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

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. 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)?                                                     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

Letter to Former Senator and Bank of Guam President, Lou Leon Guerrero

October 25, 2012

 

        RE: WHERE ARE HIS FACTS

Dear Former Senator Lou Leon Guerrero, 

 

This morning on K57 you asked "Where are his facts?' in reference to my earlier comment that there is abortion on Guam almost every day.

Please follow this link for a copy of Guam Medical Records abortion report as required by law for the years 2008 through 2011. From 2008 to 2011 there were 1,157 reported abortions over 1,260 days. That equals one abortion every 1.089 days.

Also, Senator, please note the ethnicity data: 642 or 55.49% of those abortions were performed on Chamorro mothers. I am hoping that you see that there is a crisis here.

Also, the PDN reported recently that there are nine births per day on Guam which means that we are aborting one out of every ten children with more than half of them being of Chamorro descent. 

Does this concern you? And if you do not support informed consent legislation to at least advise mothers with unwanted pregnancies about adoption, then what do you support? Or are these numbers okay with you?

Please check with CPS. They have reported that even though they have a waiting list of more than ten parents in waiting, they have not had a child available for adoption in five years. 

Something is terribly wrong, Senator, terribly wrong. Your people are dying.

 

NOTE: I do not have Senator Leon Guerrero's contact information. If someone would be so kind as to forward this to her. Thank you.

Tim Rohr

A citizen

DEAR SENATOR CRUZ

October 25, 2012 RE: BILL 52-31     Dear Senator Cruz,    There is probably no other senator with whom I have battled more in public than yourself. It is certainly no secret that you and I have been on very opposite sides of some very sensitive issues. And there certainly has been no love lost between us over the last few years.  The reason for the letter is to thank you for being the voice of reason yesterday. I'm sure you did not like the spectacle that Bill 52 had become any more than anyone else did. However, you put your feelings aside and spoke clearly about what Bill 52 was actually about, saying: "It's not what anybody else thinks what it is. It's not going to affect whether or not one is pro-life or pro-choice. It's just allowing the women to be informed." No clearer words were spoken yesterday. But beyond that, you said something even more true when you said at some point "this problem is going to have to be treated holistically."   You are so right. A society's abortion rate is a measure of its inner collapse. Informed consent legislation is really only a last gasp bandaid to try in some small way to slow the bleeding of a society that has already cut itself - as our newspapers so often remind us.   I believe your Bill 415, despite the reservations with some elements in it which I shared in my written testimony in support of your bill, is a large step in the right direction.    I admit, given our previous battles, I was suspicious of your intentions. I even said so on TV. Unfortunately, most of my relations with the Legislature have been immensely soured and my suspicions raised since the night of November 26, 2010 (the debate over Bill 54-30), and a six-month long battle to obtain a copy of the journal for that session.   However, your clear and reasoned approach to the issue at large yesterday, in the midst of so much emotion, was a true example of how personal feelings could be put aside and the true work of the legislature can actually get done.    Coming towards the end of the session as it did, your words brought a certain peace to a terribly turbulent situation. And I confess to being the one that probably started that turbulence. I make no apology. I have been fighting to have a fair debate on informed consent legislation since February of 2009 when Bill 54-30 was first introduced.    Whether Bill 52-31 would have ever seen the light of day had I not attacked those who attacked it, is anybody's guess. But we're beyond that now. And again I simply want to thank you for what you said yesterday and I want to express my support for Bill 415, at least in its intent if not in detail - something I would be willing to work with you on.   In fact, Senator Cruz, you have my vote. In fact, this is why I am sending this letter and making it public, and copying it to the press. In fact, Senator Cruz, if you had voted "no" on Bill 52-31 you would have still had my vote for simply being intellectually honest and saying what you said about it, which I repeat here:   "It's not what anybody else thinks what it is. It's not going to affect whether or not one is pro-life or pro-choice. It's just allowing the women to be informed."    I was so very impressed by how you rose above the personal and did the people's business and that deserves a vote. You will have mine.     God Bless You and Thank You,   Tim Rohr A citizen