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

IT'S JUST NATURE: MY RESPONSE TO THE HATERS

By Tim Rohr

It appears my Epstein post has caused a bit of a stir. First, it got me "fired" from the Guam Daily Post, and since, I've received a steady stream of hate mail and comments like the following:

bruce gulick <bruce.gulick@gmail.com>

You’re deranged, and a disgrace to the family that attempted to raise you.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "HAPPY PAGE VIEW ANNIVERSARY":

And yet NO COMMENTS. Well, none except for this one mocking you. Turns out everyone hates you. Isn’t that correct, pedophile-lover?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "CANCELLED ":

You literally asked what the fuss was about over 14-year-old sex workers while immediately pointing out after that the age for consensual sex was at minimum 16.

there.third.below@clkdmail.com

Good afternoon,

I just came across you blog. You are definitely a pedophile and then I saw that you are involved with the Catholic Church and it all made sense.Thank you 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE EPSTEIN THING":

Have you lost your fucking mind? He abused literal CHILDREN you sick sonofabitch 

No problem, the hate gives me the opportunity to go further on the issue than I could in a space-limited column.

The question is not at what age is it okay to engage in sex, and I mean sexual activity of any sort, but when is it right at all?

I hold to the Catholic position as copied here directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

The essential statement in this paragraph is:

"it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."

Notice that it's not called a "sex act," but a "marriage act." Marriage is assumed as the good and natural state for "the act," and since "the act" must "remain ordered...to...procreation," marriage is assumed to be between a man and a woman.

In short, and to be blunt, sex is only "okay" when it occurs within a marriage between a man and a woman and only when sex is ordered to procreation - in other words: no contraception - thus the Church's prohibition.

This isn't my opinion. It is the universal teaching of the Catholic Church, always was and always will be, simply because it is founded in the very beginnings of humanity:

God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female* he created them. God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* (Genesis 27-28)

This is also why even so-called "natural family planning" (periodic continence) is also wrong (a sin) when it is employed without grave reason. (Look it up.) The whole point of marriage, God's point, (properly called "the ends of marriage") is to "be fruitful and multiply." 

Argue with God. Not me.

And this is why, in my Epstein post, I mocked the whole idea of these false lines we draw which say at this age this is okay, and not at that age. As I pointed out, the ages of majority and consent are artificial government-made lines, and they are made even more irrelevant by our making contraception available and even free to minors of any age at our public health centers and even our schools. 

In fact, to further demonstrate the point, consider the following from a group organized to oppose child marriage:

Child marriage occurs when one or both of the parties to the marriage are below the age of 18. Child marriage is currently legal in 34 states, and 4 U.S. states do not require any minimum age for marriage, with a parental or judicial waiver.

Here in Guam, until 2015, the legal marrying age for a female was age 14 with parental consent, which, at the time, was pretty much the standard throughout the U.S. I'll explain why it changed in 2015 in a minute. But it's clear that our laws approved of a 14 year old girl engaging in sexual relations pursuant to the consent of the parents to marry. There was no maximum age for her husband so presumably he could be much older. 

So there's another moveable line. And if a line is moveable, it really has no meaning. Thus, my sarcastic quip in my Epstein piece: "What's all the fuss?" For anyone with a brain not yet darkened by whatever perverse prejudice may be beholding it at the moment, I believe my sarcastic quip was clear: On the one hand we self-righteously condemn a dirty old man like Jeffrey Epstein and on the other we're handing our kids contraceptives and even legislating that they be paid with tax dollars and handed out at our public health centers. 

In Guam in 2015, then-Senator Narissa Underwood introduced Bill 119-33, the "Guam Marriage Equality Act of 2015." The bill raised the marriage age to 16. The aim of the bill was not to protect 14 year old girls, but was a reaction to Guam's marriage law being caught between a rock and a hard place after SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage. 

Since two persons of the same sex could now marry, gender language (male and female) had to be eliminated. The legal minimum age for marriage for males was already 16, so what to do with the "girls." Oh, wait a minute, there are no longer boys and girls, just partners, so the bill made it 16 for everybody. Another moveable, government-made line. 

Thus my sarcasm about our sanctimonious crusade against a single dirty old man and this meaningless appeal to something magical happening at 18 that makes it okay to have sex but not buy beer. Here is the relevant portion of Senator Underwood's Bill 119-33 which became Public Law 33-65.

The bottom line, even if you don't believe in God is that sex makes babies, or at least is designed to, even if it is only Nature's design. And the best place for those babies to grow up, prosper, and make babies of their own, i.e. the survival of our species, is in the context of a mother and a father committed to each other for life. It's just Nature. 

As a P.S., I know where the hate is coming from. It's this line: "So pedophilia was not the operative perversion. I’ll let you figure out what it was."

