Editorial Comment: Kandit has and will continue to provide fair and balanced reporting on the anti-abortion bill introduced recently by several senators. Kandit provided the drafter of the bill, Attorney Peter Sgro, Jr and director of woman’s affairs Jayne Flores, equal television time to discuss the their differing views of the legislation.
We welcome any additional comments regardless if you are pro-life or pro-choice. Please contact us at 6719226397 or email your press releases to us at [email protected]. This is an important issue affecting our community. We encourage discussion.
ISSUED THIS MORNING: This morning Attorney Peter Sgro, Jr provided all media in the interest of transparency and fairness to all media, a detailed account of the history of the bill he drafted. He provided all media with the same written response he sent in response to one reporter’s questions. We provide you below with the media release and response written by attorney Sgro below.
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
From: Peter Sgro
Date: April 22, 2022 at 11:07:14 AM GMT+10
Subject: For Immediate Release. Transparency & Fairness to All Media: “The Guam Heartbeat Act of 2022.”
Good Morning Everyone:
This morning one of your media colleagues sent me an email with several questions. I was asked if I would be willing to reply in writing which I did.
Because of the importance of life, I feel it is important I always be transparent with all of you and our community. So because of that and because I feel it’s only right other media know, note below my response I sent out abou an hour ago.
Have a great weekend.
Regards
Peter
Peter R. Sgro, Jr., BBA, JD
Attorney-at-Law
A Member of The Guam Bar Association
278 South Marine Corps Drive
Suite 105
Tamuning, Guam 96913
————————————————————————
I am not a politician running for any office. I have never run for any public office. All my work on this issue in drafting the act involved an 8 month process, with the first two months spent just on research and establishing on-island and off-island relationships. And during all this time to the point I write this response to you, I have not been paid a penny for anything I’ve done, have no contracts for such work and in fact turned down an offer to be paid for my work. I serve in no capacity to any senators office or any organizations involving their campaigns.
The pro-choice group continues to write about the Bill being politically motivated and bringing up the upcoming elections as you alluded to And also that certain experts should now be engaged to look at the Bill before it moves towards the public hearing process. I feel I am in a much better position to answer such questions since I personally wrote what was initially a Referendum that then became a Bill And in fact as I will outline below, others including experts were engaged in the process of my work. I did not do it alone. I did in fact reach out to others for review, comments and suggestions. And when I first started drafting it, the first about 7 drafts were not even in the form of a Bill, but in the form of a Referendum.
I’m willing to provide that draft in the Referendum form to you since they are also dated. And you will easily see it was not for a Bill but specifically included provisions about the Santos Amendment not applying. As you know the Santos amendment makes it virtually impossible for any Referendum to pass into law because ballots left blank are counted as NO votes. I felt it’s application would prevent the referendum from passing since there will be voters that want to remain neutral, not vote, but that speech of neutrality would be counted instead NO rather than just not counted. And realistically, it would cost so much to challenge the Santos Amendment in court. I believe that law is over 25 years old and was actually created specifically to stop the movement of of a particular race of people in our community from gaining political power.
In addition, after talking with the Director of the Guam Election Commission about all the requirements of getting a Referendum on the ballot, we immediately knew we did not have the type of money it took to make it happen. Significant expenses would have been involved just like a political campaign for governor. Initial estimates of costs for things such as cost of workers, costs of legally required publications to educate voters, costs associated with marketing including print and broadcast media, signs etc. (Initial estimates showed we would have to have at least a $200,000 to $250,000 budget for the chance of a victorious Referendum. That on top of the issue of the Santos Amendment.
How The Drafting Began and Involvement By Others
Before I was ever asked if I would be willing to write the Referendum, I had taken an interest in the Texas Heartbeat Act especially after the first time the US Supreme Court did not strike it down as unconstitutional. I read even about how it all started in small rural Texas communities by a lawyer that came up with a new approach to constitutional law never done before in America. Before the concept reached the Texas Senate level, there were months of grassroots successes in small rural communities throughout Texas whose towns’ leaderships did not want new abortion clinics being built in their towns. So that is how it all started before it got to the State level and then progressed nationally.
