ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED TO INVESTIGATE TWO ABORTION DOCTORS

In today's Guam Daily Post (with linked references):

In 2024, 36 women residing in Guam terminated their pregnancies through chemical abortions, according to the 2024 Abortion Report. A request asking the Office of the Attorney General to investigate and bring action against a couple of doctors alleges that reporting requirements were not met.

Abortions are not illegal in Guam. However, there are no doctors who perform abortions on the island. In fact, according to the 2024 Abortion Report compiled by the Department of Public Health and Social Services Bureau of Vital Statistics, the women were given prescriptions for abortion medications by Queen’s University Medical Group in Hawaii through telemedicine.

That is not where Guam resident Tim Rohr, who asked the AG to investigate, found fault.

The Women’s Reproductive Health Information Act of 2012 states that a physician or qualified person who is performing the abortion needs to provide the woman with printed materials related to the procedure at least 24 hours prior. The woman must then certify “in writing on a checklist certification” that the materials were provided.

Rohr sent a Sunshine Reform Act request for the “total number of checklist certifications by month for calendar year 2024" to the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority, which is responsible for keeping records. He found none.

“Pursuant to a letter received from Guam Memorial Hospital Administrator Lillian Perez-Posadas, MN, RN, on March 6, 2025, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request: 'GMHA is not in possession of any documents responsive to your request,'” Rohr said in his request to the AG.

According to the Bureau of Women’s Affairs, “currently, no physicians in Guam are publicly providing either medication abortion or surgical abortion. The option for medication abortion is available via telemedicine.”

According to Post files, when the 2024 Abortion Report came out, Pro-Life Committee Chair Sharon O’Mallan said that when a woman terminates a pregnancy, she must meet with a “person here who does the in-person counseling,” then the woman is referred to the Hawaii-based abortion doctors before the abortion prescription is mailed to the woman.

The 2024 Abortion Report identified the providers who performed the abortions as Queen's University Medical Group Drs. Bliss Kaneshiro and Shandhini Raidoo, who are listed as abortion providers at the Guam Bureau of Women’s Affairs and are licensed to practice on the island.

According to Rohr, off Guam or not, the law needs to be complied with, including “in-person informed-consent” certifications. He alleged the abortion doctors failed this requirement, despite the preliminary injunction which enjoined the enforcement of the informed-consent requirement being vacated.

“Drs. (Raidoo) and Kaneshiro are also the two doctors who initiated a lawsuit in the Guam District Court against the attorney general of Guam and other defendants in January 2021 in order to enjoin the in-person informed-consent requirement of 10 Guam Code Ann. § 3218.1. 6 While their suit initially succeeded with the Guam District Court, as already stated supra, that decision was vacated by the 9th Circuit and physicians providing abortion services in Guam, telemedicine or otherwise, are required by law to comply with all the requirements set forth in 10 Guam Code Ann. § 3218.1,” Rohr said in his request.

With no paper trail, Rohr levied the allegations and called on the AG to “bring action against the physicians who provided the abortions in calendar year 2024 for not complying” with the law.

“Given the foregoing, it appears that 36 abortions were provided in Guam in calendar year 2024 without informed consent, as required by 10 Guam Code Ann. § 3218.1. Wherefore, I request the Attorney General of Guam, whose job it is to enforce the laws of Guam, to investigate the facts as set forth herein, and if said facts are found to be true, to bring appropriate legal action against the abortion providers,” Rohr said in the request.

The request was stamped received by the attorney general’s office on March 7, but when The Guam Daily Post asked AG Douglas Moylan to confirm receipt and what if any action his office would take, he said it was the first time he'd seen Rohr's request.

“We will review and contact Mr. Rohr,” Moylan told the Post on Saturday.

 

IT'S THE LATTER, BUT WHAT'S NEW?

By Tim Rohr

Once again (I said it before here), all Governor LLG has to do to get rid of this issue is to get her buddies in the legislature to introduce a bill to repeal "Belle's Law," P.L. 20-134, which was left on the books after it was enjoined by the Guam District Court more than 30 years ago. 

