{"id":329051,"date":"2025-04-04T10:45:12","date_gmt":"2025-04-04T15:45:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=329051"},"modified":"2025-04-04T06:59:32","modified_gmt":"2025-04-04T11:59:32","slug":"anti-life-new-mexico-abortionists-fail-infants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/anti-life-new-mexico-abortionists-fail-infants\/","title":{"rendered":"ANTI-LIFE: New Mexico shields abortionists from scrutiny, fails to protect infants or health workers"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

At a time when Planned Parenthood is <\/span>under scrutiny from the Trump administration<\/span><\/a>, New Mexico is expanding protections for Planned Parenthood, the University of New Mexico (UNM), and other abortionists in the state \u2014 while transparency for taxpayers further dwindles.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

During the 2025 Regular Session, radical pro-abortion state legislators disregarded bills that would protect preborn children, expand the state\u2019s Safe Haven Laws to include baby boxes (saving the lives of born infants), and preserve medical professionals’ right to refuse participation in unethical or life-ending procedures.\u00a0<\/span>Instead, in a state that already allows abortion up to birth, the sole concern of these politicians is to shield abortionists from public scrutiny and accountability as they continue to end preborn human lives.<\/span><\/p>\n

Top priority: Protect the abortion industry<\/strong><\/p>\n

Senate Bill (SB) 57<\/span><\/a>, which passed the state legislature and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, amends the <\/span>Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA)<\/span><\/a>, creating an exemption from the disclosure of \u201c… any record containing personal identifying information or sensitive information related to the practice of a medical provider who performs medical services related to abortion.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The bills\u2019 main sponsor, Senator Peter Wirth, spoke in support of the bill in committee hearings, as did so-called expert witnesses<\/span> Dr. Lisa Hofler<\/span><\/a> (Executive Medical Director of UNM Hospital Women’s Services) and<\/span> Dr. Eve Espey<\/span><\/a> (Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor and Fellowship Director at UNM).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

ALBUQUERQUE, NM – JUNE 21, 2022: Dr. Lisa Hofler, the clinical vice chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico… (Gina Ferazzi \/ Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)<\/p><\/div>\n

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

\"\"

Dr. Eve Espey<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/span>But contrary to these claims, the chart found in the<\/span> Agency Bill Analysis submitted by the UNM<\/span><\/a> for SB 57 shows that the number of IPRA requests for “Reproductive Health Requests by Year” has dropped dramatically<\/em> over the last two years. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Source: New Mexico Legislature, University of New Mexico Agency Analysis List for SB 57, p. 3<\/p><\/div>\n

During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Wirth disclosed that SB 57 was created solely to protect abortionist Dr. Espey \u2013 a point that Elisa Martinez, president and founder of New Mexico Alliance for Life, noted when testifying against SB 57.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Highlighting the importance of IPRA, Martinez further testified that the congressional investigation \u201cled to criminal referrals, the suspension of a doctor, and the resignation of nearly everyone involved.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond protecting abortionists: What about the data?<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. William Sharer claimed that information requests would be hindered when attempting to obtain aggregated data, stating<\/span>, “How many abortions were there? How many of these were from medication?… That’s information the citizens ought to know\u2026 I believe it’s important for multiple reasons, but it is our job as a state to provide information through transparency.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Pointing out discrepancies in transparency between other public offices and departments compared to the protections SB 57 creates for abortionists, Sen. Sharer added:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Secretary of State provides information, the Department of Health provides information, the Environmental department, the Governor’s office provides information.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Why would this special interest group, a single special interest group, not have to provide information when they are still being funded by taxpayers?\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Lawmakers attempted to offer several amendments to SB 57 to address some of these concerns. One of Sharer\u2019s amendments aimed to clarify that the legislation would not “extend to information and aggregated data related to abortion services provided by a public body.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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?\u201d he asked. \u201cWe’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.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/em> of these things intentionally kill<\/em> a human child.<\/span><\/p>\n