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. 

SENATOR PARKINSON'S "HAND JERKING MOTION"

By Tim Rohr

"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."

https://www.guamlegislature.com/37th_Guam_Legislature/COR_Res_37th/Res.%20No.%20579-37%20(COR).pdf 

For the story, see SENATOR PARKINSON'S "GLOCK-MOMENT"? - PROBABLY NOT

WHO NOT! TO VOTE FOR

By Tim Rohr

Around every local election I receive several inquiries about who to vote for. The reason is The Esperansa Project used to poll candidates on where they stood on moral issues, particularly abortion. In the past we had some clear lines which could be drawn based on the voting records of candidates running for re-election, and on how new candidates said they would vote on proposed legislation - legislation The Esperansa Project would propose. 

The main thing we did NOT do was ask a candidate if he or she was "pro-life." That word means nothing. Heck, even Nancy Pelosi swears to be "pro-life" because she is against the death penalty. You see how screwed up that word becomes? Especially since we have a pope who has made the death penalty, anti-illegal immigration, and not being "green" new sins.

For the last few election cycles I have been busy with other matters, including ridding our local church of some pretty bad actors as well as fixing some personal issues. However, this election, it's not hard. We haven't had to propose any legislation to force candidates to take sides. 

Senators Fisher and Parkinson have introduced the most radical pro-abortion legislation, not just in Guam, but in the entire nation. And beyond their deadly bills, Fisher has tried to slip money to abortion advocate extraordinaire, Jayne Flores, through his sham "doula" bill. And when that got shot down, he tried to slip it to her again in a budget bill. 

So at least we know who NOT to vote for.

Sadly, they'll probably get re-elected because as the otherwise nice-guy new archbishop said in his recent message to voters:

Despite being a predominantly “Catholic” island, Guam does not seem to be authentically pro- life. Pro-abortion legislation is continually promoted and passed by pro-abortion leaders. The number of pro-life people from our Catholic Church and other religious denominations who courageously speak up for the unborn face increasingly strong opposition by many who hail abortion loudly or who remain silent and look the other way.

Because he's a nice-guy, the archbishop says "seem to be." Such a characterization is demonstrably false given Guam's history of electing and re-electing the most vicious advocates of abortion and our record of slaughter - particularly by mostly Catholic CHamoru's of their own.

LINK

SENATOR PARKINSON'S "GLOCK-MOMENT"? - PROBABLY NOT

By Tim Rohr

Radio talk-show host, Ray Gibson, wondered out loud if this was Senator Parkinson's "Glock-moment," an allusion to the "moment" when then-gubernatorial candidate, Ray Tenorio, doomed his prospects for the island's highest office when he jokingly pulled a gun from a police officer's holster at a public event. 

The recording of the session doesn't show the actual "gesture," but it's pretty clear what happened.

SEN. BROWN: That's the difference between experience and the lack thereof.

(Brown sees the gesture and pauses)

SEN. BROWN: I hope the people of Guam saw that gesture, Senator Park-in-son.

(Parkinson is seeing walking out of the session hall.)

SEN. TAITAGUE: Senator Parkinson, I'm sure there are many people up in the audience that just saw what you did. That was definitely out of order. I'm going to take a short minute recess.

SEN. TAITAGUE: We had an inappropriate gesture from Mr. Parkinson which was uncalled for and I apologize for that, Senator Brown, for that gesture. And I know that the mayors up there saw that as well as the employees. And I apologize to you who are up there (motioning to the gallery) who saw that gesture. I greatly apologize for that. It was uncalled for. So other than that I will allow Senator Brown to continue. Thank you.

Sadly, given the moral state of Guam, a community which demonstrably, if not radically embraces abortion, both in its overwhelming support and election of its government officials, especially the governor, and the obvious piles of dead babies as demonstrated by a decade of abortion reports, Parkinson's "gesture" will probably get him re-elected, given that, along with Sen. Fisher, he is one of the most radically pro-abortion lawmakers not just in Guam, but in the entire country. 

SOURCE

 

AND THE CHAMORU WILL BE NO MORE

By Tim Rohr

An interesting thing showed up in the Guam Daily Post today (Friday, Sep. 15, 2023), and here it is:

I am not familiar with the goings-on of the Guam Election Commission and am a bit in the dark as to why said Commission would have a discussion relative to Bill 106-37 on its agenda for its next Regular Meeting. So let's explore.

Note: I'll leave item IX. Legal Counsel, for later.

First, what is Bill 106-37?

As set forth in the above agenda, Bill 106-37 is:

AN ACT TO PROVIDE A LEGISLATIVE SUBMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION BY GUAM VOTERS AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION; AND TO PROVIDE GUAM VOTERS THE POWER TO DECIDE ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.

The bill is authored and sponsored by Senators Tom Fisher and Tina Rose Muna-Barnes.

Fisher has nicknamed the bill the "You Decide" bill since it proposes a referendum which pushes the issue directly to the voters and away from the legislature.