Given the legislation they have already introduced, Sens. Fisher and Parkinson would be LLG's most likely prospects for getting this done. In fact, LLG doesn't even need Fisher and Parkinson, she has the power to introduce a bill "By request of I Maga 'lahen Guahan in accordance with the Organic Act of Guam."

But for some reason, she (LLG) appears to want this fight with AG Moylan to drag on. 

Moylan cannot introduce legislation (as can the governor), nor can he or should he influence anyone in the legislature to do so (as can the governor). Moylan can only do one thing: enforce the laws of Guam -  and P.L. 20-134 is a law of Guam, but due to a District Court decision, it remains enjoined (unenforceable) despite the fact that the reason it was enjoined 30 years (Roe) is no longer a reason for it to remain enjoined. What a mess.

Typical of LLG, who fights as dirty as abortion is bloody, she tried to do an end-run around Moylan after he appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit, which is the proper court of appeals relative to decisions made by the Guam District Court.

Instead of taking her dirty fight to the Ninth Circuit, where she had a good chance of losing given the Ninth's earlier decision in another abortion matter, she got the Guam Supreme Court to weigh in on whether or not Belle's Law was valid.

The problem for LLG was that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue a "decision" in the matter, especially since "decisions" are not what the Guam Supreme Court issues (only opinions). However, because of a typical OOG quirk in the law, the Court was able to issue something called a "declaratory judgment" which in fact is not a "judgment," but once again, only an opinion, and certainly not a decision - moreover, the court's opinion was not "actionable."

(Note: Ironically, the Guam Supreme Court based its opinion that Belle's Law was invalid on four abortion regulating laws that I had helped author and pass over a decade ago - which, due to Roe, had to continue to allow abortion though the legislation sought to rein it in without violating Roe. Those laws were four of eight we helped pass and enact and led to the shutting down of the abortion industry in Guam by 2018.)

By the time the Guam Supremes issued their opinion, Moylan had already filed his appeal with the Ninth Circuit, but put it on hold to file a different appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States which questioned whether or not the Guam Supremes had the authority to weigh in on the matter at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the matter which sent Moylan back to his first matter of business which is his appeal of the Guam District Court's decision before the Ninth Circuit.

However, with more dirt and lies from Lou in today's news, you'd think that both the Guam Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled in Lou's favor and in the governor's words, Moylan's case is "moot."

Of course that's what Lou wants us to think because who in the world can keep track of this 30-year old mess? 

LLG argues: "This court (9th Circuit) does not have appellate authority over the Guam Supreme Court." 

Umm, Ms. Governor, Moylan is not appealing the Guam Supreme Court's opinion to the 9th Circuit, HE APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE GUAM DISTRICT COURT which DOES HAVE APPELLATE AUTHORITY over the District Court.

So either Lou doesn't know what's going on or she is lying. 

It's the latter. But what's new?

NOTE TO AG: DON'T EQUATE "DEADBEAT DADS" WITH CONVICTED MURDERERS

By Tim Rohr

Re: the Guam Daily Post story "Moylan says billboards displaying convicts help deter future crimes."

Atty. Gen Douglas Moylan believes these types of signs will deter crime. I'm inclined to agree. However, re the subject sign, the first thing that jumped out at me was the question as to how the convict got so visibly beat up? 

Was he beaten up in prison by other prisoners, by prison guards, by the police? A picture of a person that badly beaten, and behind bars, may evoke sympathy if not an investigation. So yes, show us the criminals, but be careful. Looks like the AG may need some marketing help. 

Moving on, the Atty. General also makes an important point here:

Moylan also made the point that, unlike mug shots shown in the media, which are often published before a defendant is found guilty through a trial or plea – something that Moylan argues injures a person's presumption of innocence – the policy of the AG's office is to only post those already convicted of a crime. 

