Top priority: Protect the abortion industry

Senate Bill (SB) 57, which passed the state legislature and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, amends the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), creating an exemption from the disclosure of “… any record containing personal identifying information or sensitive information related to the practice of a medical provider who performs medical services related to abortion.”

The bills’ main sponsor, Senator Peter Wirth, spoke in support of the bill in committee hearings, as did so-called expert witnesses Dr. Lisa Hofler (Executive Medical Director of UNM Hospital Women’s Services) and Dr. Eve Espey (Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor and Fellowship Director at UNM). 

Drs. Hofler and Espey, along with UNM itself, have been at the core of years’ worth of disturbing allegations, including unethical fetal parts trafficking. These allegations led to congressional investigations. UNM was also sued after the death of 23-year-old Keisha Atkins, who died after UNM failed to provide appropriate treatment for sepsis following an abortion.

During committee hearings, Sen. Wirth claimed that these changes to IPRA with regard to abortionists were based on safety concerns along with a reported “demoralizing” amount of IPRA requests in recent years, as the purported expert witnesses testified. But contrary to these claims, the chart found in the Agency Bill Analysis submitted by the UNM for SB 57 shows that the number of IPRA requests for “Reproductive Health Requests by Year” has dropped dramatically over the last two years.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Wirth disclosed that SB 57 was created solely to protect abortionist Dr. Espey – a point that Elisa Martinez, president and founder of New Mexico Alliance for Life, noted when testifying against SB 57. 

Martinez further stated that it took a congressional subpoena for her to obtain public records exposing “reckless abortion practices” and the “disturbing truth” of the harvesting of fetal parts. Martinez noted that this harvesting was “in violation of both human research laws, and women’s right to informed consent.” 

Highlighting the importance of IPRA, Martinez further testified that the congressional investigation “led to criminal referrals, the suspension of a doctor, and the resignation of nearly everyone involved.” 

Beyond protecting abortionists: What about the data? 

Over numerous committee hearings and debates on the chamber floors, several Republican senators claimed SB 57 would stifle transparency and access to abortion data from publicly funded abortionists. 

During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. William Sharer claimed that information requests would be hindered when attempting to obtain aggregated data, stating, “How many abortions were there? How many of these were from medication?… That’s information the citizens ought to know… I believe it’s important for multiple reasons, but it is our job as a state to provide information through transparency.” 

Pointing out discrepancies in transparency between other public offices and departments compared to the protections SB 57 creates for abortionists, Sen. Sharer added: 

The Secretary of State provides information, the Department of Health provides information, the Environmental department, the Governor’s office provides information.

Why would this special interest group, a single special interest group, not have to provide information when they are still being funded by taxpayers? 

Lawmakers attempted to offer several amendments to SB 57 to address some of these concerns. One of Sharer’s amendments aimed to clarify that the legislation would not “extend to information and aggregated data related to abortion services provided by a public body.” 

Sen. Sharer cited the need for aggregated information on infants born alive during failed abortions to be available to the public. “Here we have a living human being outside the womb that we kill. Why wouldn’t we want to know about that?” he asked. “We’re not talking about the clump of cells argument here; we know we have a baby because we can see it. We know that she has arms and legs and a heartbeat. We can see it.” 

He continued, “I’m frightfully concerned that we are evolving into something, something very bad, and when we get to this, leaving a child on the table to die, that’s child sacrifice; that’s not an abortion.” 

The disturbing reality is that whether a child is ripped apart limb by limb, suffocated, starved, or left to die of neglect after surviving an abortion, all of these things intentionally kill a human child.

Sadly, Sen. Sharer’s concerns about infants left to die from failed abortions are not far-fetched. Live Action News previously reported that congressional investigations into UNM’s OB/GYN department, led by Dr. Espey, detailed how babies born alive were denied life-saving care and left to die after failed abortions. 

Several Republican legislators voiced their concerns that the lack of transparency instituted by SB 57 could ultimately lead to future lawsuits. 

Slippery slope of anti-life policies

Below is a timeline showing New Mexico’s slide down the slippery slope of increasingly anti-life policies:

• 1963 – NM law allows for abortion if the procedure is deemed “necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to prevent serious and permanent bodily injury.” (More here about why induced abortion – the intentional and direct killing of a preborn child – is not medically necessary.) 

