THE MORE IT CHANGES, THE MORE IT STAYS THE SAME

 Posted  by Frenchie

As it is often pointed out, humans have the inherent bad habit of not learning from their own mistake.

Both Tim Rohr and myself have warned our readers for the past several years, of the dangers there are, in underestimating the Neocatechumenal Way.

After a wait of several years, the Neos came back with a bang last night, with their biggest chingding, since they were slapped down by Archbishop Hon, and limited (in theory) by Archbishop Byrnes.

The nefarious and dangerous signore Gennarini, accompanied by the ever sickly Monsignor David Quitagua, Preston Perez, Jason, and Father Arriola all gathered at the Barrigada Church, the long time hideaway of the defrocked Fr Cristobal, and met with their adoring fans, as if this was the second coming of Christ himself.

The crowd was very large.

Deacon Martinez who is officially the Vicar for the Neos, had not been warned, and learned about it through other parishioners, displeased by the event. If Deacon Martinez was not aware, chances are that the Chancery was left in the dark as well.

What is the Vicar General going to do? He is now faced with an open coup in his own courtyard, while our Archbishop is off island on medical leave.

Leave it to crooked Gennarini to recognize a great opportunity to land back on Guam with absolutely no opposition, and demonstrating that the emperor has no clothes.

By trying to be inclusive with the Neos, and being a "good sport" Archbishop Byrnes gave an impression of weakness. Fr Concovar might be a nice priest, but in this case he is way out of his depth.

You better pray for Guam, the great deceiver is back.

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 8: THE FIST PUMP

By Tim Rohr

CONTINUED FROM PART 7

Even though Archbishop Hon figures largely in this series, the object of this narrative isn't to personally disparage Hon. Hon was a pawn in a much larger Vatican chess game and he really had no idea of who the players were on the other side of the board, i.e. the lay people of the Archdiocese of Agana. How Hon was a pawn, though not quite an innocent one, will be demonstrated as this series unfolds.  

Also, the object of this series is not to retell the history of all that happened in this archdiocese between July of 2013, when Apuron ambushed Fr. Paul Gofigan, * and the coming forth - three years later - of the original Apuron accusers. That's all been told in the previous series ORCHESTRATED.

* "It is to your advantage to resign immediately, rather than experience a more arduous and painful closure to your assignment at Santa Barbara Church." - Apuron letter to Gofigan, July 16, 2013. The full story of Apuron v Gofigan has its own series here.

The object of this series (however long it may be since the matter is still ongoing) is to get to the bottom of who is REALLY responsible for the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana and the loss of so many properties given to the Church by so many trusting lay Catholics over many decades - who only gave out of love for their Catholic Faith and not to this or that cleric.

Not to get to the bottom of this and to hold it up in plain sight is to put a bandaid on cancer, a cancer which is still very much here...and waiting.

The focus in this series is on Hon because Hon was the Apostolic Administrator at the time the whole clergy sex abuse thing blew up from a single accusation from one guy, Roy Quintanilla, who hadn't lived in Guam in decades, into a a full blown legislative process that lifted the civil statute of limitation on sex crimes against minors and opened the door for what became the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana.

The amazing parts of this story are at the beginning and the end.

Roy had only wanted to privately speak with Apuron about his alleged abuse, which means this whole tragedy never had to go beyond a 30 minute meeting between Roy and Apuron. And in the end, there were solid legal arguments that could have been made before the federal court, but weren't, that would have protected parish properties. See the post: Note to Parishioners

In other words, none of this needed to happen. But it did. So let's review how it happened in order to keep our finger on the real perps - and I'm not even referring to the guilty clerics.

*****

After John Toves was run off "The Hill" (aka The Chancery) and threatened with police action by the now ex-Fr. Adrian Cristobal in December 2014, it became insufferably clear that Apuron and his people meant to crush anyone and everyone with the same "arduous and painful" experience that Apuron had threatened Gofigan with in 2013 - not to mention the public burning of Msgr. James Benavente on a public media stake the following year.

Still, after Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, and Roland Sondia, Apuron's initial accusers - in the wake of The Toves Apocalypse - had confidentially made their stories known to myself and a very few others who these three cautiously came to trust, all three were adamant about not going public and reiterated their desire to simply meet personally with Apuron and share their stories and grief with him in the hopes of getting an apology and an offer to quietly reconcile.

But then The Diana became a factor. The Diana was (and may still be) a Neocat blog run by the pseudonymous "Diana." Since the Gofigan thing, The Diana had been attacking anyone and everyone who brought the smallest question up about the Neocatechumenal Way or Archbishop Apuron, and The Toves Apocalypse had been fresh meat for Diana.

It's not that we cared about The Diana or anything she said, but it became very clear that The Diana was really just the mouth of the same puppet masters who were pulling Apuron's strings, and we knew exactly where those strings led: first to a renegade monk name Pius and then to his bosses in the Neocat hierarchy - whom shall be revealed in due course.