 

THE EPSTEIN THING

LINK to online version

Putting my “false allegations” series on hold for the moment, I want to address the Epstein thing.

I don’t have a problem acknowledging that Jeffrey Epstein was most likely a deep state intelligence operative. Nothing else explains how he got away with so much for so long. It also explains why the so-called “client list” remains elusive.

I am also quite on board with the assertion that Epstein rose mysteriously to unprecedented wealth and influence because he was extraordinarily adept at supplying a steady stream of sex-workers to powerful people.

I call them “sex-workers” and not “victims” on purpose.

Hardly an Epstein story goes by without the requisite media sobbing about his “victims.” There are two problems with this. First, they weren’t victims. Second, it’s a distraction from the real matter: uncovering Epstein’s deep-state connections and activities - in short, who Epstein was really working for and why.

His “girls,” minors or not, was just the currency he trafficked in to do his job, a job that made him a billionaire since no other business activity or financial venture can be identified as the source of his voluminous cash flow.

They weren’t victims

According to the court papers I have read, all of Epstein’s “girls” arrived at his many mansions willingly and were well-paid for their services. They were sex-workers, not victims, and it appears the majority of them not only liked their “jobs,” but recruited others for similar employment.

I saw and worked with real victims of sexual abuse in the Apuron case. At the time of their being victimized, they were young, trusting altar boys who thought they were only helping their pastor when he invited them to his house of horrors. They weren’t expecting to be molested, raped, and then threatened to keep their mouths shut for the rest of their now ruined lives.

That’s what a victim looks like. That’s what abuse looks like.

Underage?

Court papers say some of Epstein’s sex-workers were as young as 14. So? What’s all the fuss? Being less than 18 years old might keep you from buying cigarettes, but the law in most states, including Guam, says it’s okay to engage in consensual sex at 16.

Meanwhile, while the majority of Americans are all riled up about Epstein and his clients, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry that same majority of Americans (67%) supports distribution of free contraceptives in schools. Ummm, what do you think these little girls and boys are going to do with that stuff?

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.”

Those who think “they’re just going to do it anyway” are probably thinking their teens are having sex with teens, so they might as well be “protected.” But as the Epstein story (and many others) demonstrates, why would a fourteen year old girl want to have sex with a broke fourteen year old boy when she can score thousands of dollars off an older man with means?

So don’t give me that “they were only 14 and didn’t know any better.” Parents (67% anyway) are practically handing their minor children contraceptives and signing a permission slip to have sex with whoever they want. Should we now be upset when those same kids figure out a way to make money at it - as Epstein’s girls did?

Pedophile?

It’s a useful word because of its “disgust” level, but Epstein was no pedophile - a pervert yes, but no pedophile. Pedophilia is clinically defined as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. While the record shows that Jeffrey liked them young, he didn’t like them that young.

The same with Apuron and just about all of the clergy sex abuse cases nationwide. The record (the John Jay Report) shows that the sexual preference was for adolescents, i.e. sexually mature, and in the clergy cases, overwhelmingly male. So pedophilia was not the operative perversion. I’ll let you figure out what was.

Given the filth and perversity we as a society unthinkingly accommodate daily, it’s hard not to see that all this righteous fixation on Epstein’s “list” isn’t a collective Freudian conscience-swabbing exercise in projection.

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 

AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PAGANS IN PARIS?

LINK to online version

So the news is about the mocking of Christianity at the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics. It may surprise some readers but I don’t care. In fact, I might say it was even “deserved.”

But before I go there, there is the question as to whether or not critics jumped to conclusions about what appeared to be a reenactment “in drag” of the Last Supper as immortalized in paint by Leonardo Da Vinci.

According to the ceremony creator, David Jolly, the scene in question was not meant to imitate the Last Supper but “to do a big pagan party linked to the gods of Olympus” and “promote tolerance of different sexual and gender identities.”

The alleged “Last Supper” was not the only seeming biblical parody. Jolly also staged what appeared to be the worship of a golden calf and a horse and rider right out of the last pages of the Book of Apocalypse.

To “flesh” out the bacchanal, Jolly, according to the AP, mixed in performances of  “a practically naked singer painted blue (who) made thinly veiled references to his body parts; a blonde-bearded drag queen (who) crawled on all fours to the thumping beat of ‘Freed From Desire,’ and “the tail end of an intimate embrace between two men who danced away, hugging and holding hands.”

And then there was Marie Antoinette’s guillotined head sitting in the window of the same building where the condemned Marie awaited her execution.

What any of this has to do with the Olympics, I don’t know, but all seems to be well in the “City of Love” because Jolly and his pals were reportedly doing nothing more than having a jolly good time, albeit in the spirit of the French Revolution. Anyway, Jolly said he was sorry if anyone was offended.