• 1969 – NM law allows for abortion if it is deemed that the pregnancy “1. is likely to result in the death of the woman or the grave impairment of the physical or mental health (emphasis added) of the woman; or 2. The child probably (emphasis added) will have a grave physical or mental defect, or 3. The pregnancy resulted from rape…, or 4. The pregnancy resulted from incest.” Requirements remain in place requiring parent/guardian consent for minors to access abortions, for licensing of medical professionals, and for abortions to be done in accredited hospitals. Hospital and medical professionals retain the right to refuse to participate in abortions based on “moral and religious grounds.” 

• 1999 – NM Supreme Court releases an opinion that the states’ EPA Medicaid program will cover abortion expenses. 

• 2017 – Keisha Atkins, 23, dies from an elective, taxpayer-funded botched second-trimester abortion committed at Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) in New Mexico .

• 2018 – The NM State Legislature votes down a bill requiring parental notification for abortions committed on minors.

• 2020 – Pro-life attorney Mike Seibel and pro-life group Abortion on Trial obtain and release documents exposing UNM’s shipping of aborted body parts across the U.S. and Canada.

• 2021 – Law repeals previous abortion laws which limited circumstances that allowed abortions according to 1969 NM abortion law; allows abortions with few restrictions up to birth; SB 10 allows for abortions to be performed on minors without parental/guardian consent; signed law removes conscience protections for medical workers who do not want to participate in abortions; removal of penalties for administering abortion drugs, “including a second-degree felony for killing a woman in the process”; Elizabeth Whitefield End-of Life Options Act legalizes assisted suicide in New Mexico.

• 2022 – Gov. Grisham signs Executive Order allotting $10M for state-funded abortion facility; SWO and UNM settle with Keisha Atkins’ family regarding her death. 

• 2023 – Passage of “Reproductive and Gender Affirming Healthcare Act” prohibiting interference with “gender-affirming care” and access to abortions; Grisham kickstarts taxpayer-funded “Abortion Hotline”; passage of SB 13 prohibiting cooperation with out-of-state investigations into medical providers’ “protective health care” such as “gender-affirming care” and abortions.  

• 2025 – Gov. Grisham allocates an additional $10M for a second abortion complex; SB 57, which changes IPRA statutes, heads to Grisham’s desk for signature; NM Supreme Court rules against “Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn” ordinances; SB 499 and SB 360 seek expanded protections regarding Safe Haven Baby Boxes but are still on hold; The Healthcare Workers Conscience Protection Act (SB 347) has yet to receive a hearing; The Every Mother Matters Act (HB 578) has yet to receive a hearing. 

Appalling double standard

As SB 57 heads to Gov. Grisham’s desk, the Healthcare Workers Conscience Protection Act (SB 347) sits in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee awaiting a hearing. SB 347 seeks to reinstate protections for medical providers who wish to abstain from committing abortion procedures based on religious or moral beliefs. 

During a press conference held by NM State Republicans, Sen. Gabriel Ramos, an SB 347 sponsor, stated, “The left believes that choice is important, but what happens to the doctors’ and nurses’ choice?” 

Sen. Ramos added, “We need to make sure that we pass a bill that gives them the choice to religious freedoms, and make sure that they are able to do what they wish, and save people, not go backwards.”

Senator Pat Boone spoke in support of SB 347, stating, “I believe that the conscience and the beliefs and the work of these medical people needs to be protected just like the life of that child.” 

The Department of Health’s analysis of the bill acknowledged the blatant infringement of the rights of New Mexican healthcare workers:

If SB347 is not enacted, medical practitioner individuals and entities will not be allowed to refuse to participate in or pay for any health care service that violates the medical practitioner’s, health care institution’s, or health care payer’s conscience, and they would continue to be held civilly, criminally or administratively liable for the exercise of ‘conscience’ rights created by the bill. 

While New Mexican medical workers’ constitutional rights are infringed upon and the lives of tens of thousands of preborn children are ended in New Mexico, SB 57 will only protect abortionists once it is law. The priorities of Gov. Grisham and the radically pro-abortion members of the New Mexico state legislature are clear. 