*****

Given the ramped up attacks from The Diana, by May of 2016, it had become clear that the only way for Roy, Walter, and Roland to confront Apuron would have to be publicly. 

There was no law at the time which would permit Apuron's accusers to sue him. So Apuron could have just blown it off as false accusations and there would have been nothing these three men could have done about it. Apuron could have gone on ruling happily ever after, as he had done for three decades. 

A decision was made by those us who were helping Roy, Walter, and Roland to not bring all three men forward at once. The idea was to give Apuron a chance to respond to Roy and for Roy to have a chance to do what he wanted to do from the beginning: just sit down with Apuron. Had Apuron handled the matter this way, it might have all been over before it began.

But he (Apuron) didn't.

 Roy came forward publicly on May 17, 2016. 

Apuron immediately went on the attack. Some of it was downright comical if not sad. Apuron's handlers staged a video report featuring Deacon Frank Tenorio who had been at the Agat parish where Roy alleged he had been abused in the 1970's. 

Tenorio swore on screen to Apuron's innocence but unfortunately the guy who staged the video, a certain Fr. Edivaldo, via his silhouette, was seen pacing behind Tenorio and then fist-pumping on the video Edivaldo sent to the media. Then after fist-pump was featured on this blog, Edivaldo edited out the fist pump and sent it to the media again. 

If there was a chance that Apuron could be believed, it was pretty much destroyed by the Tenorio video and the Edivaldo fist-pump. It was clear that the inmates were running the asylum. 

Meanwhile, it appears that Apuron, after making his own video earlier that evening protesting his innocence, had hopped a plane to Rome, because one, Apuron disappeared from public view in Guam after May 17, and two, Apuron showed up in a series of photos taken by a Vatican photographer during a public meet and greet with the pope on May 26, 2016:

 

Normally, the pope greets visiting bishops during his weekly public audiences and the usual niceties are exchanged. But the pics of Apuron and the pope in this series are very different. Apuron appears very distressed, and so does the pope. 

Apparently Apuron was hoping to rally the pope to his defense before things got out of hand in Guam, but crashing a papal greeting line is a very strange way to do it. It's quite obvious Apuron was in grave distress. 

But the question is "why?" 

There had only been one accusation from one guy who hadn't live in Guam in 40 years. Why would that send Apuron running to Rome to crash a papal greeting line - unless of course Apuron knew what was coming.

TO BE CONTINUED-PART 8

LLG V ST. PAUL. GOD HELP US.

"Why the majority of the people voted for her is still an open question." 

- Bob Klitzkie on Tall Tales this past Friday.

Bob had just finished his regular Friday segment wherein he replays the video-recording of the now-governor's testimony at a legislative public hearing in 2013 relative to a bill in which she argues against providing normal medical care to children who survive failed abortions. 

Functionally the governor's testimony was: LET THOSE BABIES DIE. 

The larger question behind Bob's question is why would the "majority of the people" vote for a governor (twice now) who has been radically and publicly supportive - for a very long time - of what amounts to a vicious and concerted genocide of her own people, and wherein her own people support (i.e. their votes in the last two elections) said GENOCIDE. 

SOURCE

To complicate the question, (or rather Question No. 2) the governor is an aggressive advocate of all things CHamoru even while she viciously pursues an agenda that has already monstrously devastated the same CHamoru (population) - which brings to mind the immortalized lament of the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola when she attempted to stop the murder of the "CHamoru" in 1990:

"Let me tell you, at the rate Guam Memorial Hospital is aborting children, between 400-600 a year, and most of them are not even reported. Where are the lives that we are going to protect and preserve? Here we go talking about indigenous rights and self-determination. What good is all that if we don't have our followers to follow and enjoy the fruits of our labor, of this generation's labor, of your labor and my labor to fix this island and have autonomous rights to govern our people?"

 - quoted in: Asian/Pacific Islander American Women: A Historical Anthology, pg. 372, edited by Shirley Hume, Gail M. Nomura

Complication No. 3 would be the fact that the population of Guam is reportedly 85% Catholic. 

To be clear, the following is copied directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is functionally the compendium of unchanging Catholic teaching, i.e. one is not Catholic if one does not wholly subscribe to the following:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 

75 Didache 2,2:SCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19,5:PG 2 777; Ad Diognetum 5,6:PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9:PL 1,319-320.

76 GS 51 § 3.

77 CIC, can. 1398.

78 CIC, can. 1314.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992 Edition) footnotes the issue of abortion to the "Didache" since the Didache is considered to be one of the most ancient and original sources of Catholic teaching - even before the name "Catholic" came to be attached to Christianity. 

So let's repeat the Didache:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Given Guam's fawning over the "Kamalen's" hair every Dec. 8 and all the other ritual paraphernalia relative to Guam's purported ritual, cultural, and historical attachment to Catholicism, we have to ask the following WHY's?

Kamareras protect Santa Marian Kamalen as she protects Guam - PDN. 

