Monday 26 November 2012

FAILS: UNBORN VICTIM OF VIOLENCE ACT



November 26, 2012


Dear Friends of the Unborn:

This is a photo of Tracy Marciniak holding the body of her son, Zachariah. Marciniak was assaulted in her ninth month of pregnancy. She was seriously injured and Zachariah was killed.

Guam's Bill 409-31 would have given mothers like Tracy the right to hold perpetrators criminally liable for crimes of violence in which the unborn child is harmed or killed.

However, yesterday, 7 senators voted against the mother's right to do so. Their names are:

Tom Ada
Rory Respicio
B.J. Cruz
Judy Guthertz
Judi Won Pat
Aline Yamashita
Sam Mabini

NEVER FORGET THOSE NAMES! By voting NO these senators voted to allow perpetrators to punch, kick, beat, and otherwise harm or destroy a child in the womb without impunity. 

While the mother (if she survives) can seek criminal damages for an attack on her own person, these senators voted against her right to pursue criminal charges against an attacker who harms or kills her unborn child. What a sad commentary on the culture of Guam and the level to which it has sunk.

36 states have an UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE law and a federal version was passed in 2004. Even California, the most left, liberal, pro-abortion state in the union has such a law, and in fact supplied the case (Laci & Conner Peterson) which provided the basis for the federal law. 

But Guam? How dare we even hope that an unborn child and her mother be given even a sliver of such protections. What a very sick and sad place Guam has become, a place where we put to death a child every day and protect criminals and dogs more than unborn children and their mothers.

This morning I called up K57 to straighten out an error in the news report which wrongly quoted Senator Blas, the sponsor of the bill. Blas had ONLY said that the bill "had nothing to do with abortion" and he is correct. In fact the bill contained a provision which excluded abortion from its application:

Section 17.20. Application. This Chapter shall not apply to acts which cause bodily harm to an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2008, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. 

However, the news consistently reported that Blas had said that his bill was not a "gateway to abolish abortion law on Guam." Blas did not say that. And, as anybody with a clue knows, abortion (unfortunately) is a constitutional right as per Roe v Wade and NO LAW is needed to make it legal. And even if there was a law, no law we could pass could ever "abolish" it because it Roe v Wade would first have to be overturned by the Supreme Court. 

I also noted that Bill 409 proposed nothing new to Guam law in defining the unborn child as a person, that such a definition was already present in Guam law, and that the bill simply criminalized acts of violence against the unborn child.

Bank of Guam president, Lou Leon Guerrero, a vociferous and fierce supporter of abortion on Guam, immediately followed me on K57 and once again demonstratedmonstrous ignorance. After expressing her glee that the bill did not pass, she said that I was wrong and that there was no provision in Guam law which defined an unborn child as a person. How sad that a former senator can so easily publicly demonstrate ignorance of Guam law.  See the following:

Title 19GCA § 1104. Unborn Child. A child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person, so far  
as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth.
 

Ms. Leon Guerrero is either radically lying or demonstrating an ignorance that should give the citizens of Guam great pause, and maybe even rethink where they put their money. She is welcome to her pro-abortion views, but she is not welcome to make up Guam law to her own ends.
 
But the plot thickens!

According to Sen. Yamashita on Patti Arroyo's show, certain members of the Legislature received an email from Phil Tydinco of the AG's office which was critical of the bill's ability to comport with Guam law. As of this moment, we do not have a copy of Tydingco's email, but if what Yamashita said is true, we now have to question the competence and credibility of the AG's office:

1. The email from the AG was alleged to have shown up only on the day of the vote, and appears to have been sent privately to only some senators. The AG works for the people of Guam and an opinion affecting legislation should be available for public examination.

2. We were advised that the AG's office worked with two attorneys to amend the original bill so that it would comport with Guam law. We confirmed with both Senator Palacios, the committee chair, and Senator Blas, the author, that the version of the bill which went before the Legislature for a vote was the bill as amended with the assistance of the AG.

3. So if what Yamashita says is true, the AG weighed in at the 11th hours against the bill that their own office had helped to rewrite. This is either an example of gross incompetence or more subterfuge, something we have come to expect whenever the life of the unborn child is in the balance.
 