But what is the issue?

Fisher and Barnes further confound the issue by proposing, in the legislation, a so-called short title, which is: 

"The Health Protection Act of 2023"

However, the Fisher/Barnes bill has nothing to do with health or protection and everything to do with eviscerating just about every legal protection for the unborn and their mothers:

Legislative Findings and Intent. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act to allow health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations or requirements that single out abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures and do not significantly advance reproductive health or the safety of abortion services and make abortion services more difficult to access. - LINK

Compare the "purpose" of the bill to what its authors want to call it: 

"The Health Protection Act of 2023."

Why not call it "The Abortion Protection Act of 2023?" That's exactly what it is. But of course Fisher and Barnes didn't and they won't. 

All pro-aborts must hide their real lust for "murdering babies" as Sen. Telo Taitague recently and rightly termed it, behind "1984-ish" double-speak. 

But this "double-speak" appears to be why the bill is on the GEC agenda. 

Per 3 GCA § 16105. Preparation of Ballot Title by Election Commission:

The Election Commission shall provide a ballot title for each initiative, referendum or legislative submission to be submitted to the voters within ten (10) days after the measure is certified for a position on the ballot, and publish said title once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation on Guam. The ballot title may differ from the legislative or other title of the measure, and shall express the purpose of the measure in not more than one hundred (100) words. The Election Commission shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title shall not be an argument, or likely to create prejudice either for or against the measure. (Emphases added)

So there it is. Since Fisher and Barnes have thrown off their "legislative yoke" (and what they are being paid for) by shoving this issue onto the voters, by law, the Guam Election Commission gets to "pull back the curtain" on Fisher and Barnes and bare their "murdering babies" bill (again, see Telo) in words the electorate can plainly read and understand.

Of course we don't know if the GEC will do this, but here's hoping they will. 

Meanwhile, Fisher and Barnes have nothing to worry about. Stat after stat, report after report, election after election, affirms, confirms, and re-affirms and confirms that the majority of Guam voters, the majority of whom are communion-going Catholics, will support abortion on demand. 

There is nothing to fear. Fisher and Barnes (and their sidekick Parkinson) will be the heroes of the CHamoru Self-Extermination Project (since 2/3 of abortions are of children of CHamoru ethnicity), and Micronesians or Koreans or Chinese or Filipinos or whoever will happily reproduce themselves into the majority and the CHamoru will be no more. 

And you voted for this Guam. 

SEN. FISHER: ROSARY IS "WEAPON OF VIOLENCE"

By Tim Rohr

The following was posted on Kandit News one day ago:

Fisher tells pro-life advocate the Rosary is a weapon of violence. • By Troy Torres

 

The debate between proponents and opponents of the legalization of abortion often becomes scandalized by overzealous overtures from both sides. And just when you thought you've heard it all, in comes pro-choice activist Thomas Fisher, a senator in the Guam Legislature, to make an allegation that I'm sure we haven't heard before.

According to Sharon O'Mallan, in a heated meeting with the senator, he shouted at her and another woman, "You people holding up your rosaries in front of an abortion clinic ... very intimidating and violent!"

"I was shocked, and so was the woman with me," Ms. O'Mallan said. "We just looked at each other while he was yelling at us. I couldn't believe he actually thought these rosaries we have are weapons. We're peaceful in our protests."

"Regarding the comments of Ms. O'Mallan, Senator Fisher has no comment," the senator's chief of staff, Lloyd Cubacub said.

The confrontation, which happened in March, may be a glimpse into the what the tenor of a public hearing may be Wednesday (today) at 2 p.m. in the Guam Congress Building's public hearing room. That is when legislation by Mr. Fisher to put the question on whether the restrict abortion to a referendum of voters will be discussed.

That very legislation is what led Ms. O'Mallan to schedule a meeting with Mr. Fisher in March, when the senator first introduced the bill. The meeting quickly devolved, Ms. O'Mallan said.

"I said, 'Your bill would make abortion legal up to right before the baby is born,'" Ms. O'Mallan recounted part of their argument. "He said 'It’s the woman’s choice and none of our business,'" the woman recounted.  

"He questioned me about why I am doing this and I told him that in an abortion someone dies.   A little baby dies. I told him that this law would remove the parents' consent rights and minors could have abortion without their knowledge. He said 'Good, because then those parents won’t force their kids to stay pregnant.'  He said that if minors want an abortion they should be allowed to have an abortion," she recalled.

Ms. O'Mallan said she raised several other points of view with the senator, and that he was not amenable to any of them.

Among those points were that the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee began offering a program for women who have gone through with abortions to avail of healing services. "He blew up here in a shouted disbelieving laugh," she said.

Ms. O'Mallan is the chairwoman of the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee.

MY NOTE:

True. O'Mallan is chairwoman of the GCPLC. And this is why I MADE CERTAIN that neither I, nor anyone connected with THE ESPERANSA PROJECT was, or could be connected to the word "Catholic" or the words "Pro-Life." The issue, the KILLING of defenseless, helpless, innocent human beings, stands on its own. 