1. Why are the same "Catholic" CHamoru's aborting their babies at a genocidal rate?
2. Why are the same (some of the same) CHamoru's who ritually brush the Madonna's hair every Dec. 8, wholly politically aligned with the party of the current governor who unashamedly assails the unborn at the aforesaid genocidal rate.
3. Why does this same governor continue to be permitted to present herself for Holy Communion before the Archbishop of Agana - or his delegate - AND proudly, at the Cathedral Church of the Archdiocese of Agana, on TV, and without impunity?

SOURCE

The cynics among us could certainly speculate that it is because the governor owns the bank which functionally owns the archdiocese - but that's another story. Or maybe not. Nevertheless, we will deal with that another time.

So, we go on. 

THE SHORT ANSWER

The "short answer" is that the "people of Guam, " and specifically the majority of Guam Catholics, DO NOT CARE. 

They DO NOT CARE about abortion as a political, moral, or religious issue. THAT'S THE FACTS. The numbers do not lie. 

In the past two gubernatorial elections, the Guam public, 85% of whom are Catholics, had very clear choices between a vicious advocate of death in the womb (the current governor), and a serious pro-life champion, Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr. - the very senator, who in 2013, set forth the bill to provide normal medical care for children who survived failed abortions: living children who lay writhing and crying on the same table upon which they were supposed to have been delivered dead.

But OOPS. 

They were not dead.

Yet.

Nevertheless, Guam's mostly Catholic population has now twice elected the most vicious baby killer in Guam's history to be their governor, while said baby-killer governor presents herself proudly, and without compunction or impunity, for reception of Holy Communion at the altar of Guam's own Cathedral church, and, whereupon said governor is happily presented, at Holy Communion, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity or our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - who suffered and died, nailed to a cross, as innocent and as brutally murdered as these voiceless victims of the womb.

Informed Catholics in Guam - of whom there are apparently few... even amongst our Catholic clergy who smilingly present the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to our duly elected "Catholic" governor, can't help but recall the words of St. Paul:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (My note: Sleep = DIE.)

One might wonder what has befallen our Catholic Church in Guam via the horrific consequences of clergy sex abuse and the resultant bankruptcy which shall see the alienation of more than EIGHTY church properties, including several beloved church properties

However, some of us see this sore judgment as God's recompense for electing and re-electing Guam's most brutal anti-life governor by the very people who swear to their Catholicism - but prefer their politics. 

God help us.

But he probably won't. 

Not now.

THE LONGER ANSWER - TO BE CONTINUED

 

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 7: THE TOVES APOCALYPSE

By Tim Rohr

CONTINUED FROM PART 6

Note: Apocalypse (from Ancient Greek ἀποκάλυψις (apokálupsis) 'revelation, disclosure'), and has come to be synonymous with "an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale."

Before going on with what I'm going to call "The Hon Dynasty," we need to review the backstory of how the issues in the Archdiocese of Agana jumped from Apuron's local squabble with a couple of priests, that probably would have died out in a couple of months, to a clergy sex abuse crisis of catastrophic proportions - a crisis which brought Hon to Guam, and a crisis that, per capita, became 14 times the size of the crisis in the Archdiocese of Boston which led to the Academy Award winning movie "Spotlight."

*****

Even after Apuron attacked Msgr. James Benavente and kicked him out of the Cathedral - where he was both rector and functionally the pastor - the whole fiasco might have remained just a local church squabble. 

The problem was that the squabble had grown louder after Apuron further attacked Benavente publicly and in print. This caused the laity to mobilize both in support of Benavente but also in reaction to Apuron's incomprehensible actions, first against Gofigan and now Benavente.

There was a large public demonstration in support of Benavente on the steps of the Cathedral, a motorcade, and an increased interest by the local media. 

Benavente was well-connected and well-liked, and he had the immediate support of many, but nothing any of Benavente's close associates did or said appeared to give Apuron pause. In fact, Apuron (or really his people) ramped up their attacks in response to the defense of Benavente.

However, these ramped up attacks created the ever increasing din that eventually was heard across the Pacific and began to raise ghosts from both Benavente and Apuron's past, one of whom was John Toves. 

Toves first approached me anonymously through a comment on this blog. In the comment he accused Apuron of sexually molesting his relative. I posted back that if the "commenter" wanted the comment to be public, he (I didn't know yet if the commenter was a he or she yet), would have to put his name to the comment.

John commented back that his name was John Charles Ada Toves and that Apuron had molested his relative. 

There was nothing I could do with the comment other than to leave it on the blog. John had put his name to his accusation and there it was. But I didn't need to do anything as the comments in response to John's accusation began exploding. And then, a few weeks later, in November of 2014, John called into Jesse Lujan's KUAM show and made the same accusation. This was the first time anyone had publicly accused Apuron of sex abuse - though it had been rumored for years.

The next month, John, who lived in California, came to Guam and attempted to confront Apuron on multiple occasions. Toves, in a confrontation with then-Fr. Adrian Cristobal that was memorialized in a KUAM news story, was unceremoniously thrown off "The Hill" and threatened with police action should he try again.