Now, to my point. Let’s assume that Jolly and his pals intended to mock Christianity, and, given the scene at issue, to mock specifically the Catholic belief in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. While I’m all for condemning sacrilege, how much worse is what a bunch of wild pagans did on the shores of the Seine than what most U.S. Catholics believe and do - at least according to polls.

I’m not preaching anything personal here, so don’t shoot the messenger. Following are some direct quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”) relative to tough moral teachings contrasted with what Catholics actually believe and do. I would say again “at least according to the polls,” but most serious Catholics know these facts to be true.

On abortion, the CCC teaches that “abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law…(and is) an abominable crime.” (CCC 2271). Meanwhile, a 2019 Pew Research poll reports that only one in ten Catholics believe abortion is wrong in all cases, and, President Biden, a Catholic who 49% of Catholics voted for and who is the most strident pro-abortion president ever, continues to receive communion with impunity. (By the way, the same is true of our local governor.)

On homosexual acts, the CCC teaches that such acts are "acts of grave depravity…and under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357) However, according to Pew: “ in the United States, about six-in-ten Catholics (61%) said… that they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.” And recently, the current pope has muddied the waters further by authorizing blessings for “couples of the same sex.” (Fiducia supplicans III.)

On contraception, the CCC teaches: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.” (CCC 2370) But, according to Pew: “Just 15% of Catholics say that using contraception is morally wrong.”

And then there’s Guam, perhaps the most Catholic place in the world per capita, with also - per capita, the Catholic world’s worst record of the sex abuse of minors by Catholic authorities from the bishop to grade-school teachers.

Finally, it’s ironic that many Catholics are upset about what appeared to be a mocking of the scene wherein Christ institutes the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when, according to Pew, only one-third of U.S. Catholics believe in the sacramental presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist: that Jesus Christ is fully present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the consecrated species (bread and wine).

And we’re concerned about pagans in Paris?

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   

THANK YOU FOR YOUR STORY, RUSS.

By Tim Rohr

At about 1:35:00 into Bob Klitzkie's Tall Tales this past Thursday, a caller named "Russ" calls in and makes the argument: "why don't you use birth control...then we wouldn't need abortion." 

Russ isn't alone in this seeming logical argument. But of course the fact is that all manner of "birth control" has been cheap and available for decades. 

Any dude can pick up a pack of condoms along with a pack of cigarettes at any gas station for a couple bucks. In fact, the condoms are cheaper than the cigs.

Moreover, birth control is pretty much free: "[t]he 2010 Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to cover all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures without co-pays or deductibles beginning August 2012 on new policies."

So what's up? 

Well, abortions are up. 

So wait. Birth control is more available now more than ever, and cheaper now more than ever, and in fact, in many cases, if not paid for by "Obamacare" then at least distributed for free (Condom Availability Programs).

But abortions are "ticking up." 

Huh?

It's not hard for the thinking person to figure out. So let's give it a go.

First, let's establish the fact that after "the pill" and female sterilization, condoms are the most "popular" method of birth control. In fact, we don't have to guess. 

SOURCE

So then we go to the CDC and look up the stats on condom effectiveness and we find that condoms have a 13% failure rate. Umm, guys. That's like 1 out of 7. Minus one bullet, that's like putting a six-shooter to your head with one loaded chamber and pulling the trigger. 

However, even the CDC stats are "optimistic" because they don't account for The Peltzman Effect which posits:

...when safety measures are implemented, people’s perception of risk decreases, and so people may feel that they can now afford to make riskier decisions. As a result, the phenomenon predicts that mandatory safety measures actually experience a lower benefit than we would expect, because the safety benefits brought about by these measures are offset to some extent by increases in risky behavior.

In other words, we're more likely to do stupid stuff, and more frequently, when we think we are "safe." So, functionally, increased reliance on birth control equals increased risk of pregnancy. And what do people do when they conceive a child they were not expecting to conceive? 

You can fill in the blank, but the answer is abortion: the ultimate "birth control."

Aside from abortion, this also explains why Guam is a national leader in chlamydia:

In 2016, Guam reported 934 cases of chlamydia and in 2017, 1,107 cases were reported among men and women of Guam. This represents an increase of 18.5%. Guam’s rate of chlamydia of 663.3 per 100,000 was higher than the US rate of 528 per 100,000, a difference of 25.6%. - State Action Plan - Women/Maternal Health - Annual Report - Guam - 2020

SOURCE

Ever since the initial AIDS scare, condom use has been heavily promoted under the moniker: "safe sex." However, a virus is much smaller than a sperm. And if a condom fails 13% of the time to "corral" sperm, then how many viruses (or whatever you call them) are getting through? 