In the end, a NO vote on Bill 409 does nothing to hurt an already dead child but does everything to prevent a woman from suing for damages or holding the person who assaulted her liable for murder in the case of the death of her child. It is women who are harmed here, women like Tracy Marciniak.
 
Well, Merry Christmas Guam.  Oh, and don't forget December 28 - the day we commemorate Herod's slaughter of the Holy Innocents. We're doing a much better job than Herod ever dreamed of doing.

 
 
 
Tim Rohr
The Esperansa Project

See Committee Report here
 
If you wish to express your opinions to the Legislature, copy and paste these emails addresses to your [To] box and let them, all of them, know what you think.

Thursday 8 November 2012

TIM ROHR'S OP-ED IN TODAY'S PDN

November 9, 2012

Dear Friends of the Unborn:

Please read and share Tim Rohr's op-ed piece in today's Pacific Daily News. 


It contains information critical to the defense of the bill and an exposition of the abortion industry's willful flaunting of the few laws we actually have which regulate that industry.
24 week fetus
NOTE: The battle for informed consent is not over. Despite the promises of senators not to use the 11th hour language inserted into Section 4 of the bill  - language which gives the Legislature the final power to approve the informational materials required by the bill - we must assume that the enemies of this legislation made sure that language was put there for a reason. We are also very aware that pre-election promises mean nothing unless the public is watching. We will be.


The Esperansa Project

Wednesday 7 November 2012

ESPERANSA ANALYSIS OF 2012 ELECTION AND WHAT WE WANT NEXT

NOVEMBER 7, 2012

RE: OUR ANALYSIS OF THE 2012 ELECTION RESULT AND WHAT WE WANT NEXT

Dear Friend of the Unborn:

We have no way of knowing if The Esperansa Project plays any role in influencing elections. We do know that we have approximately 1000 subscribers to our newsletter and that there are many forwards. We also know that we receive supportive and appreciative feedback from many. 

But more importantly, we know that prior to the formation of The Esperansa Project in 2008, there had been no legislative movement to regulate the abortion industry on Guam for nearly 20 years; and since 2008:

  1. It is now illegal to stab a chid in the back of the head and suck its brains out, i.e. Partial Birth Abortion (PL 29-115)
  2. Minors cannot procure an abortion without parental consent (PL 31-155), and 
  3. Women seeking an abortion must be fully informed about the abortion's risks and their alternatives (once Bill 52-31 is fully implemented). 

However, we have also failed. And we will address that failure later. For now, a quick overview of the senatorial race by order of the candidates' placement.

1. Dennis Rodriguez, Jr. - Of course Senator Rodriguez has been an unflinching and unfailing champion of the Esperansa cause from even before he was as senator (He testified in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortion in 2008). But as a senator, his efforts to see Bill 52-31 through to a vote are unmatched. True, he was the chairman of the bill's oversight committee. But he did not let the bill die like the previous chairman (Frank Aguon, Jr.). True to his commitment to do all he could to protect the unborn, Senator Rodriguez stared into the face of his own party and pushed the bill forward anyway. Whether his actions relative to Bill 52 and our public support of him had anything to do with his first place showing - a rare thing for only a second term senator - we don't know. We are just happy that we have a proven pro-life champion at the top of the senatorial pile.

2. Frank Aguon, Jr. - Mr. Aguon may have benefitted from his two year vacation from the legislature. Had he been in office, we would have hammered him harder than anyone else these past two years. There is no one senator more responsible for the death of pro-life legislation than Frank Aguon. His role in trying to keep Bill 54-30, the first informed consent bill, from ever getting to a vote was well documented in the days leading up to the 2010 election. And his shameful trashing of Bill 309-30, a bill that would have mandated normal medical care for children who survive failed abortions, is nothing less than a trail of blood leading right to his door. The federal equivalent of Bill 309-30, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002, received very rare unanimous support in the senate. There was not a single NO vote, not even from pro-abortion stalwarts Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy voted against it. But we couldn't even get Frank Aguon to report the bill out of committee. We're sure Aguon hoped the people of Guam would forget his shameful anti-life deeds in the 30th Legislature, and it appears they did. But we are here to remind them every day Frank Aguon is in the 32nd Guam Legislature.