John Toves unable to meet with archbishop - KUAM

And it was here that Apuron made his first of many big mistakes. Certainly how he handled the Gofigan and Benavente matters was already a big mistake, but those matters would not have led to Apuron's ouster nor to the bankruptcy of the archdiocese. However, allegations of sexual abuse were a different matter. 

Toves hadn't lived in Guam since his youth and few people knew him. He had no credibility. All Apuron had to do was meet with him, say that he met with him, and say I'm sorry but Mr. Toves seems to be misinformed. Something like that. Toves then would have nowhere to go and he probably would have been refused any more airtime, especially since Toves' "relative" refused to substantiate Toves' allegation against Apuron. 

Instead, Apuron sent out Cristobal to bar Apuron's door. Sending Cristobal out to meet John was also a big mistake. John and Cristobal had been in the seminary together and each knew each other's dirty laundry. Cristobal knew how dangerous John was, not just to Apuron, but to himself. And it showed.

CONTINUED IN PART 8

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 6: HON?

By Tim Rohr

CONTINUED FROM PART 5

With another headline article in the news today about the sale of church properties "to help compensate more than 270 survivors of Guam clergy sexual assaults as far back as the 1950s," it's time to get back to the history, the real history, of how we got here because it didn't have to happen this way. And it is important that everyone in this archdiocese know and understand this BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS STILL HERE.

This is Part 6 of a multi-part story (I don't know how many parts yet), and if you missed the first five, you can go back and start here. Otherwise, let's summarize some key points before we move on:

1. The bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana did not start with allegations of sex abuse. 
2. It started with ex-Archbishop Apuron taking alarming actions, first against Fr. Paul Gofigan, and then Msgr. James Benavente.
3. The attacks on Gofigan and Benavente appeared to be orchestrated and timed (and NOT by Apuron, which is critical to understanding the rest of the story).
4. To those of us who looked closer, it appeared that Apuron, who would reach mandatory episcopal retirement age (75) in a few years, was mobilizing to remove his most likely successors - who happened to not be friendly to the NCW - to ensure that the next Archbishop of Agana was at least supportive of the Neocats, if not a Neocat himself - as was Apuron.
5. In the short term, this led the laity to preemptively demonstrate in support of Fr. Mike Crisostomo, who was Apuron's next likely target. (All of this is thoroughly documented on this blog and at some point I may come back and link this all. But for now, if you want, you can search.)
6. Meanwhile, just about everyone knew that Apuron was not in charge of anything. And the Gofigan and Benavente fiascos laid wide open the Thing that most everyone had suspected for years: 
7. Apuron - and the Archdiocese of Agana - were being run by the Neocat hierarchy, i.e. "the Kiko's", through the person of now ex-Fr. Adrian Cristobal who was then our Chancellor, and the key "priest" who had brought the NCW to Guam in 1995. (How and why Cristobal did this is a matter for another story - though it is already well-documented in JW.)
8. In other words, at this point, Apuron was nothing but a rubber stamp.
9. BUT A RUBBER STAMP FOR WHO?
10. We knew WHO. 
11. But the real question is WHY had Apuron been so easily and quickly subdued, manipulated and reduced to a mere "rubber stamp" by Cristobal and the Neocats. 
12. While this question leads us back to the story as set forth here in Part 6 of this absurd drama, it is important to note going forward that Cristobal had already long since known of the grotesque matters that have now brought the Archdiocese of Agana to its bankruptcy knees - and where the innocent laity are being made to pay and NOT the PERPS!

PART 6

Not everything can be documented as to why Hon went on the attack. Some of it was hearsay. And it went like this: 

Abuse victims (and not just Apuron's) would meet with Hon and Hon would basically blow them off with a patronizing lecture about "forgiveness." Again, this is hearsay, but it's pretty close "hearsay," as people who met personally with Hon would later share their frustration with me (Tim Rohr). 

Which is why, the lay picketers in from of the Cathedral every Sunday began to carry signs picketing Hon as well as Apuron:

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 7

OUR DESPERATELY GRASPING GOVERNOR

By Tim Rohr

In opposing Moylan, Leslie Travis, the governor's lawyer, argued that subsequent laws on abortion have resulted in the implied repeal of the 1990 ban, holding the motion to vacate moot. - Guam Daily Post, Mar. 2, 2023)

No media stories thus far have identified which "subsequent laws on abortion" "have resulted in the implied repeal of the 1990 ban." 

However, the Guam Supreme Court Order does:

The Governor is asking whether the Women’s Reproductive Health Information Act of 2012, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2009, and the enactment of 19 GCA §§ 4A101-102, 4A107, and 4A109 served as implied repeals of P.L. 20-134. (Links added.)

Note: 19 GCA §§ 4A101-102, 4A107, and 4A109 refer to Parental Consent for Abortion for minors. 

