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

GUAM 2012 SENATORIAL CANDIDATE INQUIRY, NOVEMBER 1, 2012

GUAM ALLIANCE FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNBORN

Contact: Rosa Santos

NOVEMBER 1, 2012

RE: ELECTION 2012 INQUIRY - RESEND

NOTE: DUE TO A FEW INCORRECT EMAIL ADDRESSES WE ARE SENDING THIS OUT ONCE MORE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO MAY HAVE NOT RECEIVED OUR FIRST EMAIL ON OCTOBER 29. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED IT OR ALREADY REPLIED, PLEASE IGNORE. ALL THE BEST IN THE COMING ELECTION.

Dear Candidate for the Guam Legislature:

Thank you for reply to our initial inquiry regarding your position on informed consent legislation. Our inquiry was sent out prior to the passage of the bill on Wednesday, October 24, but your views still matter and we will be sure to let them be known to the voters within our network.

If you would like to issue any other statement to further clarify your position relative to the issue of abortion, please feel free to send your thoughts to me by NOVEMBER 2, 5pm.

Some items you may want to consider are two bills that are still currently on the table in the current legislature:

BILL 51-31 THE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2011:  recognizes scientific data showing that an unborn child is capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks and would ban abortions after 20 weeks except for strictly defined medical emergencies. 41 states have similar gestational age limits on abortion. Guam has none. See State Policies in Brief here. Read the bill here. 

BILL 409-31 UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT: recognizes the unborn child (child in utero) as a legal victim, if he or she is killed or injured in crimes of violence. While this bill does not address abortion directly, it does recognize the rights and the humanity of the child in the womb. A similar bill was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law in 2004. Read more here. Read the bill here or at the Guam Legislature website.

There is also the matter of the need for a bill which would mandate normal medical care for  children who survive failed abortions. Such a bill, known as the Born Alive Act, was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law in 2002. A Born Alive Act for Guam was introduced in the 30th Guam Legislature as Bill 309-30 but it was never reported out of committee. It is hoped that the legislation will be re-introduced in the next Legislature.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at rcsantos06@yahoo.com

Thank you,

Rosa C. Santos

Guam Alliance for the Defense of the Unborn

Confraternity of Christian Mothers, President, Nuestros Senora de los Aguas

Guam 2012 Senatorial Candidate Inquiry, October 29, 2012

GUAM ALLIANCE FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNBORN

Contact: Rosa Santos

October 29, 2012

RE: ELECTION 2012 INQURY

Dear Candidate for the Guam Legislature:

Thank you for reply to our initial inquiry regarding your position on informed consent legislation. Our inquiry was sent out prior to the passage of the bill on Wednesday, October 24, but your views still matter and we will be sure to let them be known to the voters within our network.

If you would like to issue any other statement to further clarify your position relative to the issue of abortion, please feel free to send your thoughts to me by October 31, 5pm.

Some items you may want to consider are two bills that are still currently on the table in the current legislature:

BILL 51-31 THE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2011:  recognizes scientific data showing that an unborn child is capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks and would ban abortions after 20 weeks except for strictly defined medical emergencies. 41 states have similar gestational age limits on abortion. Guam has none. See State Policies in Brief here. Read the bill here. 

BILL 409-31 UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT: recognizes the unborn child (child in utero) as a legal victim, if he or she is killed or injured in crimes of violence. While this bill does not address abortion directly, it does recognize the rights and the humanity of the child in the womb. A similar bill was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law in 2004. Read more here. Read the bill here or at the Guam Legislature website.

There is also the matter of the need for a bill which would mandate normal medical care for  children who survive failed abortions. Such a bill, known as the Born Alive Act, was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law in 2002. A Born Alive Act for Guam was introduced in the 30th Guam Legislature as Bill 309-30 but it was never reported out of committee. It is hoped that the legislation will be re-introduced in the next Legislature.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at rcsantos06@yahoo.com

Thank you,

Rosa C. Santos

Guam Alliance for the Defense of the Unborn

Confraternity of Christian Mothers, President, Nuestros Senora de los Aguas

GUAM 2012 SENATORIAL CANDIDATE INQUIRY, OCTOBER 22, 2012

To all Guam Senatorial Candidates October 22, 2012 For Immediate Release Contact: Rosa C. Santos Guam Alliance for the Defense of the Unborn

Your Position on Informed Consent Legislation  An Inquiry Dear Candidate for the Guam Legislature: Child Protective Services recently advised that despite a waiting list of "more than ten" parents, CPS has not had a child available for adoption in "at least five years." Yet, according to Guam Medical Records, there is one abortion every 1.2 days. Also, the recent Blue House case, in which at least one of the girls who was forced to serve as a prostitute was also forced to have an abortion, reveals that at least some abortions which occur on Guam may be coerced - something we as a community should not tolerate. Everyone, including Pro-Choice advocates, agree that abortion is not desirable and that we as a community must do our utmost to help women with unplanned pregnancies.   Giving women information about abortion, its risks and alternatives, and their rights to assistance, is a sensible thing to do and was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), even though the case upheld Roe v. Wade. Informed consent legislation, like Bill 52-31, would do exactly this. And we are writing to ask you how you will or would vote on a bill which would include the following provisions: 1. That a woman considering an abortion receive complete and accurate information material to her decision of whether to undergo an abortion including: A description of the proposed abortion method and possible risks Probable gestational age of the unborn child Probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child 2. That she also receive information about: Medical assistance that may be available to her Public assistance she may qualify for Public services including the availability of adoption The father's liability in providing financial assistance 3. That no abortion be performed or induced without the voluntary and informed consent of the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced. 4. That a 24 hour "waiting period" be required after she has received the information. We understand that Bill 52-31 may or may not go to the Floor for debate and could be amended. Thus we are NOT asking you how you will or would vote on Bill 52-31 specifically, but only on a bill that would contain the above provisions and which the Guam Attorney General has confirmed to be constitutional. Please review and reply back "yes" or "no" by Friday, October 26, 5pm. If you wish to add a comment, feel free to do so. Please reply to rcsantos06@yahoo.com. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at rcsantos06@yahoo.com Thank you, Rosa C. Santos Guam Alliance for the Defense of the Unborn Confraternity of Christian Mothers, President, Nuestros Senora de los Aguas