3. Tom Ada - Mr. Ada voted NO on Bill 52, and in so doing placed himself in the company of extreme abortion supporters who do not want a woman to even know the risks that await them or about the possibility of giving an unwanted child up for adoption. However, Tom Ada's actions regarding Bill 52 were the only pro-abortion actions of record, and happening only a few days before the election as they did, did not have a chance to become well-known. In addition, Ada, rather than making a long rant against the Governor as did most of his colleagues who joined him in his NO vote, let someone else do his talking by emotionally reading an email from a "woman I respect". The email was opposed to the bill but even then, it was not certain how Ada would vote. From the feedback we received, Ada's NO vote was a major shock to those who thought they knew him. They weren't surprised by anyone else. 

4. Thomas Morrison - Mr. Morrison was quick to respond to our survey of the non-incumbent candidates and firmly expressed his support for pro-life legislative efforts. We  quickly endorsed him are happy for his success. Way to go.

5. Michael F.Q. San Nicolas - Mr. San Nicolas was quick to respond to our survey of the non-incumbent candidates and firmly expressed his support for pro-life legislative efforts. We  quickly endorsed him are happy for his success. Way to go.

6. Anthony Ada - Mr. Ada's personal pro-life positions are firm. Though he did not speak at the debate over Bill 52, he supplied a solid YES vote. We endorsed him and look forward to more solid support for pro-life legislation.

7. Michael Limtiaco - Mr. Limtiaco was quick to respond to our survey of the non-incumbent candidates and firmly expressed his support for pro-life legislative efforts. We  quickly endorsed him are happy for his success. Way to go.

8. Chris Duenas - Next to Senator Rodriguez, no other Senator has been as helpful in making Bill 52 go forward or as willing to show his public support for unborn human life. He showed notable courage as a first term senator in standing up to forces who wanted to trash the bill. We STRONGLY ENDORSED him and are happy for his high showing.

9. Benjamin Cruz - Mr. Cruz ranked higher this time around than he did in 2010. Perhaps that was due to Tim Rohr's personal recognition of Mr. Cruz' noble defense of Bill 52 in the midst of an extreme display of anger coming from some of his colleagues, perhaps not. Senator Cruz gets credit for at least recognizing that a woman has a right to hear about her options and the possible risks associated with abortion. As a man of law, it is also assumed that he was very aware of the Supreme Court decisions which provided the platform for Bill 52 and supported it as a matter of integrity. 

10. Judith Won Pat - Ms. Won Pat's fall from power is probably more due to her derogatory comments about the Marines and her opposition of the military build up than anything we said about her. However, of all the incumbents who opposed pro-life legislation, Won Pat is the only one who was willing to allow a public record to be doctored to cover her willful skipping of a required legislative procedure during the debate of Bill 54-30. The doctoring of a public record is a criminal act, a violation of the Open Government Law. We can't prove that she personally doctored it or ordered it be doctored, but we can prove that she knows about it and has done nothing about it and is willing to let the public record be in error. We thoroughly documented this online but took down the website after the vote on Bill 52. However, now that she will be in the Legislature for another two years, we will republish the site.

11. Tina Muna Barnes - This is a very low showing for Barnes given how high she was in the early polls. Though we thoroughly exposed her infamous attempt (a successful one) to strike the words "unborn child" from Bill 54-30, our attempt to expose her probably invoked some sympathy for her given our error and subsequent apology for some misinformed comments. If anything hurt Barnes, it was her own speech during the debate over Bill 52. Anyone who saw it will know to what we refer.

12. Ben Pangelinan - Mr. Pangelinan has been careful not to enter the abortion issue fray. We assume he knows that it is not an issue he can win given that he is certainly hard core pro-choice. Had he just voted NO on Bill 52 he might have fared better. But Mr. Pangelinan took the occasion to public beat up the Governor and the other supporters of this legislation and he may have hurt himself there. But more likely he was hurt by his opposition to the military buildup and his standing in the way of tax returns. You don't mess with other people's money and get away with it for long.

13. Dr. Aline Yamashita - Dr. Yamashita has publicly stated that she was pro-choice and a NO vote would have been no surprise. But the extra rant at the debate probably didn't help her. She was doing poorly in the polls before the vote and the Esperansa voter guide, so we don't think we had much to do with her poor showing.