The governor's argument is that because these laws do not ban abortion but continue to allow it under certain circumstances then these laws "resulted in the implied repeal of the 1990 ban."

None of these three laws addressed the legality of abortion, which is why the governor relies on the word "implied." 

The Women's Reproductive Health Information Act (informed consent for abortion) and the afore-referenced sections of the law relative to Parental Consent for Abortion did not proscribe or limit abortion access but only required the distribution of information and normal medical consent. 

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban sought only to ban a particularly heinous and gruesome abortion procedure which found its precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007) as well as the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

For the governor to hold that abortion cannot be outlawed in Guam pursuant to P.L. 20-134 because of subsequent laws would be the same as the Court in Dobbs saying "well we can't reverse Roe because the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, other than banning a particular procedure, still allowed for abortion generally."

The analogy is absurd and so is the governor's desperate grasping for a reason to keep killing babies - mostly CHamoru babies. 

Note: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2009, was the first legislation to address abortion in Guam since 1990. The Legislative Findings and Intent are worth revisiting. 

§91A102. Legislative Findings and Intent. I Liheslaturan Guahan finds that a moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. The passage by the 108th Congress with the President signing the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 into law provides a legal direction for Guam to ban partial- birth abortions.

I Liheslaturan Guahan further finds that on March 18, 2007, the United States Supreme Court upheld this position in Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007), ruling that the State may prohibit partial-birth abortions that do not include the maternal "health" exception. The language in this bill stems from and uses as its primary influence the language of the federal "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. §153I", upheld in Gonzales.

Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the long-term health of women. It is not an abortion procedure that is universally embraced by the mainstream medical community.

Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, "there are very few, if any, indications for other than for delivery of a second twin"; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding and subsequent shock. As a result, at least thirty-one (31) States have enacted bans of "partial-birth" abortions, as did the 104th, 105th, 106th and 108th Congresses, and the President, upon signing of the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" into law.

There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-review journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures.

In light of the overwhelming evidence, Guam has an interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. Both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casev, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) recognized a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process. This interest arises during a partial-birth abortion because labor is induced and the birth process has begun. Partial-birth abortions kill a child that is mere inches away from becoming a "person" under Roe. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.

The public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process is undermined by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child inches from "personhood and the resulting protections conferred upon the fully born child.

Partial-birth abortion is disturbingly similar to the killing of a newborn infant and blurs the line between infanticide and abortion. This legislation reinforces the line at birth between abortion and infanticide that the Supreme Court established in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). This legislation draws a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.

The  vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive up through the very end of the procedure. It is a medical fact that unborn infants subjected to partial-birth abortion can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli. Furthermore, an unborn child's perception of pain is even more than that of newborn infants and older children.

I Liheslaturan Guahan, for these reasons, finds that partial-birth abortion is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.

The above graphic was used by The Esperansa Project in its testimony to the Legislature during the public hearing for the bill. What the graphic doesn't show is the child's shock when the physician stabs the child in the back of the skull, then tears a hole in the child's skull large enough to insert a vacuum tube to suck the child's brains out. 

READ THE GUAM SUPREME COURT ORDER HERE

REQUEST OF LOURDES A. LEON ) GUERRERO, I MAGA’HÅGAN ) GUÅHAN, RELATIVE TO THE )VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF PUBLIC LAW NO. 20-134.

READ THE ORDER

DEATH PENALTY: TOO BAD "IL PAPA" DID NOT MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT

By Tim Rohr

On Monday, Feb. 27, at about 1:44:30 on Tall Tales hosted by Bob Klitzkie, a caller brought up the issue of "Capital Punishment." 

As I was not able to hear the entire show, I do not know the context in which the caller brought up the topic. 

Nevertheless, the call afforded Mr. Klitzkie the opportunity to restate why he is OPPOSED to Capital Punishment...and I agree with all three.

In summary, and you can listen to Mr. Klitzkie's summary here, Klitzkie's three reasons are:

1. Opposition to Statism: the STATE determines who lives and who dies.
2. Capital Punishment is Final - which relates to reason No. 3
3. Many on Death Row are wrongly CONVICTED and Wrongly EXECUTED - and said wrong convictions and executions CANNOT be reversed.

As a footnote, new technologies, such as the advancement in DNA evidence, are opening new doors that have heretofore never been opened, i.e. HOW WRONG we could be - and have been - on so many now-executed inmates, not to mention those still on Death Row. 

So for that reason alone I agree with Klitzkie that Capital Punishment should be permanently abolished. 

Too bad the POPE did not listen to TALL TALES. He should. He should also read JW. 

TO BE CONTINUED

CHEMICAL ABORTION - THE FDA CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE

While the issue of chemical abortion in Guam - or more precisely - the requirement for performance of the informed consent component of the law before baby-killing chemicals can be administered, has now worked its way up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, two lawsuits relative to chemical abortions, with national implications, are also working their way through the courts.

The first is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

Information on exactly what this lawsuit is about is difficult to find since the usual Media is pretty much ignoring the facts of the suit and appears to be much more interested in hanging the word "Trump" around the judge's neck in this matter. 