Apparently "lots!" LOL (or maybe not) 

Note: About ten years ago or so, I was in a meeting with the then-director of HHS. Venereal disease in general was a mounting issue and chlamydia was already a scandal. Yet, the meeting was about promoting condom use. I didn't object, but politely posited that perhaps, at least, the failure rate of condoms, pursuant to the the published CDC data, should at least be made known. The then-director scoffed and said "we can't do that because then no one would ever use a condom." Or something like that. Funny. That pack of cigs has a warning on it...not so that pack of condoms. Meanwhile, people die...and babies die. 

+++++

Back to Russ' call on Tall Tales. Russ ends with a heart-warming testimony which goes something like this:

"I gotta say this one thing. And it chokes me every time I even think about it, but my daughter, who was young, got pregnant. I thought about abortion and kinda recommended it to her …. And now I regret ever having said that because I got a beautiful grandson that I love to death and the thought that I ever even thought of that was … I don’t know. I think you know what I’m thinking and feeling." 

Russ, in making a personal case against abortion, sort of makes his case against birth control as well. Whether it be birth control or abortion for his daughter, Russ would have been denied the "beautiful grandson that I love to death." 

Russ, I hear you. My wife and I brought eleven children into this world. And aside from the first one, every pregnancy scared the hell out of me. I had no clue how we were going to "afford another baby." No clue. Nothing. 

And to be frank, I seriously considered birth control and even vasectomy at one point. It's another story. But I didn't. And today I have eleven children that "I love to death," especially the last three...who we had "no business" having. At least that's what the doctors told us.

Thank you for your story Russ. I hope you have many more grandchildren and that you all go to heaven. God bless and keep you. 

BITTER PILL

Thanks Chuck for the link.

BITTER PILL, by Timothy Reichert, May 2010

"...the contraceptive revolution has resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth and power from women and children to men."

HERE COME THE JUDGE

 

A letter authored by Attorney David Lujan was printed in the Guam Daily Post today. 

Parents choose godparents, not the Catholic church

- The letter is copied below in black and my comments are in red. - 

****

On Nov. 21, the Pacific News Center carried a story about Lt. Gov. Tenorio being prohibited from being a godfather for the sole reason he is in a same-sex relationship.

While PNC may have "carried a story," that's not the story. The story is that no one can be a godparent in the Catholic Church who doesn't qualify. It doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is. Those qualifications can be found in the Code of Canon Law beginning at Canon 872.  As the author of the letter to the Post is an attorney, he will appreciate where the statute can be found.

The choice of who is to be godparents belongs solely to the parents, not the church. Parents bestow the privilege upon a person because of a long-term relationship, and, belief in certain qualities perceived in whom they believe will help raise, guide, and be a good example for the child. No priest is qualified to contradict the parent’s choice.

It appears that the author may be referencing the cultural meaning of "godparents" given the qualities he sets forth for the choice of godparents. However, none of those qualities are what Church law sets forth in Canon 872. 

Pursuant to Canon 872, a godparent, in addition to presenting the child for Baptism (or Confirmation - which is the only other sacrament requiring a "sponsor"),  "helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it." 

The key words are "a Christian life." 

This applies to everyone. Thus a person in a sexual relationship with another person of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married, is - in the eyes of the Church - living in a perpetual state of mortal sin and cannot be a Catholic godparent.

The disqualification because of same-sex relations is hypocritical. Why should homosexuality be a disqualifying factor? I remember being taught that “God created man in his image.” If so, why should God be limited to a male only? Wouldn’t this mean God discriminates? Since I have never seen God in a physical form, and I suspect neither have others, why should we conclude that God is a male only, and not a female, nor any other physical form?

Actually, God did not make a "male only." Genesis 1:27 says: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." And then Genesis 1:28 goes on to tell us why God made mankind "male and female:" God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." 

Thus the male and female - in a faithful, fruitful and multiplying relationship - is the very Image of God on Earth, which is also why the deliberate frustration of the ends of the procreative/reproductive act (contraception, abortion) are a violation of God's very Image and thus a mortal sin - abortion being the additional sin of murder.

In addition, I was also taught God is omnipotent and just. If this is true, then heterosexuals, homosexuals, and LGBTQs were equally created in God’s image!

Yes, they were and yes we are. We are all created equal in the eyes of God, BUT with the freedom (free will) to become unequal and to choose our ends, just as Adam and Eve did, and just as did Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob...and Judas - of whom Christ said "better for him that he had not been born." (Mt. 26:24)

Since God supposedly knows, at the moment of conception, the sexual characteristics of each human God allows to be created, I cannot believe that God intended a child to be pre-ordained to end up in hell. I believe God is just.