Before I even started the first draft I needed to understand these new legal concepts and sought the help of two Texas pro-life attorneys that worked for a large national pro-life non-profit organization. Like the likes of the ACLU and say large national pro-choice or environmental non-profits, this organization had the resources to take state and national positions and even have their own team of in-house attorneys. So it cost me nothing to work with them.
Because of the above, and the additional points below, “The Guam Heartbeat Act of 2022” was not at all simply a cut and paste endeavour. I noticed the Pro-choice releases also call it a “Copy Cat” bill which if considered, does not address any true issues related to abortions. And as far as the input of others—I consulted 2 doctors as well as discussions with the likes of one on-island psychologist and one Oregon based psychologist each with over 25 years experience in child and family counseling, domestic violence and child abuse. I also met with two nurses that are both Pro-choice and one with a Phd and the other a master’s in nursing. A had discussions with a retired judge who spent years also in juvenile court. And three local lawyers helped. So the input of others with credibility was involved every step of the way.
And there are specifically two sections in the Bill that would have made it irresponsible to write if I did not consult with these two doctors. And those sections are the ones dealing with the exception as a result of an emergency involving the mother and also the science behind the detection of a fetal heartbeat. I felt it was important to understand what these doctors shared with me since I initially did not know how to define what a “medical emergency” situation was that would require an abortion to save a mother’s life. I did not feel that in a situation involving a medical emergency to save a woman’s life, one could just essentially cut and paste or be a copycat as some now suggest.
To better understand the inclusion of the two doctors, I invite you to look at Section 91B106 which is the section titled “EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. You will see in sub-part (a) reference to …”a woman would lose her life or her health would be severely impaired.” But then what does “severely impaired” mean? Through input by these two doctors and researching certain federal laws that provide definitions for a serious impairment, this is how “severely impaired” was defined. So you will see in the same section in sub-part (b) that….”severely impaired shall mean an impairment or combinations of impairments that significantly limit the pregnant woman’s physical or mental abilities.”
Why Such Detail Critical
Although you did not ask a question I feel deserves a response, I offer a response for you to consider. You may have noticed that the pro-choice group in their releases will often state the Bill is vague. The above example of going as far as defining “severely impaired” has a very important legal purpose. It is an elementary principle of constitutional law supported by years of court decisions, that if a statute is vague it will in whole or in part be deemed unconstitutional. You will also notice the pro-choice releases reference that the woman who had an abortion can be criminally charged under the Act. That is also not true since a sub-part of a section specifically excludes her. But just as important is the broad language in another section of the Bill that outlines not just the government of Guam but specifically names various government of Guam public officials PROHIBITED from initiating any actions. And these sections specifically name the Attorney General of Guam. So obviously, by removing that authority from the AG, he cannot criminally indict a woman that has had an abortion. There is nothing vague here.
Getting A Pulse of the Community
Honestly, I did not have trust for some I felt would somehow sabotage all this work but I did via a select group of 25 people. Multiple times over months sought their comments and provided updates, including every draft of the Referendum and also drafts of when it was in Bill form. I learned the importance of having some degree of understanding how people in our community in different walks of life felt when first vision then development of GRMC. So kept these 25 people engaged via WhatsApp with articles out of the states, You Tube clips about the Supreme Court and the Texas Heartbeat Act and each and everyone of the draft Referendums and also when things changed and it became in Bill form. In fact, to insure none of my writings could be altered, all drafts were sent out in unedited PDF format not WORS.
So much was involved which unfortunately most do not know.
Thank you very much for reaching out to me.
Have a wonderful weekend
Regards,
Peter
Peter R. Sgro, Jr., BBA, JD
Attorney-at-Law
A Member of The Guam Bar Association
