Thursday, March 25, 2021


Arizona Bill Would Ban Abortions, Charge Abortionists With Homicide for Killing Babies

Arizona is one of several states this spring that is considering legislation to completely ban abortions.

The State Press reports Rep. Walter Blackman, R-Snowflake, introduced a bill in January to declare that unborn babies are “persons” with legal rights from the moment of conception.

His pro-life bill, House Bill 2650, recognizes that a unique, living human being comes into existence at the moment of conception, and that human being deserves the same rights, guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, as any other person. It would ban abortions and allow abortionists who kill unborn babies to be charged with homicide. CONTINUED

Wednesday, March 17, 2021


A CNMI federal magistrate Judge will preside over the pre-trial proceedings in the abortion lawsuit filed in the Guam District Court.

In an order issued last week, Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood found "that an emergency necessitates the assignment of this case to Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy."  Guam federal magistrate judge Michael Bordallo has recused himself, and the court is unable to find an alternate.

Judge Bordallo is the brother of Dr. Annie Bordallo, who is a defendant in the case in her capacity as the medical director of the Guam Memorial Hospital. The ACLU filed a challenge to Guam's abortion law on behalf of two Hawaii-based OB/GYN's who say it prohibits them from treating abortion patients via telemedicine. 

According to the order, Judge Kennedy will preside over the case until the trial commences or a judgment is entered, whichever comes first. - KUAM NEWS

Monday, March 15, 2021


Recently, our Archbishop Byrnes was drug back into the local news, first to solicit his comments relative to the ACLU lawsuit which seeks to get rid of certain Guam laws regulating abortion, and next, in regards to his published guidance regarding the morality of Covid-19 vaccinations.

At the center of Archbishop Byrnes instruction in regards to the vaccine, is guidance published by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)

"Based on the criteria, the congregation held that “it is morally acceptable” to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses “when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available.” 

In Archbishop Byrnes instruction, the quote from the CDF is followed by the superscript number "3" and the footnote notes that the quote is actually from a publication issued by the Pontifical Academy for Life. 

For us Catholics, once upon a time, anything with the adjective "pontifical" meant you could trust it. But not any more. 

In 2017, Pope Francis appointed a noted pro-abortion theologian to the Pontifical Academy for Life, a certain Nigel Biggar, an Anglican professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford, who has in the past supported legalized abortion up to 18 weeks and has expressed qualified support for euthanasia.

So while Archbishop Byrnes can hardly be faulted for falling in line with the Vatican, conscientious Catholics are forced to look beyond not just a letter from their bishop, but beyond stuff employing the word "pontifical," and even "Vatican!" 

To make the point, let's rephrase the instruction from the Pontifical Academy for Life as copied by the CDF and thereafter copied by Archbishop Byrnes and distributed to the lay faithful of Guam:

"Based on the criteria, the congregation held that “it is morally acceptable” to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from Jews murdered by the Nazis “when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available.” 

Earlier in the instruction from Archbishop Byrnes, Byrnes quotes the Chairman of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops Committee on Doctrine who writes: 

"Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine involved the use of cell lines that originated in fetal tissue taken from the body of an aborted baby at any level of design, development or productions. They are not completely free from any connection to abortion, however, as both Pfizer and Moderna made use of a tainted cell line for one of the confirmatory lab tests of their products. This is thus a connection, but it is relatively remote. The burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population."

You can be forgiven if you are left with a big "HUH?"

First we are told that Pfizer and Moderna did not have any connection to abortion "at any level of design, development or production." And then we are told, "oh wait, well, cell lines from an aborted child were used in a lab test. 

So that means Pfizer and Moderna DO have a connection to abortion. And the chairman goes on to actually say: "this is thus a connection" (to abortion). But it's okay because it is "relatively remote." 

So it's okay to use the cell lines of a dead Jew murdered by the Nazis in a World War II concentration camp because, well, it was so long ago and the murder of that Jew is "relatively remote." 


