ESPERANSA PROJECT - VOTER GUIDE NO. 1
FOR THE OFFICE OF SENATOR
The following incumbent and former senators are recommended:
Tony Ada
Frank Aguon, Jr. (has introduced pro-life legislation)
Frank Blas, Jr. (has introduced pro-life legislation)
Christopher Duenas
Brant McCreadie
Thomas Morrison
Adolpho Palacios
Dennis Rodriguez (has introduced pro-life legislation)
Michael F.Q. San Nicolas
Note: This first installment will focus exclusively on those candidates who have held or currently hold the office of senator and have voted for or against abortion related legislation. We will address the gubernatorial candidates and the other senatorial candidates separately. All candidates are welcome to send us information on their positions relative to this issue.
As the election approaches it is time for the Esperansa Project to weigh in on the candidates. For those who may not know, the Esperansa Project was conceived and established in 2008 to promote pro-life legislation and specifically to support legislation to regulate Guam’s abortion industry insofar as is legally and constitutionally possible. To this end, the Esperansa Project has assisted in the passage of the following bills:
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2008 (Introduced by then-Senator Eddie Calvo, Senator Frank F. Blas, Jr., and Senator James V. Espaldon as Bill 374-29 and signed into law by Governor Felix Camacho as P.L. 29-115 on 11/17/2008)
Parental Consent for Abortion Act (Introduced by Senator Dennis Rodriguez, Jr. as Bill 323-31 on 09/30/2011, and signed into law as P.L. 31-155 by Governor Calvo on 12/29/2011)
Informed Consent for Abortion Law (Introduced at the request of Governor Eddie Calvo on 01/25/11 as Bill 52-31, THE WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INFORMATION ACT OF 2011, and signed into law by Governor Calvo as P.L. 31-235 on 11/01/12.
Infant Child’s Right to Life Act (Introduced by Senator Frank Aguon, Jr. on 09/25/2013 and signed into law by Governor Calvo as P.L. 32-090 on 11/27/13.)
A quick explanation of each.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban prohibits the abortion method by which the fetus is pulled out of the birth canal feet first and then stabbed in the back of the head while the head has not yet been extracted. The hole in the back of the head of the fetus is then widened to insert a vacuum tube in order to suck the contents of the head out to facilitate the collapse of the skull, after which the fetus is fully delivered and discarded.
The Parental Consent for Abortion Act requires the consent of at least one parent or legal guardian for a minor to obtain an abortion. Special exceptions were admitted for emergencies and other factors.
The Informed Consent for Abortion Law requires 1) a waiting period of 24 hours between the initial visit to procure an abortion and the procedure itself, 2) the giving to the woman printed materials detailing information about the fetus, the different abortion procedures, the potential risks of both the abortion procedure and carrying the child to term, alternatives to abortion including adoption, and 3) a checklist certification certifying that the woman understands what has been presented to her and consenting to the procedure.
The Infant Child’s Right to Life Act requires normal medical attention for children who survive a failed abortion procedure.
Note: For statistical information on abortion on Guam, go here.
The Voting Records
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, probably because of the cruelty of the procedure, a procedure no one wanted to be seen as supporting, passed unanimously. But the next three bills each have a very complex and long fought history, and the voting record doesn’t always tell the real story of who is pro-life and who isn’t. Before we get into the voting record of each, it is important to understand the backstory of each bill. You can learn more here:
Bill 52-31 Informed Consent for Abortion (and its predecessor, Bill 54-30)
Bill 323-31 Parental Consent for Abortion
Bill 195-32 Infant Child’s Right to Life Act
In addition to the above bills, each of which eventually passed, there were two other bills that the Esperansa Project supported, Bills 409-31 and 193-32.
Bill 409-31 was introduced by Senator Frank Blas, Jr., and was titled THE UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2012. The bill would have criminalized the harm or killing of a fetus in the event of an attack on the pregnant mother. The bill needed some minor amending in order to make it comport fully with Guam law, but it was never amended. It was simply voted down by the following senators:
Tom Ada
Benjamin J. Cruz
Judy Guthertz
Ben Pangelinan
Rory Respicio
Judi Won Pat
Aline Yamashita
Bill 193-32 was a very simple bill with a complicated history. It was introduced by Senator Rodriguez to amend a section of the Informed Consent law (P.L. 31-235) which had kept it from being implemented. The section, added right before the bill was debated in session, required the printed materials to undergo approval for a rule-making process.
Because the printed materials were NOT a “rule”, there was no way they could undergo the process. Abortion advocates obviously put the provision there to kill the implementation of the bill. This was necessary for them to do because it allowed them to vote for the bill only days before a general election.
Catching on to what they were attempting to do, we confronted each senator before the election to see if they would support a measure to amend or delete the problem section if the Attorney General ruled that the printed materials could not be considered a “rule”. Seven senators said that they would support the measure if the AG so opined.
Several months later, the AG did opine as we had hoped. However, one senator, Senator Respicio, not only reneged on his pre-election promise, he criticized our solicitation of the AG opinion, stating:
"So instead they got the attorney general to say that the printed materials and the checklist certification are not rules. And if this legislature said that the checklist certification and the printed materials shall go through the triple A process how do we just roll over and say it's okay to accept the Attorney General's opinion that the checklist and the materials are not part of the rule making process?"
In the end, the bill passed unanimously, but the Voting Record doesn’t do us any good because the bill was amended to subject the printed materials to another review process, which, again, was an attempt to stall or kill the implementation of the law. It was only through many more months of effort and the raising of nearly $10,000 from private donations to pay for the materials, that the bill was finally implemented. (The Voting Record does show that three senators - Tom Ada, Barnes, and Won Pat - passed on the vote before they finally voted yes.)
The point in sharing this is to demonstrate how difficult it is to determine whether or not a candidate or a senator is really pro-life or not. Not even the voting sheets can give us a clear picture, but let’s review the voting sheets anyway.
As already mentioned, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2008 passed unanimously with two absences. The Voting Sheet is not available due to the wrong Voting Sheet being uploaded on the Legislature’s website.
Bill 52-31, the Informed Consent for Abortion bill, even after the section crippling its implementation was inserted, still received a NO vote from:
(showing only those currently running for office)
Tom Ada
Judith Won Pat
Aline Yamashita
Bill 323-31, the Parental Consent for Abortion passed unanimously but not till after a tremendous effort on our part to expose the attempt to undermine the bill which you can read about here. So the Voting Sheet for this bill is relatively useless in determining a true pro-life position.
Bill 195-32, the Infant Child’s Right to Life Act mandating medical care for a child who survived a failed abortion was openly opposed by:
(showing only those currently running for office)
Benjamin Cruz
Rory Respicio
Aline Yamashita
Judith Won Pat
The following chart shows only the NO voting record of current candidates who are either currently or formerly in office. A NO vote is a vote against a bill seeking to increase legal protections for the unborn, and in the case of Bill 195-32, the already born. A blank is either a YES vote or an absence. See above for actual voting sheets for each bill.