Yes, God is just. And because God is Just, every person is created with free will and thus (at the age of reason) the freedom to choose heaven or hell as our eternal ends. As for going to heaven, Scripture tells us "nothing unclean shall enter it." (Rev. 21:27) 

And we are free to either decide for ourselves what is clean and unclean...or to look to the Church Christ left us and the teaching authority for that Church. (Personally, I'll stick with two-thousand years of Church teaching as descended from the Apostles versus my own small, selfish, concupiscent mind.)

As the creator who is all-knowing and just, God could not have intentionally created only heterosexuals in his image. Hence, members of LGBTQs were equally created in His image.

Unfortunately for the author's point, the opposite-sex couple - in a faithful, fruitful relationship (having children - or at least open to life in every nuptial act) - is exactly how Genesis defines  "His image." 

Heterosexuals and LGTBQs abound throughout every race and culture. They are part of humanity and we should embrace, not exclude them, since God created them.

For the record, sacramentally married opposite-sex couples who contracept are also excluded from being godparents...and from receiving Holy Communion. Again, the Church discriminates equally. Well, sort of. 

Because while homosexual acts are only considered intrinsically disordered, contraceptive acts between sacramentally married persons are dealt a much more severe blow. Such acts are defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "intrinsically evil." (Catechism of the Catholic Church at par. 2370.)

In other words, the Catholic Church (in its official teaching - and not this or that pope, bishop, or priest) RECOGNIZES that homosexual acts are subject to a disorder that certain persons may not be able to control. Meanwhile, the same Church condemns heterosexual acts that are deliberately contraceptive as always and everywhere (the definition of "intrinsic") EVIL. 

One might say that in its official doctrine (i.e. the Catechism) the Catholic Church is far more compassionate to persons with a homosexual orientation than it is to male and female sacramentally married persons, who deliberately contracept. 

In closing, the Church, the archbishop, and that priest who brought the news to the lieutenant governor prohibiting him the privilege and honor of being a godfather that most of us heterosexuals have experienced owe a profound apology not just to the lieutenant governor, but other members of the LGBTQ community.

I agree with the author. The leadership of our Church does owe an apology for every time this or that cleric looked the other way at what the author presents here. Looking the other way for decades because of weak (and many times immoral) clerical leadership and cultural pressure, and even now, not taking the opportunity to address this matter publicly in the Archbishop's own newspaper when the matter with the Lt. Governor first surfaced, has demonstratively led to more hard feelings, possible scandal, and even more souls swimming away from the Barque of Peter.  

By the way, I've heard it quipped, "A good attorney knows the law. A great attorney knows the judge." It would be a good idea for all of us who care about Eternity to know both the law and The Judge. 

This is a P.S.

Perhaps the author of the letter to the Post cannot be held culpable for very much. Given his age, he is perhaps the local product of the Flores-Apuron generation which produced the most horrific record of sexual abuse of minors in the modern history of the Catholic Church in the Western World. 

For those who don't know, Guam's record of clerical abuse of minors, per capita, during the Flores-Apuron years, is FOURTEEN TIMES that of the Archdiocese of Boston - which not only made damning international news, but also inspired the Academy Award winning movie, Spotlight. 

However, as a P.P.S.

It should also be noted that all known cases against the former archbishop(s) and the Archdiocese of Agana have next to nothing to do with clinically defined pedophilia, and everything to do with (clinically defined) same-sex oriented clerics who preyed on underage, mostly-male, biological adults. The question is...will we every NAME THE PROBLEM.

The JUDGE will. 

.....

And then there's a P.P.P.S (is there such a thing?)

Given that Attorney Lujan's office has the lion's share of clergy sex abuse cases, Mr. Lujan stands to make many millions of dollars if not many, many millions of dollars from the work this blog did to expose the afore-referenced scandal - all of which is rooted in decades of homosexual activities by certain members of Guam's clergy, going all the way up to the office of Archbishop. If - pursuant to Mr. Lujan's theology that God simply made people that way and they can't help it - then, but for the artifice of the age of the majority (18), there is simply no case. 

THE MOST SECRET OF ALL SCANDALS IN THE CHURCH

Archbishop Byrnes is correct. Both abortion and the sexual abuse of minors are rooted in the "hardening of hearts." For what is abortion other than the ultimate abuse of a minor? 

And while we can be thankful that we have a Shepherd who is willing to not just condemn the evil of abortion, but willing to trace it to the root and tie it to what Pope Benedict labeled the "filth in the church," there will be no real conversion of hearts until the contraceptive mentality is just as bravely confronted. 

For abortion is just last-resort birth control. 

That's not my opinion. The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the nation's number one abortion provider, noted in 2014 that "about half (51%) of abortion patients in the United States reported that they had used a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant..." due to "method failure."