14. Brant McCreadie - like the other newcomers, Mr. McCreadie was quick and firm about his intent to support pro-life legislation and we were proud to endorse him. Congratulations Brant. 

15. Rory Respicio - No one has fallen further than Senator Respicio. While Respicio did vote for Bill 52 and even made some supportive statements later, there is no denying that the very public 2 year long "fist fight" between Esperansa and Senator Respicio did not do the Senator any favors. Senator Respicio was most responsible for keeping Bill 52 from coming to a vote earlier and we made that very clear. While we are encouraged by his actions and words during and after the vote on Bill 52, there was no erasing the past. However, the Senator also had some problems with his positions on the military build up and tax returns, and that may have hurt him more.

We mentioned earlier that while we have had successes, we have also had failures. We mention one failure in particular because this is the bill we want to see passed next. We already mentioned our failure to get Frank Aguon, Jr., when he was Chairman of the Committee on Health, to report out Bill 309-30, the CHILD'S RIGHT TO LIVE ACT.

This bill would have required normal medical care for children who survive a failed abortion. Bill 309-30 would have addressed this terrible and gruesome circumstance. Children who survive abortions are either drowned, beheaded, have their spines snipped in half, or left to die and discarded with the day's trash.

The question is asked does this occur on Guam. We know of two cases. One we can tell you about because the child's adoptive father, former Homeland Security Director, Mike Carey, told more than a hundred people the story last December at the Rally for Life.

The child's mother had been living with a boyfriend who was in the military. The boyfriend got deployed. The woman found somebody else to have sex with and got pregnant. She was near full-term when she got word that her boyfriend was on his way home from deployment - earlier than expected. 

We don't know what type of abortion she attempted to procure, but it was most likely a chemical abortion in which the woman ingests a poison which kills the baby and then labor is induced normally 24 hours later.

Something went wrong and instead of going back to the abortion clinic, the woman ended up in the Emergency Room at GMH, where the baby came out, damaged, but alive. Thanks to hospital staff the baby received immediate care and began to thrive.

An employee at the hospital knew of the baby and called Mr. Carey who happily adopted her. As mentioned, Mr. Carey shared this story to several hundred of us at the Rally for Life last December and showed us pictures of his beautiful 7-year old adopted daughter.

Another story is not as happy. The mother, after being injected with saline designed to kill the baby by burning its skin off, panicked several hours later and ended up at the emergency room. The woman delivered the baby alive, but according to the personnel who saw it, the child's skin was "dripping off his body". Attempts were made to do something for the child, but he was too far gone. He died three days later, and perhaps was one of the bodies in the tiny casket interred at Pigo Cemetery this past week.

Because of a strict request for anonymity we cannot share anymore about this story, but it is not necessary. Simply google the words "abortion survivors" and read and listen to many such stories...from the survivors themselves.

So yes, we failed. We failed to keep the actions of Frank Aguon, Jr. in the news. We won't fail again.


THE ESPERANSA PROJECT

Monday 5 November 2012

MASS OF CHRISTIAN BURIAL FOR THE UNBORN


Dear Friend of the Unborn:

Tuesday, November 6, at 10am, Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron will celebrate a Mass of Christian Burial at the Cemetery in Pigo for 15 to 20 unclaimed children whose bodies have been retrieved from the Guam Memorial Hospital morgue. Their interment will follow.

"You knit me in my mother's womb." - Ps 139

Your presence is requested.

ELECTION 2012 - ESPERANSA FINAL ENDORSEMENT STATEMENT


November 5, 2012; 9:25PM

 

RE: ELECTION 2012 - ESPERANSA FINAL ENDORSEMENT STATEMENT FOR SENATORIAL CANDIDATES

Dear Friend of the Unborn:

What follows is an explanation and analysis. For a quick print out of Esperansa's candidate ratings, click here for a summary in PDF. Take it to the polls.

*****

Informed consent legislation, in states where it is law, has proven to be the greatest legislative deterrent to abortion. It represents the pinnacle of pro-life legislative options in the wake of Roe v Wade.

Thus, as the 2012 election approached, THE ESPERANSA PROJECT, in partnership with GUAM ALLIANCE FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNBORN, saw no need to ask the candidates any other question other than how they would vote on Bill 52-31, which would require informed consent for abortion.