Increasing evidence continues to point to the Governor of Guam as the wizard behind the curtain in the ACLU lawsuit. Esperansa recently acquired copies of letters authorizing Drs. Kaneshiro and Raidoo, the two Plaintiffs in the suit, to practice medicine on Guam for an odd amount of time, suggesting that the reason for the acquisition of their medical licenses was for the purpose of filing the suit. Follow the tell-tale timeline.



On January 28, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed a lawsuit in in the U.S. District Court of Guam on behalf of two Hawaii-based doctors.  The suit claimed that two Guam laws prohibited Guam women form procuring abortions locally and named Guam's Attorney General and others as Defendants. 

Coming as it did after Governor Leon Guerrero very publicly failed to find a doctor willing to come to Guam to do abortions after two years of searching, there is reason to believe that the Governor, via Jayne Flores, Leon Guerrero's director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, had something to do with initiating the suit. Recently procured documents certainly point in that direction.

In June of 2019, Jayne Flores and Dr. Bliss Kaneshiro, one of the two Hawaii-based doctors named as a Plaintiffs in the suit, engaged in a series of email communications aimed at bringing an abortion provider to Guam:

Jun. 24, 2019 at 10:17 AM. Situation on Guam. Jayne Flores to Dr. Bliss Kaneshiro. Hafa Adai Dr. Kaneshiro, I am the director of the Bureau of Women’s Affairs and am coordinating the effort to bring a doctor (or doctors on a rotational basis) to Guam willing to help our women (and unfortunately some girls) who have a choice to make. Can you please give me a call at your earliest convenience. I hope to hear from you soon. Si Yu’os Ma’ase. Jayne Flores

Jun. 25, 2019 at 1:10 PM. Situation on Guam. Bliss Kaneshiro to Jayne Flores. Forgot to give you my cell phone, it’s (redacted). Bliss. Bliss Kaneshiro MD, MPH, FACOG, Professor, Director of the Family Planning Fellowship and Family Planning Division, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women’s Health, University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine

NOTE: Apparently Kaneshiro and Flores had a phone conversation. The following email communication gives us a hint as to what that phone conversation was about.

Jun. 25, 2019 at 1:19 PM. Connecting you to Planned Parenthood. Bliss Kaneshiro to Deborah Nucatola and Jayne Flores. Jayne, I’m connecting you to Deb Nucatola, the medical director of the PP clinics in Hawaii. She is cc’ed on this email and is aware of the lack of an abortion provider in Guam. Bliss.

Jun. 25, 2019 at 1:23PM. Deborah Nucatola to Bliss Kaneshiro, Jayne Flores, and Deighton Kavarne. Hi Jayne! Nice to meet you virtually! I do believe you have been in contact with staff at our Patient Access Center. Our Area Service Director, Deighton Kavarne, was planning to reach out to you by phone. I’m not sure if you have already spoke but to close the loop I’m cc’ing him on this email. And FYI, we have been discussing the need in Guam for several months now and are eager to speak with you to see how we might be able to meet the need. Deborah Nucatola, MD, Medical Director, Hawaii, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, Medical Director, Indiana and Kentucky, Planned Parenthood of Indian and Kentucky

NOTE: Apparently Jayne Flores had made contact with Planned Parenthood several months before Flores contacted Kaneshiro in June 2019: "...we have been discussing the need in Guam for several months now and are eager to speak with you to see how we might be able to meet the need."

Jun. 25, 2019 at 2:49 PM. Connecting you to Planned Parenthood. Jayne Flores to Deborah Nucatola, Bliss Kaneshiro, Deighton Kavarne, Anita Arriola, Dr. Ellen Bez. Hafa Adai Deborah (and Deighton)! Thank you for reaching out to us here on Guam. Yes, we are in need of abortion services for our women (and unfortunately some pre-teens). We are also in great need of the other services Planned Parenthood provides (free birth control, STD/HIV testing. HPV vaccines, cancer screening, family planning, etc.) We are currently trying to quietly survey clinics on Guam that would allow visiting physicians to perform surgical abortions. Another option if PP wanted to open a clinic here, is that we do have a medical clinic that recently closed. Would there be a possibility that PP would be interested in leasing this space to set up its own clinic? I would describe the atmosphere on our island, with its 1650,000 population that is majority Catholics, as initially hostile toward this issue. However, over half of the voting public cast ballots in favor our our first female governor, Maga’haga Lourdes Leon Guerrero, in November 2018 despite her openly pro-choice stance. So there is hope.Please let us know if you have suggestions, or options for us. We are grateful for your help and any advice you can give us. Si Yu’os Ma’ase. Jayne Flores