This is so absolutely true. I'm not sure what can be done about the publication of mug shots, but such publication does in fact, as Atty. Moylan says, "injure a person's presumption of innocence" - a key precept in our nation of laws and "one of the most basic requirements for a fair trial." And, in the case of wrongful arrest of an innocent person - which is not uncommon - mug shot publications may ruin the rest of an innocent person's life.

Meanwhile, Moylan goes on to mention something that I found disturbing:

“We have Child Support (Awareness) Month coming up. … We're still looking at maybe putting up several of the convicts up on one billboard, (that) sort of thing. Kind (of) mixing it up, so it grabs people's attention. … We've got to be able to communicate,” Moylan said. 

I found it disturbing because, in short, our child support laws immediately punish whichever parent doesn't have the children, even if the children were clandestinely removed and sequestered away from the abandoned parent by the abandoning parent.

Nothing has to be proven other than the children are residing with the parent who took them. The abandoned parent is immediately forced to pay with the full force of the courts and the police as the collection agency. 

In other words, abandoned parents, usually dads, are guilty till proven innocent, and some end up in prison while just trying to get their kids back. 

Meanwhile, Atty. Moylan may want to hold off on equating so-called "deadbeat dads" with convicted murderers by putting their faces on the same signs. 

AG MOYLAN FILES BRIEF OF RESPONDENT IN GUAM SUPREME COURT RE BELLE'S LAW

By Tim Rohr

Attorney General, Douglas Moylan, has filed BRIEF OF RESPONDENT with the Supreme Court of Guam relative to LLG’s “Request” to the Court for Declaratory Judgement on “the validity and enforceability of Public Law 20-134.” 

It’s worth a serious read for anyone who cares about the fate of Guam’s unborn, but also because this may very well go to a referendum. 

Of particular note is Pg. 2 of Mr. Moylan's Brief wherein he states: 

The Government of Guam (the Attorney General) joins with the legal position of amicus curiae of former Senator Robert Klitzkie, who contends in his brief that this High Court has no jurisdiction over this matter due to the Petitioner’s (LLG's) lack of standing. (Parenthetical comments added)

LINK to BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

NOT A GOOD START FOR OUR NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL - MAYBE

By Tim Rohr

On Friday (March 24), the District Court of Guam issued ORDER denying the Attorney General's motion to lift the injunction on P.L. 20-134, a 1990 law banning most abortions in Guam. 

The reason for the DENIAL was that Defendant AG failed to refute Plaintiffs' argument that "the [public law] was a legal nullity the moment it was passed and can have no force or effect today.”

While Defendant AG argues that the legal basis for the permanent injunction no longer exists, Defendant AG failed to address whether the change in law in Dobbs warrants vacatur of the permanent injunction in its entirety. As Plaintiffs have argued, “irrespective of Dobbs or any other Supreme Court decision concerning abortion issued after [Guam Public Law 20-134] was enacted, the [public law] was a legal nullity the moment it was passed and can have no force or effect today.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 20, ECF No. 391. Defendant AG has not refuted this argument, and after having reviewed the relevant statutes and the legal authority provided by Plaintiffs in their opposition, to which Defendant AG did not respond, the court finds that Defendant AG has not met his burden under Rule 60(b)(5). (Emphases added)

If the Court's account of things is correct, then this is not a good start for our newly elected AG.

It's a little late now, but - in my limited lay view - the AG should have argued that P.L. 20-134 was NOT a "legal nullity" on grounds that it was in fact one of the nation's first constitutional challenges to Roe under Webster. In fact, this was precisely why the late-Senator Elizabeth Arriola introduced her bill:

Senator Arriola said that banning abortion had been the main goal of her political career and that she drafted a bill as soon as the Supreme Court opened the way for new restrictions. - The New York Times, March 16, 1990. 

In fact, P.L. 20-134 ("the law") made huge national news because it was one of the nation's first challenges to Roe, even preceding the landmark case in Casey (1992). And, as a challenge to Roe, it worked its way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court (where the challenge ended when the Court declined to hear it). 