We had planned to do the survey before we learned of the Governor's call for a special session on October 24 to vote on Bill 52. Obviously there would be no need to survey incumbent candidates since their vote would provide us the answer, so while we waited for the vote on Bill 52, we issued the survey to non-incumbent candidates.

NON-INCUMBENT CANDIDATES 
The following non-incumbent candidates responded in support of Bill 52 specifically and in support of pro-life legislation in general and are endorsed by Esperansa:

Democrats
  • Gary W. "Frank" Gumataotao*
  • Joe S. San Agustin
  • Michael F. Q. San Nicolas 
(*NOTE: Frank Gumataotao deserves special mention for his additional efforts to contact us and state that as an attorney, he will offer adoption services at no charge to women seeking an alternative to abortion.)

Republicans
  • Antonio Aquiningoc
  • Javier Atalig
  • Adonis Mendiola
  • Michael Limtiaco
  • Michelle Taitano
  • Jose Servino
  • Thomas "Tommy" Morrison
  • Brant McCreadie
  • Roland Blas
We received no response from Benedict Toves, Frank Aguon, Jr., Leah Beth Naholowaa, and William Sarmiento.  However, we must say that we STRONGLY OPPOSE former Senator Frank Aguon, Jr., for his role (in the 30th Guam Legislature) in the demise of Bill 54-30, the predecessor to Bill 52-31, and the disappearance of Bill 309-30 which would have mandated medical care for a child who survives a failed abortion. 

INCUMBENT CANDIDATES
The vote on Bill 52-31 should have provided us a simple measure for the purposes of endorsement. However, there were two issues: 1) there is the fact this bill only came to a vote after a very long and tortuous journey, including much opposition from some who eventually voted for it, and 2) there was some question about an 11th hour amendment which put the actual implementation of the bill, once it became law, into question. 

Through an additional inquiry we were able to secure the commitment of all the senators who voted for the bill (except one) that they will see the bill through the rules approval process as indicated in Section 4 of the bill, and to the new law's full implementation. (Only Senator Barnes did not reply to the additional inquiry.)

Eleven senators voted for Bill 52, but all cannot be endorsed equally given that some who voted for it actually championed the bill, others simply voted for it, and others, though they eventually voted for it, had previously attempted to keep it from going to a vote.

Thus, of the incumbent senators who voted FOR Bill 52, and after much thought and discussion, we must necessarily divide these senators  into three categories: 1)STRONGLY ENDORSE, 2) ENDORSE, and 3) YOU DECIDE. (We issued previously a letter strongly opposing Senators Yamashita, Pangelinan, Tom Ada, and Won Pat who voted NO on Bill 52.)

STRONGLY ENDORSE
These are the senators who championed the bill from its beginning or have at least spoken strongly and openly in support of pro-life legislation and voted YES on Bill 52. They deserve special mention and an extra strong endorsement for their words and actions. They are:
  • Senator Dennis Rodriguez, Jr. (D)
  • Senator Christopher Duenas (R)
  • Senator Mana Silva Taijeron (R)
(Note: Senator Frank Blas, Jr. is not running for the Legislature but deserves honorable mention in this category for his continuous pro-life legislative efforts.)

ENDORSE
These are the senators who voted YES on Bill 52 and we believe can be counted on to support future pro-life efforts. They are:
  • Senator Adolfo Palacios (D)*
  • Senator Vicente "Tony" Ada (R)
  • Senator Shirley "Sam" Mabini (R)

(*Note: Even though Senator Palacios supported an earlier version of the bill which had been stripped of its essential provisions which effectively compromised its intent (on 3/28/11), he spoke strongly and clearly in support of Bill 52 on the Floor, October 24.

YOU DECIDE
These senators voted for Bill 52, and deserve our appreciation and may also deserve your vote. You will have to decide. Esperansa does not fully endorse them due to past actions which posed challenges to Bill 52 and other pro-life legislation. We have deleted the record of these challenges from our website as sign of appreciation for their action on Bill 52 and we hope that we will have a much more fruitful relationship working to protect the unborn and their mothers in the future, and one day, solidly endorse them. They are:
  • Senator Benjamin Cruz*
  • Senator Rory Respicio
  • Senator Judith Gutherz
  • Senator Tina Muna Barnes
(*NOTE: Tim Rohr previously and independently expressed his support for Senator Cruz for his unique support of Bill 52 during the discussion on the Floor on October 24. It can be found here.)