NOTE: Flores copies Attorney Anita Arriola and Dr. Ellen Bez. Both Arriola and Bez are open pro-aborts. The both testified against a bill in 2013 that would mandate providing normal medical care for children who survive a failed abortion. And Bez recently volunteered a long letter to the editor about her support of the ACLU suit. 

Jun. 25, 2019 at 2:50pm. Situation on Guam. Jayne Flores to Bliss Kaneshiro. Thank you Dr. Bliss. I really appreciate your reaching out to me. I just sent an email to Deborah and Deighton. Thank you for connecting us. I look forward to speaking with you at our meeting later this week. Jayne.

NOTE: There is no record of the "meeting later this week." Seven (7) months pass by.

Feb. 6, 2020 at 1:40pm. Possible UOG collaboration with UH research project. Jayne Flores to Shandhini Raidoo, Bliss Kaneshiro, and Dr. John Rivera. Hafa Adai Drs. Shandhini and Bliss from UH, and Dr. John from UOG. Dr. Shandhini and Dr. Bliss, allow me to introduce, through email. Dr. John Rivera, Program Chair of the Public Administration program at the University of Guam. His Master of Public Administration students often assist with research issues. I think his UOG program would be a great partner for your research project on abortion attitudes on Guam. I spoke briefly with Dr. Rivera about your intent to find a local partner for the project, his email address is cc:d above. Good luck with the project! Si Yu’os Ma’ase, Jayne Flores.

NOTE: This is the first communication showing the name "Shandhini Raidoo," who, in January 2021, will become of the two Plaintiff's in the ACLU suit.

Feb. 17, 2020 at 10:15 AM. Possible UOG collaboration with UH research project. Shandhini Raidoo to Mr. John Rivera, Jayne Flores, Bliss Kaneshiro, Mr. Jesse Quenga. Hi Dr. Rivera. Thank you for your email. We have just submitted our proposal for this project. We are very excited about it and will definitely be in touch with you once we know more about the next steps. Thank you Jayne for this introduction! Thanks, Shandhini. Shandhini Raido, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health, University of Hawaii John A Burns School of Medicine


NOTE: All goes quiet for nearly five (5) months. And then suddenly, Drs. Raidoo and Kaneshiro are granted licenses to practice "medicine and surgery" on Guam:

Jul. 15, 2020. Dr. Shandhini Raidoo's application to practice "medicine and surgery" in Guam is approved by the Guam Board of Medical Examiners. Date of expiration of license is Dec. 31, 2021. 

Nov. 18, 2020. Dr. Bliss Kaneshiro's application to practice "medicine and surgery" in Guam is approved by the Guam Board of Medical Examiners. Date of expiration of license is Dec. 31, 2021. 

NOTE: Even though both Raidoo and Kaneshiro apply for licenses to practice "medicine and surgery" in Guam and are granted those licenses four months apart, both licenses expire exactly on the same day: Dec. 31, 2021. Now why is that? 

Pursuant to the Instructions for Application for Medical Licensure, it appears that a license is good for two years (See: CME requirements for renewing a full medical license). That the expiration date of both licenses is Dec. 31, 2021 appears to suggest that the date of expiration was something both doctors asked for, otherwise their licenses would have been up for renewal within two years from the date they were issued.  

Jan. 28, 2021. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Vanessa L. Williams on behalf of two Guam-licensed physicians, Drs. Bliss Kaneshiro and Shandhini Raidoo, file suit in the U.S. District Court of Guam against the the Attorney General of Guam and others.

NOTE: The dots aren't hard to connect. 