The challenge under Webster is set out as follows in Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1992):

Guam contends that Roe has no force after Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 109 S.Ct. 3040, 106 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989). Putting Webster together with non-majority opinions in other cases, Guam contends that the classification of competing interests has changed. Guam relies particularly upon Justice O'Connor's dissents in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. at 814, 106 S.Ct. at 2206, and Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 452, 103 S.Ct. 2481, 2504, 76 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983). According to Guam, five Justices of the Supreme Court now recognize the state's compelling interest in potential human life throughout pregnancy, and no longer adhere to the Roe analysis. In Webster, a three-Justice plurality stated that it did "not see why the State's interest in protecting potential human life should come into existence only at the point of viability." Webster, 492 U.S. at 519, 109 S.Ct. at 3057. It also characterized the woman's interest as a "liberty interest," as distinguished from a "fundamental right." Id. at 520, 109 S.Ct. at 3058. Guam would put these statements together with Justice Scalia's view that Roe should be overruled. Id. at 532, 109 S.Ct. at 3064. It would then add Justice O'Connor's view that regulations that do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to seek an abortion are sustainable if rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. Id. at 529-30, 109 S.Ct. at 3062-63; Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214.6 Finally, it would include Justice O'Connor's position elsewhere expressed that the state's compelling interest exists throughout pregnancy. See Akron, 462 U.S. at 459, 103 S.Ct. at 2507; Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214. From this mix, Guam derives the conclusion that its interest in fetal life can overcome the woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, and that Guam's Act is therefore not unconstitutional on its face. (Link) (emphases added)

Guam would lose it's appeal at the 9th Circuit and would be later denied a final appeal by the Supreme Court, but the above facts demonstrate that the law was NOT a "legal nullity" at the time of its enactment, but was in fact an intended constitutional challenge to Roe, and moreover, that the Guam Legislature was fully within its authority to engage and pass the legislation that led to the law and the resultant constitutional challenge.

Meanwhile, the law was more than just a challenge to Roe, it was a challenge by "little Guam" for sovereignty - a real David and Goliath moment - something the Bevacqua's of Guam should be shouting in praise of (but aren't):

In 1990, Guam became embroiled in one of the most divisive social policy debates in its forty-year history as a U.S. territory when a Chamorro woman senator introduce a bill virtually banning abortion. This legislation was passed unanimously be a twenty-one-member legislature with seven women senators. The local activism this controversial bill catalyzed, its enactment, and the immediate challenge to its constitutionality catapulted Guam in the U.S. nation media as a frontrunner in the race to overturn Roe v Wade… 

At the time there was a complex interaction over abortion among activists, interest groups, legislatures, governors, and courts being played out in several states. The was sparked by the July 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, which opened the door for states to test the limits of how far they could in restriction access to abortion…

While this law, like others in the race to overturn Roe, was a local response to national policy development, it was embedded in growing local frustration over the impasse with the U.S. Congress to act on Guam’s proposal to change its political status. The signing of this bill and the appeal of the lower court’s decision all the way to the Supreme Court provided a high-profile opportunity of Guam’s governor to link his personal moral justification for the ban on abortion with a broader political case. (emphases added)

- Asian/Pacific Islands American Women: A Historical Anthology, Chamorro Women, Self-Determination and the Politics of Abortion in Guam, Vivian Loyola Dames, Pg 366 (Link to Google Book)

All of the above is not only an "easy search," it was also huge news at the time and certainly within the memory of the AG. We are waiting to hear what's next.

PARKINSON IS A COWARD

A Guam Daily Post news story shows a picture of Sen. William Parkinson joining the protest against Atty. General Doug Moylan who recently filed papers with the District Court of Guam to remove the injunction on "Belle's Law." 

What a joke.

Parkinson is the one person on that sidewalk who actually has the power and the authority to make Moylan's action entirely moot. 

As a sitting senator, Parkinson can and should introduce a bill to make abortion as legal as he and his abortion buddies want it to be. 

But Parkinson is a coward. 

Which is why he would rather stand on a sidewalk and wave. 