SUMMARY OF BOTH INCUMBENTS AND NON-INCUMBENTS

STRONGLY ENDORSE
  • Senator Dennis Rodriguez, Jr. (D)
  • Senator Christopher Duenas (R)
  • Senator Mana Silva Taijeron (R)
ENDORSE
  • Senator Adolfo Palacios (D)
  • Senator Vicente "Tony" Ada (R)
  • Senator Shirley "Sam" Mabini (R)
  • Gary W. "Frank" Gumataotao (D)
  • Joe S. San Agustin (D)
  • Michael F. Q. San Nicolas (D)
  • Antonio Aquiningoc (R)
  • Javier Atalig (R)
  • Adonis Mendiola (R)
  • Michael Limtiaco (R)
  • Michelle Taitano (R)
  • Jose Servino (R)
  • Thomas "Tommy" Morrison (R)
  • Brant McCreadie (R)
  • Roland Blas (R)
YOU DECIDE
  • Senator Benjamin Cruz (D)
  • Senator Rory Respicio (D)
  • Senator Judith Gutherz (D)
  • Senator Tina Muna Barnes (D)
STRONGLY OPPOSE
  • Senator Aline Yamashita (R)
  • Senator Ben Pangelinan (D)
  • Senator Tom Ada (D)
  • Senator Judith Won Pat (D)
  • Frank Aguon, Jr. (D)
The summary and rating can be found in PDF format here. Take it to the polls.






 The Esperansa Project

Sunday 4 November 2012

ELECTION 2012 GUAM: ESPERANSA STRONGLY OPPOSES THESE CANDIDATES


The Esperansa Project is a community group organized to effect pro-life legislation wherever possible. If you do not wish to receive emails from this group please unsubscribe at the link at the bottom of this email.
November 5, 2012; 3:30PM

 

RE: ELECTION 2012 - ESPERANSA STRONGLY OPPOSES THESE CANDIDATES

Dear Friend of the Unborn:


Thank you for your patience. The Governor's call for a special session to vote on Bill 52-31 (informed consent for abortion), and questions arising from amended language in Section 4 of the bill, demanded that we take extra care in what we have to say about the candidates for the 2012 senatorial seats.

In the end, the vote - and the complications which followed - requires us to address incumbents and non-incumbents separately. And, among the incumbents, it is imperative that we further distinguish three categories: 1) Strongly Oppose, 2) Strongly Endorse, 3) You Decide. 

Because we do not take the STRONGLY OPPOSE category lightly, and because we take seriously our obligation to thoroughly substantiate our positions, we are addressing - in this email - only the STRONGLY OPPOSE category of candidates since the explanation is quite lengthy. A separate email addressing non-incumbents and the other two categories of incumbents is forthcoming in a few hours.

Also, it is critical that voters understand that Esperansa does not wish to engage in a simple black and white overview of who is pro-life and who is not. Those labels mean nothing to us. What matters is how each candidate responds to legislation in matters involving unborn life and NOT what they personally believe or feel.

ESPERANSA STRONGLY OPPOSES THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES:

Senator Ben Pangelinan
Senator Tom Ada
Senator Judith Won Pat
Senator Aline Yamashita

We STRONGLY OPPOSE these candidates not just because they voted against Bill 52, but because of the wider implications of such a vote.  Our explanation follows.

*****

Let us recall that the purpose of Bill 52 is to protect the well-being of women by ensuring that all women contemplating an abortion receive complete and accurate information material to her decision whether to have an abortion.  Toward that end, Bill 52 requires abortion providers to apprise women regarding:
  1. The probable gestational age and anatomical characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed;
  2. The risks associated with abortion and childbirth;
  3. The availability of public assistance for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care; 
  4. The availability of public medical insurance and family support for qualifying families; and
  5. The liability of fathers to assist in the support of the child, and the legal process for determining paternity. 
In the seminal 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the lead opinion said this about informed consent legislation like Bill 52:

The U.S. Supreme Court "recognize[s] a substantial government interest justifying a requirement that a woman be apprised of the health risks of abortion and childbirth. It cannot be questioned that psychological well-being is a facet of health.Nor can it be doubted that most women considering an abortion would deem the impact on the fetus relevant, if not dispositive, to the decision. In attempting to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision, the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed."

