New Mexico Legislature Pushing Companion Bill to HB 7 that Targets Pro-life Speech

Legislative sessions are in full swing across the country, and many bills – both pro and anti-abortion – are being considered in state legislatures. Some of them, as in the case of New Mexico, are being pushed as fast as possible and with hardly any consideration of the harmful and even devastating effects that they will have on women, girls, and babies.

Recently, I informed you that New Mexico was considering a bill, HB 7, which contained some of the same concerning language that we saw in the California and Maryland infanticide bills. I provided oral testimony opposing HB 7 in a state senate committee hearing. But despite aggressive opposition from the pro-life community, the bill passed not only committee votes but also the full senate vote. It is now only one step away from reaching Governor Grisham’s desk – and she is expected to sign it into law as soon as possible.

Now, the New Mexico Senate is considering Senate Bill 13 (SB 13), which is problematic in a host of ways, including by running afoul of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, containing no protections for minors, those under duress, or those with mental issues that could distort their decision-making. It fails to protect against coerced abortion, defines “public body” so broadly that it can be interpreted to include courts, applies to abortions up until the point of birth, even where states have enacted laws to protect babies at viability, raises serious dormant commerce clause issues, equal protection issues, and vagueness/due process issues.

Moreover, SB 13 effectively requires liability cases to be tried twice, sets a trap to punish those seeking recourse in New Mexico courts, is an aggressive move against other states, and exempts from extradition criminal fugitives who commit or conspire to commit illegal abortions. Further, if enacted, SB 13 would shield healthcare providers in New Mexico from any civil liability resulting from their negligent or reckless practice of medicine in other states – but only in one instance – the provision of abortion.

Finally, SB 13 threatens the free speech rights of third parties by threatening them with fines of up to $10,000 for electronically transmitting “information related to an individual’s or entity’s protected health care activity with the intent to: . . . deter, prevent, sanction or penalize an individual or entity for engaging in a protected health care activity.”

Thus, for example, anyone communicating a pro-life message on Twitter aimed at stopping abortion could be penalized under this bill. Pro-lifers could be penalized for sharing information regarding the fact that University of New Mexico (UNM) abortionist Dr. Eve Espey admitted that infants are born alive during abortions and that “no measures were taken to resuscitate or offer care.” This is all the more reason that SB 13’s companion bill, HB 7 – and its use of the term “perinatal” – is deeply troubling.

Again, while HB 7 does not contain the term “perinatal death,” it does contain the term “perinatal” as one of the elements of “reproductive health care” with which the government cannot interfere, deny, or restrict. HB 7 defines “reproductive health care” as:

psychological, behavioral, surgical, pharmaceutical and medical care, services and supplies that relate to the human reproductive system, including services related to . . . abortion . . . prenatal, birth, perinatal and postpartum health. Section 2 (C).

It further prevents the government from

depriv[ing], through prosecution, punishment or other means, a person’s ability to act or refrain from acting during the person’s pregnancy based on the potential, actual or perceived effect on the pregnancy. Section 3 (C).

Let’s be clear. No law in New Mexico (or any other state) is preventing or punishing a woman for seeking perinatal care for herself or her baby. What HB 7 does is provide protection for not seeking perinatal care – which may include care for a baby born alive after a botched abortion. In fact, New Mexico has explicitly refrained from putting in place any protections for babies born alive after botched abortions – making it among the minority of states to fail to put in place protections for babies. Moreover, the most recent “born alive protection act” is currently stalled in a New Mexico House Committee.

But HB 7 makes it clear that the government or other public body “shall not impose or continue in effect any law, ordinance, policy or regulation that violates or conflicts with the provisions of the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act.” Thus, any “born alive” bill that did pass would be rendered ineffective – according to HB 7 and SB 13 – and would provide punishments for anyone who seeks to talk about that fact via electronic means, whether it be through email or a simple social media post.

As a final note on these horrific bills, I spent roughly six hours on March 6 waiting to speak over Zoom before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to SB 13, only to be called to speak and marked as not present because I was not physically in the room, and the Chair of the Committee failed to check Zoom for speakers, despite the fact that he had checked Zoom for support and opposition speakers on the other bills heard during the committee meeting. This was just another move by the abortion world to silence the voices of those who speak out in opposition.

Yet we will not stay silent, and we will continue to fight – both for the continued protection of the right to free speech and for the very lives of preborn babies, as well as the health and welfare of the women who carry them.

Fight with us.