The Guttmacher study goes on to note: "The methods most commonly used by abortion patients in 2014 were condoms (24% of patients) and the pill (13%)."

This is not a surprise, the FDA states: "Out of 100 women whose partners’ use (condoms), 18 may get pregnant."

And what do contracepting couples do when they get pregnant and don't want to be pregnant? 

Condom failure is also probably at the root of Guam's Chlamydia epidemic:

Guam ranks among worst in the nation for chlamydia cases 

- Pacific Daily News, October 10, 2018

And while the current government's answer is more of the same: “We want to focus on educating the community on getting birth control, condoms and having responsible sexual activities,” Flores said, our Shepherds, if they are serious about the real "reason to fear," the loss of one's soul - especially their own, must squarely face the most secret of all scandals in the Church:

"...every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2370

BEWARE OF AIRPLANE SPEECHES

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DID THE POPE JUST PERMIT CONTRACEPTION?": 

I agree with the consistent ethic towards the value of every human life. It is a complex issue and must never be looked at from a simple context. It is quite arrogant to judge people who choose to protect themselves, when we know too well that coitus does not simply arise from lust. Imagine yourself in an untenable situation or perhaps your daughter gets into this dilemma. It is so easy to say that the Church condemns use of contraception or bans abortion but not as easy when it involves someone close to home. What if the husband who has sexually-transmitted disease demands sex from his wife? What about rape? In the latter case, Pope Paul VI permitted abortion for nuns in Africa who were vulnerable to that kind of assault in the context of the culture. Any proclamation regarding this difficult issue should be understood in terms of understanding the human situation, in a compassionate manner, and in a charitable way of advice. Otherwise, we might be akin to the attitude of the Pharisees who never lifted a finger to help but readily judged others based on skin surface observations. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

BUSINESS INSIDER: THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT ABOUT CONTRACEPTION

There's more here in a business magazine about the consequences of contraception than you're likely to ever find in a contemporary Catholic publication, or for that matter, hear from the pulpit in a year of Sundays (in most churches). 

Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control

Painting the Catholic Church as "out of touch" is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches. And nothing makes it easier than the Church's stance against contraception.

Many people, (including our editor) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn't just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or "out-dated." C'mon! It's the 21st century, they say! Don't they SEE that it's STUPID, they scream.

Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages. 

So, what's going on? 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz2i1QbKstG

IT'S NOT THE MEDIA!

Yesterday, the media was abuzz with the news that Pope Francis had denounced the conservative emphasis on moral issues and had urged our church to be more welcoming and merciful. In media-speak, that means more “liberal”. 

I have been wanting to read the actual interview as posted on the website of the British Jesuits (I don't trust America Magazine - the U.S. Jesuits), but the link currently does not appear to be working. So for now, I’ll need to go with the news reports and try (once again) to decipher what the Pope “really” meant. 

THE REAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Published in the U Matuna, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, 3/10/13.

The number of abortions on Guam were down slightly in 2012 - from 295 in 2011 to 275 last year. There are no changes in trends: most abortions occur during the first trimester, young adults ages 18-22 have the most abortions, and Chamorros account for  the largest share (62%) of abortions. But what do these numbers mean and how can we bring them down?

Some advocate for better education of our youth. But the youth, ages 13-17, account for only 2% of abortions. Some call for greater access to contraception. But contraception is more readily available than ever before. Others would like to see more opportunities for adoption. But there is already a waiting list at CPS of hopeful parents waiting to adopt. Some say we need to improve the economy, but in general, wealthier economies have higher abortion rates.

So, what to do? First, we must put everything on the table. For several years now, our abortion reports have defied the myths that abortions on Guam are either procured by teens or outsiders. They are not. As mentioned, teens account for only 2% of abortions, and “locals” account for more abortions than all other ethnicities combined.

As Catholics, we must further admit that since 85% of “locals” identify themselves as Catholic, abortion is a Catholic problem. Also, for a culture that still largely prides itself as family-oriented and one which has traditionally cared for the children of relatives who were unable to care for their own, we must ask why the number of Chamorro children aborted by their mothers continues to escalate even while the percentage of the Chamorro population on Guam continues to decline.

In short, we must get rid of our myths before we can proceed. I personally tire of hearing “but they’re Catholic” when one learns of a certain lawmaker’s obstruction of pro-life legislation, or the now tired and transparent mantra about the culture being “family-oriented” given the staggering incidence of family violence we are constantly confronted with. Even more wearisome is the talk about the need to reach our teens when it’s the adults who account for 98% of abortions.