MOYLAN POKES THE TOAD

By Tim Rohr

The Pacific Daily News headline reads: 

AG asks court to let 1990 abortion ban take effect. 

At the risk of sounding technical or even trite, the headline is wrong. Attorney General Doug Moylan did not "ask" to the court to do anything. In fact, no party to a court action - who knows what they're doing - ever "asks" the court to do anything. 

What Moylan did do was "move" the court to do something, and it's right there in the first sentence of the filing:

"...the Attorney General of Guam moves this Court for an order vacating the permanent injunction entered in this matter on August 23, 1990..."

While "move" vs "ask" may seem a non issue to lay people (which is probably why the PDN phrased it that way), the difference is not unimportant. 

The courts serves the people and not the other way around. Using "ask" instead of "move" implies that the court is some sort of royalty. It isn't. Judges sit on benches, not thrones. 

As Tall Tales talk show host, Bob Klitzkie, consistently points out: "the court is like a big toad that just sits there until you poke it." 

Moylan's filing does not ask or beg the court. It pokes it. 

THERE STILL ARE NO DOCTORS WILLING TO DO THEM

By Tim Rohr

Kandit News has published a story titled: "Guam pro-life advocates place their hopes in Douglas Moylan following gubernatorial threat to veto Heartbeat Act" in which I am quoted. Thank you Troy for the reference and the accurate quote. 

AG Moylan's lifting of the injunction on the 1990 "Belle's Law" is the right thing to do, not just because it outlaws abortion from conception, but because doing so will put the whole matter back where it now belongs: before the lawmakers and the people who elect them. 

If the 37th Guam Legislature wants to pass a bill making abortion fully legal then we have a governor eager to sign it. However, even though abortion remains fully legal now, there still are no doctors willing to do them. 

And "why not" is a question that needs to be put to those physicians who publicly advocate for abortion. Maybe we can find out the real reason they won't do them. 

A MORAL CONUNDRUM ANSWERED and "BOTH-AND" or "EITHER-OR" ??? - ABORTION IN GUAM

During his talk show on The Point on Dec. 13, the show's host, Bob Klitzkie, brought up an important moral conundrum, which, paraphrased, goes like this:

1. Abortion is currently legal up until birth.
2. A bill is introduced to ban abortion with no exceptions.
3. There are 15 senators who will vote on the bill.
4. 7 senators are in favor and 7 senators are opposed.
5. One senator, the deciding vote, is in favor of the ban so long as there are exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.
6. The senators who support the full abortion ban believe life begins at conception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason is always wrong. (1)
7. Can the 7 senators who believe life begins at conception and abortion under any circumstance is always the killing of an innocent, defenseless, human being accept the holdout senator's exceptions in order to at least limit abortion, or is their acceptance of those exceptions morally evil in that they would materially cooperate in the killing of an innocent, defenseless human being?

Fortunately, at least for Catholics, this conundrum has already been answered. Pope John Paul II addressed this very issue in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life - 1995):

PLAN "D" - "D" FOR DOUG

AG-Elect Douglas Moylan

Post-Dobbs, much is being made of "Belle's Law," a 1990 law introduced by the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola banning abortion and a law that still remains in the Guam code, but enjoined pursuant to Roe v Wade. 

In the wake of Dobbs (overturning Roe) controversy over Belle's Law was recently heightened after the incumbent Attorney General, Leevin Camacho - who opined that the injunction should remain, was defeated by incoming Attorney General, Doug Moylan, who has stated he will lift the injunction making Belle's Law outlawing abortion the law of Guam. 

For pro-lifers, the late senator is a saint, and she in fact may be. However,  as history and government abortion reports show, Belle's Law and its aftermath inadvertently opened the door to unopposed and unregulated abortion in Guam for the next 28 years.

The short version is this. 

Belle's Law provoked a constitutional challenge which GovGuam never had a chance of winning and cost Guam taxpayers millions of dollars. The legal mess and costs created a chilling effect on any future efforts to legislatively address abortion in Guam for nearly the next three decades.