So here's what the Alliance website says:

By illegally approving chemical abortion drugs, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women. The FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.

The "Alliance" website has posted all of the filings in the matter for the public to educate itself.

Meanwhile, twelve "blue states" are suing the same FDA for placing “'burdensome restrictions' on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a chemical abortion," according to the Daily Caller.

Note that the Daily Caller properly refers to the use of drugs to end a pregnancy as a "chemical abortion," and not a "medical abortion," as the pro-aborts adamantly term it. Medicine is meant to cure and promote health, not kill someone. Chemicals can do either.

The Caller says this about the suit from the "blue" states:

Twelve blue states filed a lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for placing “burdensome restrictions” on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a chemical abortion.

The lawsuit claims that current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions on mifepristone, which include limits on “who can prescribe and dispense the drug” and documentation of the patient’s use “for the purpose of abortion,” violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In the same paragraph, the Caller, in an act of responsible reporting, makes known the opposite suit:

The debate around abortion pills is increasingly prompting legal action from states, lawmakers and advocacy organizations, with nearly every state taking sides in a separate Texas case brought by pro-life medical organizations against the FDA that could overturn the agency’s approval of abortion pills altogether.

The Caller then goes on to note:

An amicus brief filed in the Texas case by Human Coalition notes that there have been “1,048 hospitalizations, 604 blood transfusions, and 414 infections (including 71 severe infections)—with a total of 4,213 adverse events” reported after using the pill as of June 2022. Other opponents cite concerns of coercion that could result from dispensing the pill without restrictions.

***** 

SOMETHING PERSONAL

Now, please permit me to personally wander into a bit of common sense - or just stop reading here. 

• Every living thing is designed to reproduce. Designed by who or what is a different matter.
• Since reproduction is the most basic function of every living thing, it is also the most natural.
• Anything that interrupts this most natural function is by definition: contrary to nature. 
• Anything contrary to nature usually has a consequence - a damaging one (i.e. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature").
• When a woman becomes pregnant, everything in her body "naturally" orients itself to support that new life. (Of course there are exceptions. But they are exceptions.)
• To suddenly and violently interrupt a pregnancy, regardless of how it is done, suddenly and violently interrupts nature at its most primitive and basic level: the life impulse - "the force" itself...if we want to avoid religious language.
• Abortion is an absolute abuse of one's body, no different than abuse via alcohol, narcotics, gluttony, sloth, or any other life-damaging things. (This assumes that the person procuring the abortion insists that it is "her body.")
• Nature will require a price. Just like those things.
• And a price will be paid.
• To the intelligent, there is no need for "studies." As a wise man once said: "God forgives. Man forgives. Nature NEVER forgives."

But just in case you are looking for studies to refute what I have just shared, never mind. I've already done it. It either won't be found or it will be contradicted. Abortion is a politically protected issue, so we really can't expect the truth from anyone or anywhere. However, the point is: listen to your body, listen to "nature." And ask yourself the question: "Since when is ingesting chemicals to counter if not attack what my body is designed to do naturally a good thing?"

Spoken "like a man?" Yes.

MEANWHILE IN CHINA

While Guam Governor Lou Leon Guerrero is doing everything from begging baby killers to come to Guam to pestering the Supreme Court to what appears to be a clandestine effort to create a rigged scenario to get the ACLU to sue ourselves, China, which has killed babies for decades under its One Child Policy, is suddenly scrambling to up its birth rate.  

Why One of China’s Largest Provinces Is Lifting Birth Limits—Even for Unmarried Parents

- Time

A Chinese city is offering couples almost $2,900 to have a third child and some others are giving newlyweds paid marriage leave to help boost the birth rate

- Business Insider

Chinese localities introduce, expand financial incentives for having more children

- Global Times

China Province: Single Women Can Legally Have Babies

- VOA News

WHY OUR PEWS ARE EMPTY - PERHAPS

By Tim Rohr

I have referenced this Guam Daily Post story in previous posts. However, there are a few other things in the same story that I want to address and shall do here. Excerpts from the Post story are indented and in bold and my comments follow. Highlights are my emphases. 

I. 

"The 1990 Legislature didn’t have the authority to criminalize abortion health care or speech regarding this care in the first place. The arguments that this “ban” could be enforced over 30 years later doesn’t make any sense, especially when we now have several other laws that clearly permit abortion care. The Guam Supreme Court can now put these arguments to rest,” (Attorney Vanessa) Williams told The Guam Daily Post.

Alleging that "we now have several other laws that clearly permit abortion care," is Williams repackaging of the governor's third question submitted to the Supreme Court for declaratory judgment: 

• To the extent P.L. 20-134 is not void or otherwise unenforceable, has it been repealed by implication through subsequent changes in Guam law?

The question is a head fake by the pro-aborts and here's why.