Our first reaction is usually “we have to talk about this more.” But as Catholics, we already talk about it “more”: no organization has defined doctrine condemning abortion as clear as ours, no group organizes more public protests, and no group is as active in the charitable ministries which address the social issues thought to be the causes of abortion. Yet our abortion numbers rise, and Catholics throughout the U.S., not just Guam, increasingly accept abortion even while the rest of the nation is heading in the other direction.

Some think that the number of abortions procured by Catholics is high because of the the Church’s teaching against the use of contraception. However, access to contraception has not only NOT slowed the abortion rate, it can be easily proved that contraception’s failure rate has contributed to increased abortions. According to the FDA, condom use, the most common form of contraception, will result in pregnancy 18% of the time, and oral contraceptives, 9% of the time. And of course - thinking “I’m protected” - contraceptive use leads to more frequent sexual activity which increases the number of contraceptive failures leading to more abortions.

It is difficult to battle the rate of abortion when one of its main causes (contraceptive use) is seen as the solution. But telling the truth about contraception’s failure and battling government initiatives to further inject it as a social solution is critical to any effort to decrease abortion. 

However, I hold little hope for this. Contraception is a “sacred cow”. Our culture desires sex without consequences - and contraception, despite its glaring failure rate and the monstrous spread of disease, proposes to hold the magic key.

Of course, in the end, women are the losers. Contraception liberates men not women. It’s the woman who end up with a “problem pregnancy” and in the abortion clinic when contraception fails. And in many cases she is drug there by the man who impregnated her. 

The Elliot Institute documents that nearly 64% of abortions are coerced. And when the woman is unwilling, she is often beaten or killed: homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women. Also, coerced abortions may account for why the post-abortive woman is six times more likely to commit suicide. 

Yet, often the most ardent advocates of increased legal protections for women are also the most ardent advocates of increased access to contraception and abortion. Contraception enables bad men to more easily use and discard women. And when contraception fails, abortion allows men to destroy the evidence. How fortunate for them that so many women believe these both to be “rights”.  

The 2012 Guam Abortion Report can be accessed at www.esperansa.org.

WRONG ANSWER AND THE TRAGEDY IN TUMON

The tragedy in Tumon last week is almost too huge to comment on. The grief and anger is simply unimaginable. Like most, I wondered what would make this person do such a thing. 

Some things have come to light: drugs, divorce, a romantic breakup, a recent departure from the structured world of school. In this case, it was a lethal cocktail of events which exploded into a murderous act.

Internet technology also may have factored. A You Tube video of the girl the suspect apparently separated from was found. In it she shares an emotional message of contrition over their break up, restates her love for him, and concludes by blowing him a kiss.

Whereas in the past many a broken-hearted lover may have stared longingly at a picture of a lost love, a video message from a former lover is quite another thing. Upon viewing the video myself, it was easy to imagine the emotions which might have overcome this 21 year-old male as he viewed it, probably over and over.

It also appears that the suspect may have planned to take his own life. It was reported that he had been giving away his personal belongings, and appeared deeply troubled. Such a plan is not hard to imagine when the above-mentioned “cocktail of events” is mixed with the video reminder of his loss.

While the suspect did not succeed in taking his own life - if that was his plan, it is certain that he had lost all regard for it. And his age and his action once again brought to the fore a concern about the mounting number of young people, especially males, who are increasingly prone to suicidal behavior.

Because suicide is such a terribly sensitive and thus dangerous topic on which to speak, I did not want to address it prematurely. However, given the impact of this incident, now may be an opportune time to examine a possible cause for the increase in suicide amongst the young which few have considered, nor seem to want to consider.

Nationwide, the suicide numbers are actually declining slightly. In 1950, there were 13.2 suicides per 100,000 people. As of 2010, there were 12.4. However, for young people ages 15-24, and especially for males, it’s another matter. During the same time period, suicide in this age bracket has tripled.

Losing so many young people, just as the promise of life is beginning, is an atrocity  of pandemic proportions that should force us to put everything on the table in our attempt to address it. But there is one thing which is never “put on the table”. 

The most common cause of suicide in this age bracket appears to be despondency over a broken romance. But “breaking up” is not new. What IS new is the sharp increase in violence and suicide which follows upon the end of a romantic relationship. Why?

If we were to graph it, we would easily see that the increased rate of suicide amongst the young would match the increased rate of young people who are sexually active. So while breaking up is not new, the rate at which an increasing number of young, unmarried people are having sex with each other IS. (Does not apply in all cases, of course.)

Draw your own conclusions, but sex does something to a young couple that simply exchanging rings and innocent affections does not. Sex, regardless of age or intent, does what it was designed to do: makes two people one. It is not just a biological act, it is an irreversible exchange of persons which, if nature so deigns, fuses the two into a wholly new person: a child.