Casey, 505 US 833, 882 (1992) (emphasis added).  This is very powerful language from the highest court in the country and it recognizes that informed consent legislation like Bill 52 plays a legitimate and, indeed, vital role in safeguarding the health of women.  

This decision also recognizes a very real and tragic phenomenon: that some women who undergo abortion do so without fully understanding the full implications of abortion - including the fact that abortion kills a human life - or without knowing all of the options available to her.  Some of these women only learn later what they should have been apprised of before they had an abortion, and suffer terribly as a result.  This, of course, is exactly what Bill 52 is designed to address.  

So, the Casey decision must have been penned by the Court's then arch-conservatives: Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, right?  Nope.  The decision was written by three stalwart supporters of abortion: Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter.  This should not come as a surprise.  Although these three justices are "pro-choice," they also recognize that no choice is freely made when it is not fully informed.  When a woman is kept in the dark about her options, any choice she makes is illusory.

So, where does that put Senators Pangelinan, (Tom) Ada, Won Pat and Yamashita?    It puts them at the far extreme of the pro-abortion spectrum, in the company of the abortion providers themselves.  Like the abortion providers, Senators Pangelinan, (Tom) Ada, Won Pat and Yamashita know that once fully informed some women will choose not to undergo an abortion.  It is not surprising, then, that abortion providers oppose informed consent legislation: it's bad for business.  The fewer unborn children they kill, the less money abortion providers make.  

What is surprising, however, (indeed astounding), is that Senators Pangelinan, (Tom) Ada, Won Pat and Yamashita share the position of the abortion providers.   They oppose Bill 52 because it mandates that women receive complete and accurate information regarding the decision whether to undergo an abortion.  As such, they are not merely "pro-choice" but represent an extreme view that supports and promotes abortion at all costs; and which puts the interests of the pro-abortion movement above the interests of women to be fully informed before they make an irrevocable and life altering decision.

For this reason, we strongly encourage you not to vote for Senators Pangelinan, (Tom) Ada, Won Pat and Yamashita and to share this message with as many people as possible from now until the time polls close on Tuesday. 



 The Esperansa Project

QUESTIONS REGARDING SECTION 4 OF BILL 52-31

Dear Senator:

The Esperansa Project is kindly asking you to answer two questions about Bill 52.  These questions are contained in a newsletter which we disseminated earlier today.  The newsletter and the questions are set forth below.  In order that you understand the context of the questions, we recommend that you read the entire newsletter before answering the questions.  

These questions require only a "yes" or "no" response.  Please respond to this email by Monday, November 5 at 10 a.m. so that your answers may be reflected in our voter guide, which we plan to disseminate in the afternoon of November 5.  Thank you for your time.


Regards,

Tim Rohr
The Esperansa Project
November 3, 2012, 

RE: QUESTIONS REGARDING SECTION 4 OF BILL 52 


Dear Friends of the Unborn: 

On Thursday Governor Calvo signed Bill 52 into law. (The public law number is still pending; so, we just call it the "Law" here).  This, of course, was an important step toward ensuring that women are fully informed before they decide whether to undergo an abortion on Guam.  However, this goal will not be achieved until the Law actually takes effect.  And, unfortunately, there is some uncertainty as to how, and under what circumstances, the Law will take effect.

To understand why this is and why we need now more than ever to continue to be vigilant, please read the following.   

In the week prior to the Legislature's vote on Bill 52, certain senators (the "Senators") asked Senator Rodriguez to amend Section 4 of Bill 52.  Section 4 addresses how and when Bill 52 will become effective after it is enacted into law.   In particular, the Senators wanted to add language to Section 4 so that it would state that the "printed materials" and the "checklist certification" (i.e., the informational materials that Bill 52 requires the abortion provider to give to a woman contemplating an abortion) would be subject to the rule making process set forth at Title 5, Chapter 9, Article 3 of the Guam Code Annotated.   