1. Neither the Governor nor Atty. Williams identify what those "subsequent changes in Guam law" are. (So I will.) 

2. After the constitutional shelving of Belle's Law in 1990 (or soon thereafter) the issue of abortion was not addressed again until 2008 when The Esperansa Project backed a ban on partial-birth abortion - which passed unanimously and was signed into law. 

(Apologies, but I am wont to remember my own daughter's testimony at the hearing pursuant to the bill banning partial-birth abortion - a particularly horrific method of dispatching a nearly born child. As a BTW, the "Tina Blas" next to Mia, is the mother of Sen. Frank Blas, Jr., whose present position will be addressed later in this post.)

3. Then between 2008 and 2015, Esperansa backed several more bills to regulate Guam's functionally out-of-control abortion industry - which, as of 2008, and compared to a study by Americans United for Life - was the least regulated abortion industry in the nation. 

4. Eight of those bills were eventually signed into law. (A table of this legislation is set out at the end of this post.) 

5. So it must be assumed that the Governor and Atty. Williams is referring to these eight laws when the aforesaid pro-aborts refer to "subsequent changes in Guam law" (relative to abortion) and "other laws that clearly permit abortion..." ...since there are no other "laws."

6. The pro-aborts, (LLG, Williams, J. Flores, et. al) are referring to language included in those laws which continued to acknowledge the then-constitutional right to an abortion APART from what those same laws sought to regulate within constitutional limits: a ban on partial-birth abortion, parental and informed consent for abortion, normal medical care for children who survived abortions, etc.

7. Language acknowledging a woman's right to abortion under Roe and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases was intentionally included in order to assure that these new laws would not suffer the same fate as "Belle's." 

8. The subject legislation (as set forth below) proscribed certain aspects of abortion and abortion procedures pursuant to concessions set forth in significant U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)  - which opened the door for state regulation of parental and informed consent and Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) - which permitted bans on certain abortion procedures. 

9. In short, this legislation included language compliant with Roe AT THE TIME because it had to. There was no intent to further enshrine the right to an abortion into law. The intent was to limit abortion to the extent it was then constitutionally possible.

10. Of course, the Governor and Williams know this. But they think we don't. In fact, it appears - given the governor's third question - they apparently think the Supreme Court Justices don't know either.

II.

While others, such as Bob Klitzkie, an attorney and former judge and senator, remain steadfast in their anti-abortion belief. His weekday radio talk show frequently covers legal and policy updates on abortion nationally and locally.

While the position of the pro-aborts is characterized in terms of "rights" and "care," the position of the anti-aborts is usually sidelined as "belief" or "personal view."

Behind the pro-abort's characterization of the anti-abortion position as a "belief," is the false argument of "separation of church and state" wherein the factual position of the anti-aborts, like Mr. Klitzkie's, is reduced to just a personal opinion or a (religious) "belief."

Thankfully, Mr. Klitzkie has a forum (Tall Tales radio show on The Point) wherein he can set his own record straight.

But the rest of us do not. So for now, call into Tall Tales and go on the attack - especially when the papers don't print your letter to the editor - or wait so long that your letter is no longer relevant to the news of the day. 

Also, you can always post your comments to JW. We get nearly 20,000 views a month from every corner of the planet, which is a much larger readership than what the local media is getting. And, if your comment has significant import, we may make a post of it as well. 

III.

Klitzkie told the Post residents should not be surprised if he ends up filing an amicus brief in support of the local abortion ban, but also advocated for those who oppose abortion not just to involve themselves in the Supreme Court case, but also to push lawmakers to pass legislation to settle the matter.

Klitzkie agreed, whether a new statute solidifies the ban or repeals it, senatorial action could render the case “moot.”

“I don’t understand why people who are committed to either part of the issue would wait for the courts - that’s how we got in this mess in the first place, when the judiciary stuck its nose into something where it didn’t belong,” he said, adding that, in his opinion, lobbying the Legislature should have started “yesterday.”

He also questioned the local court taking up the case now, when another legal matter on Guam’s abortion ban is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which he argued may have “primary jurisdiction” over the matter.

“The Supreme Court could have easily declined jurisdiction or abstained, since what (a federal court judge) does could very well 'moot out' what the (Guam) Supreme Court sets out to do,” he said.

In the meantime, lawmakers “could and should” take up the issue through legislation, Klitzkie stressed.

I set out this whole section from the Post story in full to give context to the last entry: "...lawmakers 'could and should' take up the issue through legislation, Klitzkie stressed."

This is exactly the issue. 

On Tall Tales, Klitzkie further set out the problem saying that for nearly FIFTY years we have been waiting for the opportunity the Dobbs Decision has given us: the opportunity to decide the issue at the local level.

And what are our lawmakers doing? 

Running back to the Court - or more precisely running for cover.

This is why the Governor laughs at our Legislature whenever it tries to assert itself as a separate branch of government. It's not. At least not now. The Governor is playing her "lessers." She knows she's secure in her job and she knows her legislative adversaries are not. 

IV.