  1. Upon assuming office, Governor Leon Guerrero, via Jayne Flores, begins a well-publicized search for doctors to come to Guam to perform abortions...since none of Guam's 300-plus doctors are willing to do it.
  2. Pursuant to this search, Jayne Flores makes contact with Planned Parenthood in Hawaii and apparently attempts to entice PP to come to Guam and set up shop. PP did not appear to be interested (and still doesn't).
  3. In June of 2019, Flores begins communications with Dr. Bliss Kaneshiro who eventually puts Flores in contact with Dr. Shandhini Raidoo.  
  4. Then everything goes dark until the ACLU lawsuit is filed in January 2021. 
  5. The suit names Kaneshiro and Raidoo as the Plaintiffs, two doctors who apparently have never been to Guam and just as apparently have no interest in coming to Guam and both of whom applied for licenses to practice in Guam for an abbreviated time - perhaps just long enough to see the lawsuit through and provide cover for the person who is actually pulling the levers behind the curtain.

Defendants named in the suit:

LEEVIN TAITANO CAMACHO, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Guam

NATHANIEL BERG, M.D., in his official capacities as Chair of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners and member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam

PHILIP FLORES, in his official capacity as Vice-Chair of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners

ARANIA ADOLPHSON, M.D., in her official capacity as member of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners

ANNETTE DAVID, M.D., M.P.H., in her official capacity as member of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners

ANNIE BORDALLO, M.D., in her official capacity as member of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners

ARTHUR SAN AGUSTIN, Director of Public Health and Social Services in his official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing, Arts of Guam

BERNADETTE S. SANTOS, M.P.A., B.S.N, R.N., Chair of the Board of Nurse Examiners in her official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam

ANTONIO RAPADAS, D.D.S., Chair of the Board of Examiners for Dentistry, the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam

THOMAS J. CARUSO, B.S.P., Chair of the Board of Examiners for Pharmacy in his official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam

MAMIE BALAJADIA, ED.D., Chair of the Guam Board of Allied Health Examiners in her official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam

MARLENE R. SAN NICOLAS, O.D.,her official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam, 

JENNETH QUIAMBAO, Chair of the Board of Cosmetology in her official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam, 

DUSTIN PRINS, D.P.M., the Chief Medical Officer of the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority in his official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam

THERESA C. ARRIOLA, M.B.A., Director of the Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center in her official capacity as member of the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam, 

DOE 1, a representative from the Mayors Council of Guam in their official capacity as member o the Commission on the Healing Arts of Guam


Bob spends the better part of his show today exposing several matters relative to our own governor's role (in the person of Jayne Flores) in the ACLU lawsuit, including what appears to be a scam cooked up between Jayne and the Plaintiffs to sue Guam. The video will start at where Bob begins this part of his broadcast. 


Letter: Settlement didn't restore abortion access

by Tim Rohr 

Recently, the Pacific Daily News reported that a settlement in the ACLU abortion suit “will restore abortion access” and further reported an ACLU attorney claiming the settlement to be a “victory for reproductive freedom in Guam.”

However, the court order tells a different story. CONTINUED

Sunday, March 14, 2021


Question: Why would two Hawaii-based doctors go through the trouble and expense of applying for and acquiring licenses to practice medicine in Guam when neither doctor apparently has ever been to Guam or intends to come to Guam?

Answer: It appears that both Drs. Raidoo and Kaneshiro applied for and received licenses to practice medicine in Guam mere months before they both were named as Plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit attacking certain Guam abortion laws - NOT because they intended to practice medicine in Guam (which they won't) - but apparently in order to have "standing" to file the ACLU-backed lawsuit.

Question: And why would Raidoo and Kaneshiro go through the trouble and expense of acquiring licenses to practice medicine in Guam and recruiting the ACLU to file said lawsuit, when, pursuant to communications between both Raidoo and Kaneshiro and Governor Lou Leon Guerrero's Director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, Jayne Flores, it appears that neither Raidoo nor Kaneshiro even knew how to spell "Guam," before they were contacted by LLG's abortionist-finder-in-chief, Jayne Flores?

Answer: Because this is exactly what Calamity Jayne (Flores) set up so LLG and Calamity Jayne can keep Chamorro blood flowing:

Link to Source

More soon.

