VICTORY? HARDLY!

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

VICTORY: SETTLEMENT IN ACLU CHALLENGE WILL RESTORE ABORTION ACCESS IN 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?

Not.

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.