John Block

Legislative Update: Bills you need to know about for Feb. 18-19

Leave a Comment / Action Alert, New Mexico, News, Politics / By

This is a busy time at the New Mexico Legislature, and here are short rundowns of some bills being considered today, tomorrow, and over the weekend. Those marked with “BAD” are what Piñon Post sees as bills detrimental to the state.

TODAY (NM SENATE): 

Senate Conservation Committee – 8:30 a.m. 2/18/2021 – Watch live here.

S.B. 296 sponsored by Sen. Brenda McKenna (D-Bernalillo & Sandoval) and Jeff Steinborn (D-Doña Ana) – BAD 

This is an anti-energy bill that would increase penalties for environmental violations from $10,000 to $20,000 in some cases and from $15,000 to $30,000 in others, which is excessively punitive to businesses. 

According to the fiscal impact report on the bill, it “increases the maximum civil penalty under the New Mexico Mining Act, implemented by the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD), from $10 thousand to $20 thousand per day for each violation, including violations of a rule of the Mining.” 

The bill also “increases the Environment Department’s (NMED) penalty authority for violations of the Air Quality Control Act, the federal Clean Air Act, air quality permits, emission limits, and regulations from $15 thousand per day per violation to $30 thousand per day per violation.” 

TOMORROW (still time to RSVP to testify) 

HEALTH AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE – Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, Chair, convenes at 1:30 p.m.* 

*Times are subject to change depending on the Senate floor schedule. 

For spoken public comment register at https://ggle.io/3pe5. If there is a high volume of requests for public comment, not everyone may be able to speak. For written comment send an email to SPAC@nmlegis.gov with your Name, Entity Represented, Bill #, and For or Against. Written comments are limited to 300 words or less. The deadline to respond is Thursday, February 18 at 5:00 p.m. You will be contacted by our Zoom Operator with the virtual meeting instructions. If you do not receive a response, check your junk email.

S.B. 224 – CRIME OF FAILURE TO SECURE FIREARM by Sen. Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez (D-Bernalillo) – BAD

As reported on earlier, this bill will criminalize parents who teach their children how to shoot and mandate specific gun safes and locks for firearms. This is the bill’s first committee appearance.

This bill is staunchly anti-Second Amendment and counter-productive, as it would leave children without proper firearms training to use guns properly. 

S.B. 232  – EXEMPTION FROM IMMUNIZATION by Sen. Gregg Schmedes (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe, and Torrance) – GOOD

According to the fiscal impact report, “Senate Bill 232 would amend Section 24-5-3 NMSA 1978 to add a fourth reason why a child should be granted an exemption from state-required immunizations for school or dare. The fourth type of exemption, “for reasons of conscience,” would be added to the three existing reasons: medical exemptions; group religious objections to vaccine(s) and individual religious objections to vaccine(s).” This bill is friendly to New Mexicans who have conscience objections to vaccinations. 

S.B. 238 – ELIMINATE SEC. OF HEALTH POWERS by Sen. Gregg Schmedes (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe, and Torrance) – GOOD

According to the fiscal impact report, “Senate Bill 238 eliminates the authority of the secretary of the Department of Health under the Public Health Emergency Response Act (PHERA) to isolate or quarantine a person who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination for reasons of health, religion or conscience. This bill contains an emergency clause and would become effective immediately upon signature by the governor.” This bill is friendly to those who have objections to being forcibly vaccinated by the Department of Health. 

SB 230 – INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN STATE AGENCIES by Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo) – BAD

“SB230 directs each state agency or entity that receives state funding to annually develop and submit a plan to address institutional racism as part of its annual final budget submission. SB230 would require copies of the annual plans to be provided to the Legislature, the Legislative Finance Committee, and the Courts, Corrections, & Justice Committee,” according to the Fiscal Impact Report. 

This bill would foster racism within state agencies based upon arbitrary attributes that employees cannot control. This would further bureaucratize New Mexico state agencies and waste hard-earned taxpayer money on programs that do not directly benefit the state in any way, shape, or form. 

S.B. 274 – USE OF DEADLY FORCE REPORTING by Sen. Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez (D-Bernalillo) and Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo) – BAD

Note: both of these women are running for Congress in CD-1.

