• Fri. Mar 24th, 2023

Bill to defend reproductive properly becoming care providers from these out of state heads to Guv’s desk


Mar 17, 2023

On the final full day of the 2023 legislative session, the second significant piece of reproductive and gender-affirming rights legislation passed the Residence by a 38-30 vote.

SB 13, sponsored by state Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Albuquerque, now heads to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk.

The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Effectively becoming Care Protection Act protects providers and sufferers from other states’ efforts to subpoena for provider or patient information as portion of an investigation into reproductive or gender-affirming care precisely exactly where that activity is not protected. The bill seeks to defend reproductive and gender-affirming care sufferers and providers from civil or criminal liability and to defend reproductive healthcare providers from discrimination by professional licensing boards.

SB 13 is a single unique of two reproductive and gender-affirming rights bills introduced in this legislative session. The other bill, the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Healthcare Act, prohibits public bodies from passing ordinances that would ban or spot roadblocks in front of reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare. Lujan Grisham signed it into law on Thursday. She is anticipated to sign SB 13 into law as nicely. 

The bill codifies Lujan Grisham’s executive order that she made final summer time time inside days of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. If she indicators SB 13 bill, it would make particular that these protections will continue regardless of who is governor.

The three-hour debate on the Residence floor centered about other states’ rights as nicely troubles about entirely no cost speech and the right of religious organizations to protest or send electronic information about their disapproval of reproductive or gender-affirming care. Republican State Rep. Stefani Lord, of Sandia Park, asked if SB 13 is intended to be “an abortion shield law?”

State Rep. Andrea Romero, D-Santa Fe, who presented the bill on the Residence floor, described “whatever you want to get in touch with it, yes, we affirmatively defend what’s legal correct right here and will continue to be legal correct right here.”

“We’re a sovereign state we make our private laws. We’re speaking about an overreach of jurisdiction in unchartered territory,” Romero described of other states attempting to criminalize or penalize abortion or gender-affirming care in other states.

State Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, asked if New Mexico would cooperate with a subpoena issued from a diverse state regarding a licensed reproductive or gender-affirming care provider.

Romero described New Mexico would “not submit private information about that practice for a diverse state looking for it.”

State Rep. Greg Nibert, R-Roswell, named the legislation a “carve out from our fundamental notions of full faith and credit” to respond to legal orders from other states.

Romero described that reproductive and gender-affirming care is “being attacked in other states.”

State Rep. John Block, R-Alamogordo, asked what are the “specific attacks on New Mexico that have gone on that is producing this a priority?”

Romero described other states, mainly Texas, are passing legislation that criminalizes and permits civil penalties against reproductive and gender-affirming care providers and these looking for the care, as nicely as these who help people looking for care. Romero described there have been added than 400 pieces of anti-LGBTQ legislation introduced this year, so far, and 15 states are restricting or pondering of restricting gender-affirming care access.

“That’s precisely why we have to have this law,” Romero described.

State Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, attempted to argue that the legislation impinges on the right to entirely no cost speech. Romero disagreed.

“It is about private healthcare information. It is narrowly drafted in this law. We do not touch on entirely no cost speech, we’re defending healthcare information,” Romero described.

Montoya introduced two amendments to the bill. The 1st would have struck a section that he described would hold people or entities from legally protesting or sharing electronic information that is unfavorable towards a reproductive or gender-affirming provider or clinic.

That amendment under no circumstances ever received a vote. Residence Speaker Javier Martinez, D-Albuquerque, described Montoya was out of order and referred him to the suggestions of the Residence but did not elaborate.

The Residence debated Montoya’s amendment for several minutes just ahead of he withdrew it and made a second attempt to amend the bill by striking the word “entity,” mostly since he described the right of religious organizations or people “to say unflattering difficulties about procedures they find morally reprehensible” was becoming impacted.

Romero named the amendment “very unfriendly” and described this amendment “would allow for harassment.”

The debate on the amendment went additional than the three-hour debate limit on the Residence floor, top rated to a disagreement in in between Montoya and Martinez additional than Montoya’s capacity to make closing remarks. Martinez described the Residence had closed debate, was additional than the three-hour debate limit and that his time had run out.

The Residence tabled the amendment by 43-24 vote.