Never miss the latest news in the fight for life.

Senate Bill (SB) 57, which passed the state legislature and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, amends the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), creating an exemption from the disclosure of “… any record containing personal identifying information or sensitive information related to the practice of a medical provider who performs medical services related to abortion.”

The bills’ main sponsor, Senator Peter Wirth, spoke in support of the bill in committee hearings, as did so-called expert witnesses Dr. Lisa Hofler (Executive Medical Director of UNM Hospital Women’s Services) and Dr. Eve Espey (Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor and Fellowship Director at UNM). 

Drs. Hofler and Espey, along with UNM itself, have been at the core of years’ worth of disturbing allegations, including unethical fetal parts trafficking. These allegations led to congressional investigations. UNM was also sued after the death of 23-year-old Keisha Atkins, who died after UNM failed to provide appropriate treatment for sepsis following an abortion.

During committee hearings, Sen. Wirth claimed that these changes to IPRA with regard to abortionists were based on safety concerns along with a reported “demoralizing” amount of IPRA requests in recent years, as the purported expert witnesses testified. But contrary to these claims, the chart found in the Agency Bill Analysis submitted by the UNM for SB 57 shows that the number of IPRA requests for “Reproductive Health Requests by Year” has dropped dramatically over the last two years.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Wirth disclosed that SB 57 was created solely to protect abortionist Dr. Espey – a point that Elisa Martinez, president and founder of New Mexico Alliance for Life, noted when testifying against SB 57. 

Martinez further stated that it took a congressional subpoena for her to obtain public records exposing “reckless abortion practices” and the “disturbing truth” of the harvesting of fetal parts. Martinez noted that this harvesting was “in violation of both human research laws, and women’s right to informed consent.” 

Highlighting the importance of IPRA, Martinez further testified that the congressional investigation “led to criminal referrals, the suspension of a doctor, and the resignation of nearly everyone involved.” 

Beyond protecting abortionists: What about the data? 

Over numerous committee hearings and debates on the chamber floors, several Republican senators claimed SB 57 would stifle transparency and access to abortion data from publicly funded abortionists. 

During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. William Sharer claimed that information requests would be hindered when attempting to obtain aggregated data, stating, “How many abortions were there? How many of these were from medication?… That’s information the citizens ought to know… I believe it’s important for multiple reasons, but it is our job as a state to provide information through transparency.” 

Pointing out discrepancies in transparency between other public offices and departments compared to the protections SB 57 creates for abortionists, Sen. Sharer added: 

The Secretary of State provides information, the Department of Health provides information, the Environmental department, the Governor’s office provides information.

Why would this special interest group, a single special interest group, not have to provide information when they are still being funded by taxpayers? 

Lawmakers attempted to offer several amendments to SB 57 to address some of these concerns. One of Sharer’s amendments aimed to clarify that the legislation would not “extend to information and aggregated data related to abortion services provided by a public body.” 

Sen. Sharer cited the need for aggregated information on infants born alive during failed abortions to be available to the public. “Here we have a living human being outside the womb that we kill. Why wouldn’t we want to know about that?” he asked. “We’re not talking about the clump of cells argument here; we know we have a baby because we can see it. We know that she has arms and legs and a heartbeat. We can see it.” 

He continued, “I’m frightfully concerned that we are evolving into something, something very bad, and when we get to this, leaving a child on the table to die, that’s child sacrifice; that’s not an abortion.” 

The disturbing reality is that whether a child is ripped apart limb by limb, suffocated, starved, or left to die of neglect after surviving an abortion, all of these things intentionally kill a human child.

Sadly, Sen. Sharer’s concerns about infants left to die from failed abortions are not far-fetched. Live Action News previously reported that congressional investigations into UNM’s OB/GYN department, led by Dr. Espey, detailed how babies born alive were denied life-saving care and left to die after failed abortions. 

Several Republican legislators voiced their concerns that the lack of transparency instituted by SB 57 could ultimately lead to future lawsuits. 

Slippery slope of anti-life policies

Below is a timeline showing New Mexico’s slide down the slippery slope of increasingly anti-life policies:

• 1963 – NM law allows for abortion if the procedure is deemed “necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to prevent serious and permanent bodily injury.” (More here about why induced abortion – the intentional and direct killing of a preborn child – is not medically necessary.) 