Friday, March 12, 2021


Following is a copy of the Introduction to the Government's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (re the "ACLU lawsuit"). The Opposition appears to have been authored by Deputy Attorney General, James Canto. The Introduction serves as a summary of why the Plaintiff's Injunction (and in fact the entire ACLU complaint) should be denied. (Highlights and Emphases ours). 


Shandhini Raidoo, M.D., M.P.H. and Bliss Kaneshiro, M.D., M.P.H., are Guam-licensed physicians with medical practices based in Hawaii, who seek to prescribe medications via telemedicine to induce abortions in Guam. They brought a constitutional challenge to two Guam laws that have been on the books since 1978 and 2012, 9 GCA § 31.20 (P.L. 13-185 (Sept. 2, 1976)); and § 31.21 (P.L. 14-122 (Apr. 18, 1978)); and 10 GCA § 3218.1 (P.L. 31-235) (Nov. 1, 2012). Plaintiffs’ argument with 9 GCA §§ 31.20 and 31.21 has been resolved, leaving their contention that 10 GCA § 3218.1 is unconstitutional.

Specifically, plaintiffs take issue with 10 GCA §§ 3218.1(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(4), which mandate that the treating physician or other “qualified person” (“an agent of the physician who is a psychologist, licensed social worker, licensed professional counselor, registered nurse, or physician,” per § 3218.1(a)(13)) inform the patient of certain information listed in 10 GCA §§3 218.1(b)(1) &(b)(2) [the “State-mandated information”] 24 hours before the abortion and, more importantly here, in person [the “in-person information requirement”].

Contrary to their repeated assertions in the complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and declarations, plaintiffs do not seek to “restore” abortion to Guam. They are asking the court to recognize a right to medication abortion via telemedicine without having to comply with the “in-person information requirement” of 10 GCA § 3218.1(b). The doctors’ urgency is not due to any new development in the law, but is due to their allegation that the last two physicians who performed abortions in Guam have retired, and the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic that began in March 2020 has resulted in travel restrictions which, until recently, required quarantine for visitors to both Guam and Hawaii.

In light of these two unrelated events, neither of which were caused by the defendants, two Hawaii-based doctors assert that unidentified prospective patients’ access to medication abortion should be facilitated by this court declaring the “in-person information requirement” of the informed consent law to be an undue, and thus an unconstitutional, burden on the right to abortion on Guam. However, U.S. Supreme Court precedent would find the in-person information requirement as reasonably related to Guam’s legitimate state interest to promote the advancement of fetal life, and that the law does not place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion.

Unlike most challenges to abortion laws which focus on recent enactments or rules that are alleged to impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion, plaintiffs challenge a law that has been in effect for nine years without any abortion provider suggesting that the part of the law they challenge created an undue burden on any of their patient’s access to pre-viability abortion. Plaintiffs do not seek to preserve the pre-existing status quo pending a determination on the merits, they seek to change the status quo in order to expand their medical practices from Hawaii to offer medication abortions across the ocean to Guam via telemedicine.

Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits or will suffer irreparable injury if the status quo is maintained. Both the balance of the equities and the public interest also align with Defendants’ position. Thus, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.


The full Opposition can be found here.

Wednesday, March 10, 2021


Yesterday, Mar. 9, 2021, on Tall Tales with Bob Klitzkie, there was a question about why two doctors from Hawaii - with the backing of the ACLU - are suing the Government of Guam (Leevin Camacho, et al) over two provisions in Guam law which the doctors say are prohibiting them from performing medication abortions via telemedicine, i.e. prescribing abortion pills over the internet.

While there is speculation about a profit motive, the facts don't bear that out. In the the Guam Attorney General's Opposition, Deputy Attorney General, James Canto, notes that between 2012 and 2016, medication abortions accounted for less than 1% to 3% of the abortions, which averaged about 250 per year, or 2 to 7 abortions per year. 

According to Planned Parenthood, a medication abortion can cost up to $1000. However, that figure most likely includes doctor visits both before and after the medication abortion which is usually the ingestion of two pills self-administered by a woman at home. 