The Senators told Senator Rodriguez that the reason that they sought this amendment was to ensure that both the printed materials and the checklist certification were prepared, and that abortion providers received proper notice, before the law went into effect.  

Senator Rodriguez was of the view that neither the printed materials nor the checklist certification were rules and, thus, were not subject to the rule making process; and that any reference to the rule making process in Section 4 would, at best, be superfluous and, at worst, cause confusion.  Accordingly, Senator Rodriguez responded to the Senators' request with several alternative amendments that he thought would address the underlying concerns raised by them but which avoided the possible confusion caused by a reference to the rule making process.

The Senators rejected these alternatives. After further discussions with the Senators, Senator Rodriguez finally agreed to the language that now appears in Section 4 of the Law.  Senator Rodriguez did so even though he did not like this language because it associated, albeit vaguely, the printed materials and the checklist certification with the rule making process.  This was exactly the sort of uncertain language that Senator Rodriguez wanted to avoid.  Nonetheless, in order to preserve the fragile coalition of senators who agreed to vote for Bill 52, Senator Rodriguez felt compelled to accept this amendment to Section 4.  As a result, this is how Section 4 of the Law appears:

Section 4.  Effective Date. This Act shall take effect sixty (60) days after the 'printed materials' described in proposed § 3218.l(c) and the 'checklist certification' described in proposed § 3218.l(c)(5) have been approved by the Department and, pursuant to its rule making process set forth in Title 5, Chapter 9, Article 3 of the Guam Code Annotated.

We are not entirely sure what the Senators' intention was when they sought to amend Section 4.  We presume that they just wanted to make clear that under Guam law if the printed materials and the checklist certification are deemed rules or regulations then they will have to undergo the rule making process.  

On the other hand, perhaps they intended to use this language to require the printed materials and the checklist certification to go before the Legislature AFTER THE ELECTION where they could then safely vote against their approval and thereby stop the implementation of the Law.

Because we do not know which senators in particular comprised the group that we refer to here as "the Senators" and because many who subscribe to our newsletter look to Esperansa for guidance on who to vote for, we are asking two questions of all of the senators who voted for Bill 52.  

These questions are designed to determine whether the senator authentically supports Bill 52 and is thus willing to resolve any confusion caused by Section 4's vague language in a way that will give full effect to Bill 52 and its stated purpose, or whether the senator seeks to use any confusion caused by Section 4 as a means to prevent the implementation of the Law AFTER THE ELECTION.  

The following questions are being sent to Senators Respicio, Guthertz, Muña Barnes, Palacios, Cruz, Rodriguez, Blas, (Tony) Ada, Silva Taijeron, Mabini and Dueñas.
  1. If the printed materials and the checklist certification are approved by DPHSS but nevertheless are required to undergo the rule making process set forth at Title 5, Chapter 9, Article 3 of the Guam Code Annotated, will you vote to approve the printed materials and the checklist certification in the form as approved by DPHSS (so long as they do not violate Guam or federal law)?                                                    
  2. If the Office of the Attorney General opines, or a court of competent jurisdiction finds, that neither the printed materials nor the checklist certification constitutes a rule or regulation AND if presented with a bill that amends the Law so as to delete the following language from Section 4: "and, pursuant to its rule making process set forth in Title 5, Chapter 9, Article 3 of the Guam Code Annotated," will you take all reasonable steps available to you to pass such a bill in a timely manner without revision or amendment to such bill?
If a senator answers in the affirmative to both, then we will know that he or she authentically supports Bill 52.  If a senator answers in the negative to either question, then we will know that he or she - in spite of his or her vote in favor of Bill 52 - actually opposes Bill 52 and intends to use Section 4 to block its implementation.

To be clear, our intent in raising this issue and asking these questions is not to cast aspersion on any particular member of the 31st Guam Legislature.  For that reason we are sending these questions to all senators who voted in favor of Bill 52, and not just to a subset that we may harbor concerns about.  We just need to better understand the intentions of each senator so that we can provide you well-informed and well-supported guidance in respect to who to vote for on November 6. 

Senators are requested to respond directly to my personal email at timrohr.guam@gmail.com

Thank you for your reply.
Regards,

Tim Rohr
The Esperansa Project