According to the bill, “Within twenty-four hours of a person suffering great bodily harm or death as a result of a peace officer’s actions, the sheriff or the chief of police of the jurisdiction in which the great bodily harm or death occurred shall report the great bodily harm or death in writing to the district attorney of the judicial district in which the great bodily harm or death occurred. The sheriff or chief of police shall report all instances of suspected great bodily harm to the appropriate district attorney, even if a more thorough assessment of great bodily harm will be undertaken at a later date,” 

The bill would put undue suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the law enforcement officer, overburdening local sheriffs and district attorneys, while not trusting police officers to carry forth their duties. 

NOTE: This same bill, but in the House form as H.B. 254 will be heard in the HOUSE CONSUMER AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE on Thursday, February 18, 2021 – 10 Minutes After the Floor Session – Zoom:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89243737297

S.B. 227 –  INSPECTION OF POLICE MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATION – Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo) – BAD

This bill is opposed by the Bernalillo County Deputy Sheriffs Association. It adds crippling restrictions on law enforcement and adds strict reporting criteria which does nothing by penalize law enforcers for simply carrying out their duties. Included in the bill are restrictions, such as the following:

“A law enforcement officer shall not use a chokehold. J. A law enforcement officer shall not discharge tear gas or other chemical weapons. K. A law enforcement officer shall not discharge rubber pellets from a propulsion device. L. A law enforcement officer shall not direct a dog to bite a person.” This is an anti-law enforcement bill, which takes critical tools away from officers. 

This is still being updated.

TAX, BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE – Thursday, February 18, 2021 – 1:30 p.m. – Virtual Zoom Meeting

For public participation send an email to SCORC@nmlegis.gov with your Name, Entity Represented, Bill #, For or Against and indicate if you wish to speak. The deadline to respond is Thursday, February 18 at 10:00 a.m. You will be contacted by our Zoom Operator with the virtual meeting instructions.

SB 168 – INCREASE GAS TAX by Sen. “Bobby” J. Gonzales (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Santa Fe and Taos) – BAD 

Senate Bill 168 increases the gasoline excise tax and the special fuel excise tax by five cents per gallon (from 17 cents to 22 cents and from 21 cents to 26 cents, respectively) over a five-year period, with a one-cent increase each fiscal year beginning in FY22.

In an economic crisis, the state already faces, this bill will raise taxes on gas, hurting the state and hurting people in New Mexico already suffering enough through burdensome taxation. 

HOUSE LABOR, VETERANS’ AND MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE – ELISEO LEE ALCON, CHAIR Thursday, February 18, 2021 – 2:00 p.m. – Zoom
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84249828480 

H.B. 268 – CORONAVIRUS & WORKERS’ COMP by Reps. Dayan Hochman-Vigil (D-Bernalillo) and Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, and Santa Fe). 

According to the New Mexico Business Coalition, “the employee would not be required to prove that they were actually exposed to Covid-19 at work.” 

The business would be forced to go to court to dispute the claim that the essential employee contracted COVID-19 during work. The bill reads, “The presumptions created in Subsection B of this section may be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction establishing that the employee engaged in conduct or activities outside of employment that substantially violated the then existent public health orders related to the coronavirus disease 2019.” 

The New Mexico Business Coalition urges members of the public to reach out to legislators on the committee and urge them to vote “NO” on the measure “because it is unfair and injurious to businesses that have been working to keep the economy going during forced shutdowns.”

Monday, February 22, 2021

HOUSE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

ANTONIO “MOE” MAESTAS, CHAIR – 1:30 p.m. – Zoom

H.B. 110 – PHASED MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE by Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo) – She is running for Congress in CD-1.  – BAD

“Starting January 1, 2022, the minimum wage would rise to $12.00 per hour Starting January 1, 2024, the minimum wage would rise to $15.00 per hour,” according to the fiscal impact report.

This bill hurts small businesses and causes fewer people employed because of the mandates from this anti-business, anti-worker bill. 
You are invited to a Zoom webinar. Feb 22, 2021 01:30 PM When: Feb 22, 2021 01:30 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada) Topic: HOUSE COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83846715600

HOUSE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

MATTHEW MCQUEEN,
CHAIR
Thursday, February 18, 2021 – 8:30 a.m. – Zoom

H.J.M. 3 – WAIVE OIL & GAS PERMIT BAN ON FED LANDS by Rep. James G. Townsend (R-Artesia) and Rep. Rod Montoya (R-Farmington) – GOOD

This bill requests Joe Biden waive the suspension of new oil and gas leasing and drilling permits for federal lands in New Mexico.

