bill 52-31 you would have still had my vote for simply being intellectually honest and saying what you said about it, which I repeat here:
 
"It's not what anybody else thinks what it is. It's not going to affect whether or not one is pro-life or pro-choice. It's just allowing the women to be informed." 
 
I was so very impressed by how you rose above the personal and did the people's business and that deserves a vote. You will have mine.
 
 
God Bless You and Thank You,
 

Tim Rohr
A citizen

HORROR AT THE BLUE HOUSE AND BILL 52-31

We now know from news reports that the owner of the Blue House not only forced Chuukese women into prostitution, she also forced at least one woman to get an abortion when she became pregnant. 

An informed consent law like that proposed by Bills 54-30 and 52-31 would require a pregnant woman who arrives at an abortion clinic to be given information on the alternatives to abortion, a phone number to call for help, and a 24 hour waiting period. 

Had this woman been able to call for help the Blue House slave ring might have been discovered earlier. But there is no law, and there was no number.

During the debate over Bill 54-30, opponents of the bill argued that we had no business interfering with a woman’s choice, that abortion was a decision between a woman and her doctor. Obviously, this was not the case for the slaves of the Blue House.

In fact, this is not the case for many women. A 2004 study published in Medical Science Monitor showed that 64% of women who aborted felt pressured, and 65% showed symptoms of trauma. In fact, a 1998 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association disclosed that murder is the number one cause of death for pregnant women. 

The report Forced Abortion in America revealed also that post-abortive women have 31% more health complications, a 65% higher risk of clinical depression, a 3.5 times higher risk of death from all causes, and are 7 times more likely to commit suicide compared to women giving birth. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute reported that some 30 percent of women have an abortion because someone else, not the woman, wants it. 

While abortion continues to masquerade as a “women’s rights” issue, abortion is really all about men, and freeing men to use and abuse women without consequence - other than a quick trip to the abortion clinic with girlfriend in tow when there’s a slip up. 

Yet our lawmakers continue to lecture us about a woman’s right to choose and challenge legislation that would force abortionists to advise women of their real rights: the right to require the father to pay for her medical care and financially assist her in raising her child, the right to Medicaid benefits for maternal care if she qualifies, the right to know about alternatives to abortion including adoption, and the right to know of the psychological and physiological risks of abortion.

Do we really think that an abortionist is going to give a paying client the phone and tell her to call a crisis pregnancy center? or CPS so she learn about the availability of adoption? Also, many women who are harmed by abortion do not seek damages from the abortionist because they do not want their abortion to be known. Thus there is need for regulation like that proposed by Bill 52-31. 

Informed consent legislation was first authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 and has been adopted by more than thirty states. After more than four years of trying, it is hoped that Guam lawmakers will finally see that there is nothing wrong and everything right with ensuring that women have all the information possible prior to an abortion so that their choice can be a true choice.

As of this writing, Senator Rodriguez is once again attempting to report out Bill 52-31 in the hopes of getting it passed before the end of the legislative term. We will be watching.

But back to the Blue House case. The Governor has rightly ordered a deeper investigation into a possible police cover up, but he should also order an investigation into the abortion(s) that may be connected to the case. 

Physicians are “mandated reporters”. They are required by law to report abuse or signs of trauma and they are trained to recognize it. It’s hard to imagine that a pregnant, frightened, enslaved Chuukese immigrant, forced into prostitution, and living under daily threats of abuse of every sort, didn’t raise a red flag the moment she walked into the abortionist’s office.

A PERSONAL NOTE: I am well aware of how hard it is to read about abortion. It’s tough to write about it. But as Fr. Frank Pavonne of Priests for Life says: “Where abortion is hidden, abortion is tolerated.” And it has been hidden much too long on Guam. We are at a crisis point. We are aborting one out of every ten pregnancies with the majority being Chamorro. With a waiting list of adoptive parents at Child Protective Services, let’s see what we as a community can do to at least let those mothers know that there are alternatives to abortion and lifelong regret. Let’s pass Bill 52-31.