The Guam Daily Post reached out to Sens. Chris Duenas and Frank Blas Jr. on the matter. Duenas deferred to the AG’s position, as it is with Moylan's office and is legal in nature. 

 Sorry. But this is a "punt." Even Klitzkie, who usually holds Duenas in high regard, said on Tall Tales upon reading this: "C'mon Chris."

V.

Sen. Blas shared his personal view, which he stressed was not a reflection of the legislative body.

Sen. Blas, as the record will show, has been a real pro-life champion in the Legislature for many years. So one wonders why he now wants to separate his "personal view" from that of "the legislative body." 

Why does that matter? The whole point of a legislator's office is to assert one's personal views onto the legislative body and effect legislation said legislator was elected to do. So why the sudden timid tone from both senators?

Perhaps it is this.

Duenas and Blas, politicians who need to be re-elected every two years, are functionally numbers people. And they are not wrong. 

I'm not speaking for them, but if they've done what I've done, and that is analyze the numbers, they already know that the majority of Guam voters simply DO NOT CARE about abortion. 

This isn't a guess. 

The current Governor, Lou Leon Guerrero, who was elected and re-elected over pro-life candidates, has been the most vicious, vehement, and radical promoter of killing children in the womb - and mostly CHamoru children in the womb - than any other person in Guam's history. (See Table below: Abortions by Ethnicity.)

And Leon Guerrero has been publicly and proudly outspoken about her position since at least 1990 when she was "elected president of People for Choice (Guam's first organization) to advocate for...abortion as a fundamental right."  - Dames, Vivian Loyola, Asian/Pacific Islander American Women, Chamorro Women and the Politics of Abortion in Guam, Pg. 375

One can't help but think that Senators Duenas and Blas, despite their "personal" positions on this issue, are looking at the numbers. And the numbers show that the majority of Guamanians simply do not care about abortion as a political issue - or even a moral one - given the election and now re-election of the Catholic, communion-going governor (who, by the way, happens to "own" the bank which functionally "owns" the local Catholic Church - but that's another story.)

Also, the highest number of abortions reported in a single year was 327 in 2008. 

SOURCE

According to the 2020 Census, Guam's population is 153,836. That means that abortion affects, at most, only 0.2% of the population.

So abortion, by the numbers anyway, is simply not a political hill worth dying on.

But that is not to let our "pro-life" legislators off the hook. 

Instead of "waiting for the courts," at minimum, if they aren't going to introduce legislation, they should be arguing against the governor's misuse of 7 GCA § 4104 which licenses the governor to submit - for declaratory judgment from the Supreme Court of Guam - certain matters which are of "great public interest."

0.2% of the population does not qualify as a "matter of great public interest." 

Meanwhile, voters, especially CHamoru voters, need to take a hard look at why they continue to support this self-genocide.

SOURCE

And Catholic voters - especially clergy -  need to take a hard look at why so many Catholics don't care. Maybe our pews are empty because so many of our own never made it from the womb to the pew. 

LAWS ADDRESSING ABORTION ENACTED BETWEEN 2008 AND 2016

Public Law No.	Date Enacted	Name	Description	Original Bill No.	Sponsors	Date Introduced
P.L 29-115	Nov. 18, 2008	The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2008	“THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2008. "	Bill No. 374 (EC)	Sens. Eddie Calvo, Frank Blas, Jr., James Espaldon	Oct. 7, 2008
P.L. 31-155	Jan 4, 2012	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Parental or Guardian Consent Required for Abortion	Bill No. 323-31	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 5, 2011
P.L. 31-235	Nov. 1, 2012	The Women's Reproductive Health Information Act of 2012	Women’s informed consent required for abortion	Bill No. 54-30 & 52-31	Gov. Eddie Calvo	Jan 25, 2011
P.L. 32-090	Nov. 27, 2013	Infant Child’s Right to Life Act	AN ACT RELATIVE TO PROTECTING INFANTS WHO ARE BORN ALIVE AS A RESULT OF AN ABORTION	Bill No. 195-32	Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr.	Sep. 25, 2013
P.L. 32-089	Nov. 27, 2013	See description	Deleted the provision in P.L. 31-235 requiring the printed materials and the checklist certification to undergo the rule making process pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication Law.	Bill No. 193-32	Sen. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Sep. 23, 2013
P.L 32-217	Dec. 17, 2014	See description	Requires abortion providers to include gestational age in abortion reports	Bill No. 412-32	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Oct 14, 2014
P.L. 33-132	Mar. 4, 2016	Unborn Victims of Violence Act	Criminalized harming or killing the child in the womb in acts of violence against the mother.	Bill No. 231-33	Sen. Frank Blas, Jr.	Jan. 19, 2016
P.L. 33-218	Dec. 15, 2016	See description	Increased the penalties of non-compliance of abortion reporting law and added reporting mechanisms to better insure enforcement.	Bill No. 168-33	Sens. Frank Aguon, Jr. and Dennis Rodriguez, Jr.	Aug. 31, 2015