While we stood in breadlines, Gov. Lujan Grisham feasted on $200/lb Wagyu beef steaks and liquor

7 Comments / New Mexico, News, Opinion, Politics / By

Just a few short months ago, Democrat Gov. Lujan Grisham was forcing New Mexicans to stand in freezing cold breadlines to buy food and toilet paper. Little did we know, while New Mexicans were being treated like pond scum, Gov. Lujan Grisham was living the high life in her hilltop mansion, indulging herself and her staff in $200-per pound cuts of Wagyu beef, fine wine, and liquor–all on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. The same folks standing in the freezing cold over the holidays and not allowed to see their families due to Lujan Grisham’s health orders.

But to defend the indefensible, the Governor sent out her trusty misinformation jabberwocky, Tripp Stelnicki, to spin the story. He claimed, “There are still meetings with cabinet and staff that are distanced small groups,” Stelnicki said.  “They are sporadic, but they last a long time and so there’s food at those meetings often prepared.” According to Stelnicki, “they were fed gourmet meals” during these sessions. To remind you, meetings such as this are in stark violation of Lujan Grisham’s public health orders. The review of her finances was completed July 1st through December 31, “a time period when Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham restricted capacity of grocery stores, urged New Mexicans to limit time out of their homes and restricted business operations through a series of emergency public health orders.”

She previously demanded, “Do not mix up households–coming into contact with non-household members. It is high-risk,” telling people, “No hugging” when “mixing households” over the Thanksgiving holiday. 

According to KOB 4, “The receipts we reviewed show about $350 in alcohol purchase for beer, Crown Royal, an assortment of wines and tequila.  According to Stelnicki, these alcohol purchases were made over a period of time for a future staff party after the COVID-19 pandemic ends.” 

“The staff at the residence have, I think, been guilty of optimism, that with declining case numbers,” Stelnicki said.  “We might get to a place where there could be a safe gathering.  I think everyone has been guilty of that from time to time over the course of COVID. And so some of those purchases have been made, whether it’s planning for or hoping for a different kind of gathering with legislators or partners, whoever it might be. That hasn’t happened. So those purchases are sort of just there. And they’ll be used after COVID. Hopefully, soon.”

New Mexicans also footed the bill for the Governor’s dogs, who apparently are being treated better than New Mexicans who have been mistreated for months. Hundreds of dollars has been spent on cleaning up the dogs’ messes, according to the report.

The spending was reviled by Democrats and Republicans alike, with Democrat chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee saying, “My feeling about it is, is that there are certain things that should not be paid for by the taxpayer. I did say that I do not believe that alcohol expenses are one of those things unless it’s an official event.” 

Gov. Lujan Grisham has repeatedly lied to New Mexicans, violated her public health orders to buy luxury jewelry, belittled New Mexicans from Hobbs to Española, gave her staff raises while New Mexicans lost their businesses and starved, and now, the details of her extravagant lifestyle paid for by the hard-working taxpayer doesn’t even seem to be a surprise anymore.

KOB 4 tried to give Lujan Grisham a break by contrasting her spending to that of her predecessor, Gov. Susana Martinez, who did indeed spend the taxpayers’ money irresponsibly and used her position to indulge herself while harassing State Police officers. But passing the buck to the past administration is weak and shows a hollow and tired argument. It is of my opinion that the New Mexico governor’s “allowance” should be bare-bones and minimal, allowing only for costs of survival and that’s it. New Mexicans should not be forced to pay for a slush fund for anyone, much less the Governor so she feast while we starve.

Will Lujan Grisham reimburse New Mexicans for her lavish lifestyle? Unfortunately, the answer is likely no. 

Read more on Lujan Grisham’s hypocrisy from the Piñon Post: 

Gov. MLG once again tells New Mexicans, ‘Let them eat cake!’

EXCLUSIVE: Prominent judge files ethics complaint against Speaker Egolf

5 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

The Piñon Post has learned on Wednesday that a former longtime judge from New Mexico’s 11th District, Sandra Price, filed an ethics complaint against Speaker of the New Mexico House Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe), alleging the lawmaker is co-sponsoring a bill, H.B. 4, also known as the “Civil Rights Act,” which would personally benefit him in his private law practice.

The esteemed judge, who served on the bench for 12 years, notes, “By his active involvement in sponsoring HB 4, Speaker Egolf, from my review of the legislation and the committee hearings, has failed to live up to the high level of trust that the public has placed upon him.” 

She wrote, “Mr. Egolf s sponsorship of this legislation is an ethical conflict under NMSA 1978, §10-16-3 and NMSA 1978,§10-16-4. These statutes governing legislative ethics are written to instill in the public a faith that legislation is transparent and ethically discharged with a high level of responsibility to the public.” 