• 1969 – NM law allows for abortion if it is deemed that the pregnancy “1. is likely to result in the death of the woman or the grave impairment of the physical or mental health (emphasis added) of the woman; or 2. The child probably (emphasis added) will have a grave physical or mental defect, or 3. The pregnancy resulted from rape…, or 4. The pregnancy resulted from incest.” Requirements remain in place requiring parent/guardian consent for minors to access abortions, for licensing of medical professionals, and for abortions to be done in accredited hospitals. Hospital and medical professionals retain the right to refuse to participate in abortions based on “moral and religious grounds.” 

• 1999 – NM Supreme Court releases an opinion that the states’ EPA Medicaid program will cover abortion expenses. 

• 2017 – Keisha Atkins, 23, dies from an elective, taxpayer-funded botched second-trimester abortion committed at Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) in New Mexico .

• 2018 – The NM State Legislature votes down a bill requiring parental notification for abortions committed on minors.

• 2020 – Pro-life attorney Mike Seibel and pro-life group Abortion on Trial obtain and release documents exposing UNM’s shipping of aborted body parts across the U.S. and Canada.

• 2021 – Law repeals previous abortion laws which limited circumstances that allowed abortions according to 1969 NM abortion law; allows abortions with few restrictions up to birth; SB 10 allows for abortions to be performed on minors without parental/guardian consent; signed law removes conscience protections for medical workers who do not want to participate in abortions; removal of penalties for administering abortion drugs, “including a second-degree felony for killing a woman in the process”; Elizabeth Whitefield End-of Life Options Act legalizes assisted suicide in New Mexico.

• 2022 – Gov. Grisham signs Executive Order allotting $10M for state-funded abortion facility; SWO and UNM settle with Keisha Atkins’ family regarding her death. 

• 2023 – Passage of “Reproductive and Gender Affirming Healthcare Act” prohibiting interference with “gender-affirming care” and access to abortions; Grisham kickstarts taxpayer-funded “Abortion Hotline”; passage of SB 13 prohibiting cooperation with out-of-state investigations into medical providers’ “protective health care” such as “gender-affirming care” and abortions.  

• 2025 – Gov. Grisham allocates an additional $10M for a second abortion complex; SB 57, which changes IPRA statutes, heads to Grisham’s desk for signature; NM Supreme Court rules against “Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn” ordinances; SB 499 and SB 360 seek expanded protections regarding Safe Haven Baby Boxes but are still on hold; The Healthcare Workers Conscience Protection Act (SB 347) has yet to receive a hearing; The Every Mother Matters Act (HB 578) has yet to receive a hearing. 

Appalling double standard

As SB 57 heads to Gov. Grisham’s desk, the Healthcare Workers Conscience Protection Act (SB 347) sits in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee awaiting a hearing. SB 347 seeks to reinstate protections for medical providers who wish to abstain from committing abortion procedures based on religious or moral beliefs. 

During a press conference held by NM State Republicans, Sen. Gabriel Ramos, an SB 347 sponsor, stated, “The left believes that choice is important, but what happens to the doctors’ and nurses’ choice?” 

Sen. Ramos added, “We need to make sure that we pass a bill that gives them the choice to religious freedoms, and make sure that they are able to do what they wish, and save people, not go backwards.”

Senator Pat Boone spoke in support of SB 347, stating, “I believe that the conscience and the beliefs and the work of these medical people needs to be protected just like the life of that child.” 

The Department of Health’s analysis of the bill acknowledged the blatant infringement of the rights of New Mexican healthcare workers:

If SB347 is not enacted, medical practitioner individuals and entities will not be allowed to refuse to participate in or pay for any health care service that violates the medical practitioner’s, health care institution’s, or health care payer’s conscience, and they would continue to be held civilly, criminally or administratively liable for the exercise of ‘conscience’ rights created by the bill. 

While New Mexican medical workers’ constitutional rights are infringed upon and the lives of tens of thousands of preborn children are ended in New Mexico, SB 57 will only protect abortionists once it is law. The priorities of Gov. Grisham and the radically pro-abortion members of the New Mexico state legislature are clear.