Thus, breaking up is no longer a matter of a “Dear John letter” and giving back a ring. Whether or not pregnancy occurs, the breaking of a sexually bonded relationship is the full ripping apart of “one body”, a fission of persons, the relational equivalent of splitting the atom with metaphorically proportionate consequences of emotional and spiritual fallout, often far beyond ground zero. 

The rupture of sexually-fused persons leaves a radioactive emotional wound, a hemorrhage that does not heal, despite the numbness time may assuage it with. And death is the fallout: murderous rampages, suicide, emotional self-destruction, drug addictions, broken families, genital diseases, and generations of broken people.

And what is our answer? More condoms, more birth control, more “Plan B”, more pills, patches, implants, abortifacients and abortions because “they’re gonna do it anyway.” 

Wrong answer! While contraception might limit pregnancy, it will never limit the internal devastation wrought by the splitting of persons fused together in sexual intercourse. Think about that the next time some politician or federally funded project wants to teach your child how to put on a condom.

ARBEIT MACHT FREI??

A few years ago, what turned out to be a seven-week old human fetus was found floating through a local waste treatment plant. Such discoveries make news, but not so the bodies of the nearly seven dead children per week that pile up in dumpsters behind Tamuning’s abortuaries - or wherever it is they throw them.

According to Guam Medical Records, we abort one child every 1.2 days, or one abortion for every ten live births. Our killing spree equates to a rate of 1.85 abortions per thousand population and ranks Guam No. 17 in the world for most abortions. This is an atrocity beyond compare particularly when one considers that more than 50% of these aborted children are Chamorro.

There is also reason to believe that the abortion rate is actually much higher than reported and may be as high as 1000 annually or almost 3 babies per day. A 1990 article about abortion on Guam reported an estimate of 600 to 1000 abortions per year, and fragments of data compiled by Guam Medical Records prior to the imposition of a penalty for failing to report in 2008 suggests that this is true. (For more info see Esperansa.org)

Amazingly, government officials still think the answer to abortion is earlier sex education and increased access to contraception. It’s “amazing” because we have forty years of data showing that the abortion rate has exponentially exploded in the wake of such policies. It’s a simple formula: more contraception equals more abortion. The FDA’s own data on contraception tells us why. 

As the chart shows, all contraceptive methods have a failure rate. The availability of contraception eliminates the fear of pregnancy and encourages greater sexual activity. Increased sexual activity results in an increased number of contraceptive failures, which lead to more abortions since abortion is the solution to failed birth-control.

The male condom is the most promoted and most available method of birth control. However, the FDA’s own data tells us that its use will result in pregnancy 18 out of 100 times. Yet we are told that using a condom is “safe sex”. How safe is an airplane that is guaranteed to crash 1.8 out of every 10 times it takes off? Yet we are teaching our children how to put these on in grade school.

But getting pregnant may be the least of your worries. If a condom cannot stop sperm 18% of the time, then what in the world are we doing promoting it as a means of stemming sexually transmitted diseases, most of which are spread by bacteria and  viruses many times smaller than sperm? The FDA’s own data admits this, saying only that the male condom is the “best protection” against STD’s compared to other contraceptive methods which provide none.

Last year, Guam’s Department of Public Health reported the largest increase in sexually transmitted diseases in the last 5 years including 900 new cases of Chlamydia, a disease with which nearly 10% of Guam’s population, age 15 to 24, is infected. Yet, this same Department sponsors Prutehi Hao , a program which promotes condom use as if it is a new found cure for cancer. 

Imagine a policy which mandates greater access to guns as an answer to gun crime. Stupid, right? Yet just last week, our Congresswoman announced an Obamacare grant  to Guam DOE to “educate adolescents and young adults on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” While the requisite nod towards abstinence education is noteworthy, we can be sure it will get short shrift and condom use will be touted as “responsible”. 

 A few columns back I quoted Archbishop Sheen’s ominous observation: “God will forgive. Man may forgive. Nature NEVER forgives.” This stark, inevitable truth is never more mercilessly true than when it comes to the abuse of sex. Sex was designed by God for a reason. Whenever it is used contrary to that reason, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE...literally: a pile of corpses 50 million unborn children high, a pandemic of sexually transmitted disease, tragic rates of infertility, a black plague of female-related cancers, people crippled by rotting genitals, death of the most horrific sort, and for Guam - the self-genocide of the Chamorro.  

And what’s our government’s answer? More money for more of the same, and obeisance to a soviet-style mandate coercing us to pay for all this death, disease, and destruction under the guise of “preventative care” - a euphemism as deceitful and demonic as the Nazi’s “Arbeit macht Frei” (“Work makes you free”): words emblazoned in iron at the entrance to Auschwitz. There is much to fear.