A bill introduced last week by five female Democratic members of the New Mexico House is labeled as the "Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act" (House Bill 7). One of the sponsors – State Representative Charlotte Little – argued on Facebook that the measure is necessary in post-Roe America so women in New Mexico can make "[their] own important healthcare decisions without interference."
Gender-affirming care is included in the legislation because (according to the Lea County Tribune): "… while there haven't been specific attempts in New Mexico to deny [such care] to trans people, many fear this could be next on the to-do list of conservative commissions."
Elisa Martinez, executive director of New Mexico Alliance for Life, tells AFN the first problem with the bill is that it is poorly written.
"It's basically forcing public employees and any institution that receives public funding to abide by the mandates of this act, which would force folks to participate in either abortions or what they usually refer to as 'gender-affirming health care,'" she explains.
For example, anyone receiving state funds – such as a public school teacher – would be forced to help a student obtain an abortion or transgender treatment and parents would not be involved.
NM Alliance for Life has posted an online petition opposing the bill – which Martinez describes as "the most tyrannical and overreaching health care bill in the nation."
The pro-life leader also points out that should the measure become law, it would affect the handful of New Mexico cities and counties that have voted to keep abortion out of their jurisdictions.
"This bill would also disbar anyone … even at the city or county level, including at the state level, from enacting any legislation that would conflict with this particular act," Martinez emphasizes.
HB 7 would also eliminate individuals' conscience and religious objections to abortion, transgender-related surgery, and hormone treatment, says the Alliance. Penalties under the bill could carry a minimum fine of $5,000 per violation – but could exceed that amount if the violator is sued for damages and attorney fees.
The measure is slated for a hearing on Friday morning (February 3) before the House Health & Human Services Committee. Representative Szczepanski sits on that committee.
