On the final complete day of the 2023 legislative session, the second big 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 Well being Care Protection Act protects providers and individuals from other states’ efforts to subpoena for provider or patient facts as portion of an investigation into reproductive or gender-affirming care exactly where that activity is not protected. The bill seeks to safeguard reproductive and gender-affirming care individuals and providers from civil or criminal liability and to safeguard reproductive healthcare providers from discrimination by qualified licensing boards.
SB 13 is 1 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 place 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 produced final summer time inside days of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. If she indicators SB 13 bill, it would make sure that these protections will continue regardless of who is governor.
The 3-hour debate on the Residence floor centered about other states’ rights as nicely problems about no cost speech and the correct of religious organizations to protest or send electronic facts 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, stated “whatever you want to contact it, yes, we affirmatively safeguard what’s legal right here and will continue to be legal right here.”
“We’re a sovereign state we make our personal laws. We’re speaking about an overreach of jurisdiction in unchartered territory,” Romero stated 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 further state with regards to a licensed reproductive or gender-affirming care provider.
Romero stated New Mexico would “not submit private facts about that practice for a further state looking for it.”
State Rep. Greg Nibert, R-Roswell, known as the legislation a “carve out from our common notions of complete faith and credit” to respond to legal orders from other states.
Romero stated 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 stated 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 assist folks looking for care. Romero stated there have been extra than 400 pieces of anti-LGBTQ legislation introduced this year, so far, and 15 states are restricting or thinking of restricting gender-affirming care access.
“That’s precisely why we want this law,” Romero stated.
State Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, attempted to argue that the legislation impinges on the correct to no cost speech. Romero disagreed.
“It is about private healthcare facts. It is narrowly drafted in this law. We do not touch on no cost speech, we’re defending healthcare facts,” Romero stated.
Montoya introduced two amendments to the bill. The initially would have struck a section that he stated would preserve folks or entities from legally protesting or sharing electronic facts that is adverse towards a reproductive or gender-affirming provider or clinic.
That amendment never ever received a vote. Residence Speaker Javier Martinez, D-Albuquerque, stated Montoya was out of order and referred him to the guidelines of the Residence but did not elaborate.
The Residence debated Montoya’s amendment for numerous minutes ahead of he withdrew it and produced a second try to amend the bill by striking the word “entity,” since he stated the correct of religious organizations or folks “to say unflattering issues about procedures they obtain morally reprehensible” was getting impacted.
Romero known as the amendment “very unfriendly” and stated this amendment “would let for harassment.”
The debate on the amendment went more than the 3-hour debate limit on the Residence floor, top to a disagreement among Montoya and Martinez more than Montoya’s capacity to make closing remarks. Martinez stated the Residence had closed debate, was more than the 3-hour debate limit and that his time had run out.
The Residence tabled the amendment by 43-24 vote.