And because the two Hawaii doctors cannot perform the pre and post examinations over the internet, they would have to partner with local doctors to perform those functions and thus share the profits.

But even if the Hawaii doctors did cash in on the full $1000, $2000 to $7000 per year is hardly motivation for any doctor to file a 150-plus page lawsuit. Attorney and court costs would must likely eat up at least a couple years profits before this could even get off the ground, even if their suit could prevail.

So what's really going on here? 

Esperansa Project co-founder, Tim Rohr, called into Tall Tales and explained:

The documents procured by the Vigilance Committee demonstrating the connection between Governor Lou Leon Guerrero (in the person of Jayne Flores), which are referred to in the above clip, can be found here.

Monday, March 8, 2021


The ACLU is claiming "victory" pursuant to a "settlement" with the Government of Guam: 


The truth is, first, there was no "victory," and second, there was no restoration of abortion access in Guam. 

1. Victory?

Hardly. The settlement states in part:

Section 31.20 does not prohibit the prescription, dispensing, delivery, and/or receipt of abortion medication outside a qualified physician’s adequately equipped medical clinic or outside a hospital operated by the United States or Guam.

The ACLU's agreeing to this is an admission by the ACLU that there never was a prohibition on medication abortions outside a medical facility, which was one half of the ACLU's 49 page lawsuit (155 pages with exhibits). 

The two Hawaii doctors who are Plaintiffs in the suit could have simply asked the AG for a clarification of 9 GCA Section 31.20 instead of filing their mega lawsuit. But they didn't. Why? We'll get to that.

Medication abortions are basically do-it-yourself abortions. A woman is given a couple of pills with instructions. Normally the woman goes home, takes the pills as instructed, and the baby is eventually expelled into the toilet or the trash. The end.

There is hardly a need for a woman to interface with a physician in a medication abortion other than to pick up the prescription. 

Essentially this was the AG's argument, i.e. that the pertinent provision in Section 31.20 applied only to surgical abortions, since the provision, enacted in 1978, was enacted before medication abortions were available.

It could be said that the AG "punted" given that the "1978 argument" - while interesting - is still not conclusive. There was nothing prohibiting the AG from sticking with the strict statutory definition of "abortion" i.e. the termination of a pregnancy, instead of parsing the "how" of how the pregnancy is terminated.

The AG's "punt" may also prove to be dangerous. While a woman might be able to get abortions pills via telemedicine, as one local doctor pointed out: who is going to be there for the woman when there are complications given that no doctor in Guam is willing to perform abortions?

2. Restore abortion access in Guam?


Pursuant to the same statement in the settlement (above) and the AG's interpretation, medication abortions outside a medical facility have never been prohibited. Thus NOTHING was "restored." 


As mentioned, instead of a mega-page lawsuit from a big-letter group like the ACLU, this issue could have been resolved simply and quietly with a one page letter to the AG asking for clarification of the pertinent section of the law. 

And the fact that this matter was not resolved "simply and quietly" tells us that there is something else afoot.

We don't have to look too far to find "something else afoot" given our current governor's decades of very public abortion advocacy and the creation of an office within her administration that appears to have one job and that is to find off-island doctors willing to kill Guam children in the womb since none of Guam's 300-plus physicians are willing to do it.

Given the documents procured by the Vigilance Committee demonstrating communications dating back to 2019 between the Governor's abortionist-finder-in-chief, Jayne Flores, and both of the Plaintiffs in the ACLU suit, there is little doubt that our own Governor is behind the suit - which comically - if not tragically - plays out as the Governor of Guam suing the Government of Guam behind the veil of the ACLU.

Note: the second part of the ACLU suit is a challenge to Guam' informed consent law. More to come on that soon.

Wednesday, March 3, 2021


Dr. Bez' comments in her Feb. 18, 2021 letter to the Guam Daily Post regarding Guam's abortion reporting law are worth taking another look at if we want to understand what Dr. Bez and others who support the ACLU lawsuit are really aiming at:

There are other problems with Guam’s outdated abortion laws, as well. For example, abortion reporting law requires physicians to provide the government with 25 pieces of personal data about each patient who has an abortion. In so doing, this law interferes with a woman’s right to privacy by requiring so much personal information that her identity could be revealed. No other medical treatment or procedure requires a patient to disclose so much personal information to the government.

