Conspiracy in the Guam Legislature

July 7, 2011
 The Pro-Abortion Conspiracy in the Guam Legislature
 A documentation of legislative intrigue & criminal action

What follows is a tale of legislative chicanery, bait and switch, parliamentary tricks, arrogant violations of the Organic Act and the Legislature's own Standing Rules,
brazen insults to the intelligence of the people of Guam, and gross abuse of the public trust, all in the name of preserving Guam as the abortion capital of the nation in terms of its lack of legal protections for the unborn and their mothers.

Sadly we have brought this atrocity upon ourselves by continuing to elect the people who think so little of us, who consider us easily duped, and are convinced we will forget their arrogant insults before the next election. Perhaps after considering the information made available on this website we will vote differently in November of 2012.

On December 13, 2010, then-Governor Felix Camacho, vetoed Bill 54-30. Bill 54-30 would have required that women seeking an abortion be advised of abortion's risks and alternatives. Instead, what came before the Governor was a bill that required only that a woman be advised of the risks of carrying a child to term - effectively accomplishing exactly opposite of the bill's intent. (Read Governor Camacho's veto letter here.)

How Bill 54-30 came to be a pro-abortion bill has been a matter of concern ever since the so-called "substitute bill" mysteriously appeared on the Floor of the legislative session held on 11/26/10.

On 11/05/10, the Committee on Health had reported out a
 slightly amended version of the original Bill 54-30. The amended bill  incorporated a minor change in language as recommended by the Attorney General. However, the Bill 54 that went to the Floor on 11/26/10 WAS NOT the bill that was reported out of the Committee on Health. 

The bill that went to the Floor was noted as follows:

Bill No. 54-30 (COR)
As Substituted by the Committee on Economic
Development, Health & Human Services, and Judiciary
and further Substituted on the Floor

(emphases added)

In order for a bill to be "
 substituted on the Floor", a motion must be made to accept the substitute bill and the motion must be carried. And here is where we have a serious concern:

1. The LEGISLATIVE DAILY JOURNAL of 11/26/10 on Pg. 34 records the following:

"Senator Calvo moved to accept Bill No. 54-30(COR), a (sic) substituted by the Committee on Economic Development, Health and Human Services, and Judiciary, and further substituted on the Floor. There was no objection and the motion was carried."

2. The video recording of the session as provided by the Legislature shows no such thing. Senator Calvo does not move to accept Bill No. 54-30 and there is no motion to carry. Senator Calvo only moves to place the bill on the Third Reading File, with discussion.

Legislative Session 11/26/10, Re: Bill 54-30

In addition, the video shows a confused Senator Calvo appear to be asking if the substitute version had been accepted and was apparently told yes by someone which is why he proceeds. But he, himself, does not move for the bill to be accepted as the journal records.

We do NOT believe this is just a clerical error,
as Speaker Won Pat is sure to contend. We believe that this "discrepancy" is why it took us over six months to procure a copy of the journal (11/26/10 to 6/8/11), and it is now quite clear why she did not want us to have the journal.

(The journal was finally procured but not till after a threatening letter was sent to all the senators and the media which you can read here.)

We also know that the delay was not related to the clerical workload  as Speaker Won Pat claimed because we were able to obtain a journal of a subsequent session within four working days as per the Open Government Law.

The Clerk of the Legislature is Patricia Santos. At this point she is the person responsible for the 
manufactured record. However, given the sordid history of this bill, the chicanery, the bait & switch, the cover-up, the "three-shell game", the mysterious substitution... - that the journal would also be tampered with, is not a surprise. 

The question now is: Did Patricia Santos concoct this record on her own or did someone put her up to it?

In the end, it is the people who are violated.

Not only do we have a right to expect our lawmakers to follow the law, we have a right to expect that public documents are not tampered with by these same lawmakers.

It is apparent that certain senators have absolutely no intention of honoring the rights of the people they are elected to represent. 

On 07/07/11, Tim Rohr sends an email to the office of Speaker Won Pat
  1. Showing the concocted record in the journal
  2. Linking to the video clip which contradicts the journal
  3. Showing evidence on the video that Speaker Won Pat did not allow for the motion of the substitute bill
  4. Asks what is she going to do about it
  5. Gives her to 07/11/11 to respond

Speaker Won Pat does not respond. Of course, no response was expected as the silence is consistent with the more than two years of attempts by pro-abortion senators to mislead and deny the public access to information regarding this bill (see Bill 54-30 History), and now they are doing the same thing to Bill 52-31 (see Bill 52-31 History).