In the letter, she explained how Egolf failed to disclose conflicts of interest with this bill’s sponsorship, especially with 20% of his legal practice being in the area of Civil Rights claims and another 40% being in Civil litigation on behalf of plaintiffs. 

“Thus 60% of his private legal practice would benefit from the passage of HB 4. [I]n his advertisements, he specifically mentions he handles ‘police misconduct’ and ‘race discrimination.’ HB 4 would directly benefit his practice and this conflict should have been disclosed. Even with this conflict, Speaker Egolf is the sponsor of this legislation,” wrote Price.

“Twice in committees, Mr. Egolf has voted in favor of this legislation moving forward in the legislative process. On February 8, 2021, Speaker Egolf in the House Judiciary Committee argued in favor of… HB 4 and he countered arguments made by opponents to the Bill. The Fiscal Impact Report (Ex 2) fails to indicate that Speaker Egolf has disclosed a conflict and would have financial gains if the legislation passes. The Fiscal Impact Report… specifically lists Betsy Glenn, as an employee of Harding County, as having disclosed a possible conflict.” 

In another section, Price notes how Egolf “failed to ethically discharge the high responsibility of public service,” referring to testimony he gave on February 8, 2021, where he said the bill would have “zero” cost to the system regarding civil rights violations cases, as well as his snuffing off of questions pertaining to fees lawyers would benefit from with the passage of H.B. 4. 

Regarding Egolf’s benefiting financially from H.B. 4, Price wrote, “House Bill 4 will directly affect Plaintiff attorney Brian Egolf’s financial interests,” saying that the removal of “qualified immunity” by state agencies and local governments would result in fewer cases being disposed of earlier, hence, meaning more billable hours. 

“HB 4’s proposed by Mr. Egolf, will encourage larger settlement amounts. The longer a suit is pending, the higher the attorney’s fees [that] will be incurred. Governments will have a great incentive to pay out settlement awards in even meritless claims to save in attorney’s fees. This will benefit Mr. Egolf in his private legal practice,” writes Price. 

“HB 4 will result in Mr. Egolf additional litigation being filed by Speaker Egolf s in the local State Court which is easier to navigate and more politically driven. Possibility a benefit to Speaker Egolf due to his position in the Government.” 

“The amount of the attorney’s fee collected could easily be much greater than the monies collected for the person whose rights have been violated. Mr. Egolf has failed [to] mention that… both state and federal courts routinely award legally mandated Plaintiff attorney’s fees in excess of $450 per hour. Mr. Egolf several times, in front of the House Judiciary Committee on February 8, stated the importance of these attorney fees being in place for the benefit of the public and victims of civil rights violations. Speaker Egolf is sponsoring, arguing, and voting on legislation that will arguably pay his attorney fees in 60% of the cases that make up his practice.” 

“I want the committee to know that I do not take the filing of this complaint lightly. Having been an elected District Judge on the bench for 12 years, I believe that candor and high [ethical] standards of our leaders are absolutely imperative,” concluded Price. 

The strong case Price has made is sure to lead to an in-depth inquiry into Egolf’s possibly corrupt sponsorship of H.B. 4, which would directly benefit him if passed. H.B. 4 passed the House on February 16 with four Democrats joining all Republican members of the body in opposition to the bill. Rep. T. Ryan Lane (R-San Juan) attempted to add an anti-corruption amendment exempting legislators from benefitting off of the bill, however, the motion died, with Egolf being one of the votes helping to kill it. 

House Dems pass bills vilifying police, promoting corruption, letting sex offenders cut kids’ hair

1 Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Tuesday, while the New Mexico House of Representatives met for a floor session, it considered multiple Democrat bills, one of being H.B. 4, the so-called “Civil Rights Act” brought forth by Rep. Georgene Louis (D-Bernalillo), who is also a candidate for Congress in the First District.

According to the New Mexico House Republicans, “The bill is intended to address civil rights concerns in New Mexico, however, the bill will effectively expose every New Mexico government entity for lawsuits.” 

During the debate over the bill, Rep. T. Ryan Lane (R-San Juan), an attorney, expressed his concerns over state legislators who are lawyers profiting off of H.B. 4. He offered an amendment declaring that a member of the Legislature who is a lawyer cannot represent claimants and profit off of H.B. 4 during service and three years following their departure from the Legislature. The House Speaker, Brain Egolf, refused to allow Lane to explain his amendment.

