Kandit’s two opposing testimonies on abortion

Kandit’s hosts, Johnnie Rosario and Troy Torres, each submitted testimony to the Guam Legislature on The Guam Heartbeat Act. One testified against the bill. The other testified for it. Here are their testimonies:

Johnnie Rosario’s testimony against Bill No. 291

Buenas Madam Speaker and members of the committee on health. My name is Johnnie Rosario, and I oppose Bill No. 291 and any legislation that dictates the life of a pregnant woman.

The government has no cause to involve itself in pregnancy. I understand that once the child is born, the state has every interest in the protection of the child, if the child’s life or welfare is placed in any danger. But until that time, the mother is the sole vessel of that pregnancy, and her life and welfare is what should count in the eyes of the law.

As a society, we must come to terms with the fact that life begins at birth, not at conception. The ability for the child to have life rests solely on the pregnant woman’s ability to provide the child nutrients through gestation. It all happens within a woman’s body.

To that point, our bodies are ours, and not the government’s. We cannot and should not live in a state, where the government has the ability to dictate what we do with our bodies. It is fascist, to say the least. If I may compare it to the recent controversy of the coronavirus vaccine, I found the government’s dictates unsettling. This is Twenty-first Century America, and the fact that our government would come between the decision a person makes in consultation with their doctor is the most unAmerican precept possible.

Anti-abortion statutes, just like vaccine mandates, rob us of our freedoms in the most violative ways. These are our bodies that are at the heart of these discussions. And if we accept that life begins at birth, and that fetuses in the gestational process are wards of the woman, and not of the state, then there are no ifs, ands, or buts about the fact that whatever happens during the pregnancy is a medical and personal matter upon which the American way grants us choice.

Before I conclude, I have been bothered by certain sentiments espoused by some in favor of anti-abortion statutes. I have heard some people assigning guilt upon mothers, you have chosen to abort their pregnancies. They say these women have sinned. Perhaps that is true. But in the crafting of laws in our democracy, let it be known that it is their sin, and not the government’s. Let these women find their peace and have their peace. And let us not regress as an American people.


Troy Torres’s testimony in support of Bill No. 291

Buenas Madam Speaker and members of the committee on health. My name is Troy Torres, and I support Bill No. 291 and any legislation that protects the lives of people.

If it is the truth that life begins at conception, then the state has an absolute interest in protecting the life and the welfare of that child, no matter its age. Any policy that veers from that foundation simply creates a double standard in our murder laws.

If the premise for allowing the choice to terminate a child in the womb is the autonomy of the host, then why do our laws not allow us to terminate the lives of eight-year-olds, who cannot walk, see, hear, or even feed on their own? What of elderly people, who are bed-ridden and must be fed with tubes and incontinent? They, too, cannot live without the support of others. Their lives are dependent upon their hosts. Are their lives not worthy of protection under our laws against murder?

Protecting life, at all stages and of all ages, speaks to our progression as a civilization intent on its betterment. The social ills we suffer and we fear will beset us have only grown since Roe v. Wade created a culture of death. Laws that allow the termination of life speak to society’s transgressions against itself, and our willingness to excuse our avarice, vanity, and corruption that have distorted the quality of life by distilling life itself.

It is true that medical privacy and autonomy over our health decisions should prevail over government interference between a doctor and a patient. But, when the decision involves the termination of a pregnancy, there is a third person involved. And of all the people in that room, it is the unborn child who has no voice; who is most vulnerable; and whom the government has an absolute interest to protect.

Life begins at conception, and thus, life must be protected from that point by the laws of this land.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.