In my opinion, Guam's Catholic Church has done NOTHING to staunch the killing of its own (2/3 of abortions are of CHamoru ethnicity and therefore most likely Catholic). 

My advice to the brave women such as Ms. O'Mallan and Ms. White is to throw off the "Catholic" label and attack, attack, attack - as Ms. White so well did here and Senator Taitague did here. 

Go for it! How beautiful to see women standing up for women...and against men: Senators Fisher and Parkinson are guys (sans uteri).

FISHER AND PARKINSON'S ABORTION BILLS ATTACK WOMEN - AGNES WHITE

Agnes Malilay White, a registered nurse for four decades, testifies at today's public hearing against Senator Fisher's and Parkinson's abortion bills stating that both bills are an attack on women and women's safety. 

COUNTDOWN TO GET RID OF PARKINSON AND FISHER

By Tim Rohr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short, no one fell as fast as Rory.

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

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

Election 2024

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

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

Apparently, in Guam, it pays to kill babies.

PARKINSON WANTS QUICK, EASY, AND SILENT ACCESS TO ABORTION

 By Tim Rohr

In response to Tuesday's 9th Circuit slap-down of our District Court enjoining the enforcement of the in-person mandate relative to informed consent for abortion (here and here), yesterday, Senator Will Parkinson introduced a bill that would functionally get rid of informed consent for abortion altogether. 

A key finding in the 9th Circuit's Opinion is this:

"Guam can require an in-person consultation for abortions— but not for other medical procedures—because abortion is different, as it involves what Dobbs described as the “States’ interest in protecting fetal life."

It is clear that Parkinson has no interest in protecting fetal life. 

Such blatant disregard for the unborn has many pro-lifers shaking their heads, wringing their hands, and shouting "murder." But this doesn't get to the core of people like Parkinson. 

The real issue is not about fetal life or state's interest or anything of the sort. The real issue is sex without consequences, and especially when contraceptives fail, which they often do. (According to the CDC, the failure rate of condoms, the most common contraceptive device, is 13%, or 1 out of 8 times.)

So a man cheating on his wife or helping himself to the victims of sex-trafficking, needs quick, easy, and silent access to abortion to cover his filthy tracks. Parkinson's bill aims to ensure that. 

+++++

Bob Klitzkie, on yesterday's Tall Tales, engages Parkinson's bill beginning here. 

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. 

WHO IS RUNNING THIS PLACE ANYWAY?

By Tim Rohr

As a postscript to the previous post PARKINSON WIMPS OUT, this writer asks: WHY IS PARKINSON CONSULTING WITH THE ACLU? 

Per the PDN news story:

“Today, I was originally going to announce an introduction of a bill that would repeal Public Law 20-134. However, after having consultation with the ACLU, I decided to hold off on this decision in order to allow the situation to play out in the courts,” Parkinson said Thursday.

The ACLU's lawsuit is about the in-person mandate required by Guam's informed consent for abortion law. The suit has nothing to do with P.L. 20-134, "Belle's Law." In fact the ACLU suit was initiated several months before the Dobb's decision overturning Roe that brought the long-enjoined "Belle's Law" to the fore as an issue.

So why is Parkinson consulting with the ACLU about a completely different issue. Who is running this place anyway? And is the ACLU now running Parkinson?

Let's not hear of any talk of "independence for Guam" from senators like Parkinson who must "run to papa" before they make a move. 

PARKINSON WIMPS OUT

By Tim Rohr

Sen. Will Parkinson is right about one thing. 

From the Pacific Daily News story:

Although the 1990 law calls for a voter referendum, Parkinson said he does not want the matter to go to a public vote.

“I don’t agree with the idea of a referendum as a lawmaker, because we were elected by the people of Guam to make the hard decisions,” Parkinson said.

“(If) every time we have a difficult decision like abortion, we stick it to the people, then what are we here for? … Let’s make a decision and not pass the buck.” 

Parkinson is absolutely right. Enough of the cowards in the legislature. What do they get paid for if not "to make hard decisions?" 

He WAS also right about his intent to introduce a bill to repeal "Guam's decades old abortion ban," Public Law 20-134. Deciding what to do about an abortion law is precisely the job of the legislature. 

However, in this writer's opinion, Parkinson wimped out after apparently getting spanked by the ACLU:

"...after having consultation with the ACLU, I decided to hold off on this decision in order to allow the situation to play out in the courts...”

So after "holding court" about the duty of the legislature not to "pass the buck" to the people, Parkinson passes the buck to the courts.

Allowing "the situation to play out in the courts" is probably going to be an extremely long, drawn out, and costly affair - which it already is, all paid for of course by the people who Parkinson says should not be saddled with "the buck."

It could be of course, as radio talk show show host Bob Klitzkie points out, that Parkinson is just playing his cards in return for "earned media." But Parkinson's ducking behind the ACLU should still cost Parkinson something and not us.