These restrictions represent more than limiting the right to have an abortion. They take away each woman’s right to make medical decisions for herself - privately. They violate a woman’s right to privacy by requiring disclosures so excessive that the woman seeking an abortion can be identified. They deny women access to health care which is their legal right. They undermine the physician-patient relationship by raising suspicions that a doctor may be reacting to the fear of being prosecuted rather than the patient’s interest.

Bez' last sentence gives us the real clue to what her objection to the abortion reporting law is. It is not the identity of the woman procuring the abortion, it is the identity of the doctor performing the abortion, and Bez, despite her virulent support of a woman's right to an abortion, is apparently not willing to provide that abortion if it can be traced to her. 

The abortion reporting law has been on the books since the 1970's and it never stopped Guam's two "advertised" abortionists from performing hundreds of abortions each year. And it's not stopping any one of Guam's hundreds of doctors, including Bez, from performing abortions now, right here in Guam. 

The abortion report law never required the doctor performing the abortion to be named in the report. But it does require the name of the facility/clinic at which the abortion was performed. So all people like Bez have to do is lobby the legislature to remove that one requirement from the abortion reporting law, but of course that would tell us who they really care about, and it is not the women who they pretend to protect.

So what is the reason for the abortion reporting law in the first place?

Even promoters of abortion admit that abortion is not normal. "Safe, legal, and rare," has been their mantra. Why rare? Why not just as normal as "childbirth?" An answer hardly needs to be provided. 

Abortion, specifically elective abortion, the "choice" that its promoters are referring to when they use that word, is the surgical or chemical interruption of the most natural of all natural things: procreation, the continuance of the race. 

"Safe, legal, and rare" functionally admits that there is something wrong that needs to be fixed, i.e. how do we make it rare? 

Like any other problem, in order to fix it, we have to find out what is wrong. We do that by first collecting data and analyzing the data, in this case, the abortion report.

Even though our abortion reporting law has been on the books since the 1970's, until 2008, when The Esperansa Project was formed, it appeared that no one ever asked for it. And because no one ever asked for it, we spent years believing that it was high school kids who were getting pregnant and having abortions. 

This led to a big campaign to introduce sex education into our schools and the distribution of free birth control - which probably led to more sexual activity by an increasingly younger demographic which may well be the underlying cause of Guam's epidemic of venereal disease:

"Guam had 1,107 cases of chlamydia in 2017, making it fifth in the nation for the sexually transmitted disease, according to the Department of Public Health and Social Services." - Guam Daily Post, Apr. 6, 2019

Note: For those who may not know, the FDA's published literature on birth control notes that condoms - the most common birth control device - fail 18% of the time: "Out of 100 women whose partners’ use this method, 18 may get pregnant." -

However, after The Esperansa Project began requiring copies of the annual abortion report required by law to be published annually, the data showed that the problem was not teen-agers, but women old enough to know better (age 25 to 35), who formed the largest demographic.

Another myth that the data busted was that abortions were being procured on Guam by outsiders - since no one believed that a local population made up of mostly Catholics could be aborting their children. 

However, this is exactly what the data showed. Since 2008, when The Esperansa Project first began requiring these reports, the data has shown that women identifying their ethnicity as Chamorro consistently accounted for at least two-thirds of the abortions year after year.

This is an astounding fact given that the Chamorro population on Guam has already been reduced to only about 30% of the island's population, and even more astounding given that the biggest promoter of abortion on Guam is its current Chamorro governor. 

Whether or not lawmakers and pro-life activists want to do anything to address the real problem (instead of the myths), is up to them. Meanwhile, thanks to Guam's abortion reporting law - and those that ask for it - at least we have the data. 


Abortion bottom line by Robert Klitzkie, Guam Daily Post, Apr. 27, 2022 They’ll flood the media with sophistry, strawman, false dilemma, fau...