The amendment died on a party-line vote, showing that Democrats in the Legislature agree that lawyers serving in the body should be able to profit from claimants with the bill. On final passage of the anti-law enforcement legislation, it was approved on a mostly party-line vote of 39-29, with Democrat Reps. Willie Madrid (D-Chapparal), Derrick Lente (D-Rio Arriba, Sandoval and San Juan), Candie Sweetser (D-Deming), Susan Herrera (D-Rio Arriba, Santa Fe & Taos), and all Republican representatives rejecting it. 

After the passage of the bill, the House Republicans released a statement, with Republican Whip Rod Montoya saying, “We are in a building guarded by State Police and National Guard, and this bill is a slap in the face to each and every one of them…. Why would anyone want to be in law enforcement in this state? It has to be difficult for our police to wake up every day to out-of-control crime and progressive lawmakers who are working overtime to make their jobs and lives miserable.” 

“House Bill 4 puts every community and non-profit organization and their board members at great risk for lawsuits,” said House Republican Leader Jim Townsend. “The only group that has expressed significant support for HB 4 are the trial lawyers, who could have a significant windfall when the bill is enacted.” 

Another piece of legislation, H.B. 54, brought forth by far-left Reps. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) and Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe), aimed to regulate cosmetologists and barbers. Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval & Santa Fe) proposed an amendment barring registered sex offenders and child molesters from cutting children’s hair. The amendment died on a party-line, revealing that Democrats support child predators and pedophiles touching children. Without the amendment, the bill would allow these predators to cut children’s hair.

Committee to hear bill punishing businesses with ‘presumed liability’ for COVID-positive employees

3 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Tuesday, the House Labor, Veterans’ and Military Affairs Committee is set to consider a bill, H.B. 268, which will enact “presumed liability” on businesses for employees’ contraction of COVID-19. The bill is sponsored by Reps. Dayan Hochman-Vigil (D-Bernalillo) and Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, and Santa Fe). 

According to the New Mexico Business Coalition, “the employee would not be required to prove that they were actually exposed to Covid-19 at work.” 

The bill reads, “If an essential employee is diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 caused by the novel coronavirus, and the essential employee has established that the employer has not strictly complied with the then existent public health orders related to the coronavirus disease 2019, the condition is presumed to be: (1) an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) reasonably incident to and proximately caused by employment; and (3) a disability that is a natural and direct result of the accident.” 

The business would be forced to go to court to dispute the claim that the essential employee contracted COVID-19 during work. The bill reads, “The presumptions created in Subsection B of this section may be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction establishing that the employee engaged in conduct or activities outside of employment that substantially violated the then existent public health orders related to the coronavirus disease 2019.” 

The New Mexico Business Coalition urges members of the public to reach out to legislators on the committee and urge them to vote “NO” on the measure “because it is unfair and injurious to businesses that have been working to keep the economy going during forced shutdowns.” 

Members of the Committee can be reached by clicking here. 

UPDATE: On February 18, the House Labor, Veterans’ and Military Affairs Committee passed the bill on a partisan vote of 5-3. It now moves forward to its next committee.

TOMORROW: Committee to hear bill criminalizing parents for teaching their child how to shoot

4 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Wednesday, the Senate Public Affairs Committee will meet to consider Bernalillo Democrat Sen. Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez’s S.B. 224, which will criminalize parents who teach their children how to shoot and mandate specific gun safes and locks for firearms. This is the bill’s first committee appearance.

Read more about S.B. 224 in our previous article.

The bill will be heard at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom and people who wish to testify against the bill can register through this link. 

The New Mexico Shooting Sports Association (NMSSA) writes that the bill “would tell you what you can and can’t do with a firearm in your own home by imposing government mandates on how exactly your firearms are stored.”

Also, NMSSA notes, “This bill could also make you a criminal for teaching your child how to shoot, unless your child was 12 or older and had previously undergone some type of formal class.” 

“The bill is entirely unenforceable, unless police will go door-to-door inspecting firearm storage in your home, it is impossible to know who is and who isn’t complying with the law. The bill [is] entirely unnecessary, it is already a crime to place a child in a situation that endangers their life. This bill only seeks to demonize firearm ownership and scare people away from choosing to protect their family with a gun.” 

You can reach out to Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee members about this bill with their contact information below: 

Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino – (D)  (505) 397-8839 jortizyp@msn.com

Senator Bill Tallman – (D) (505) 397-8854 bill.tallman@nmlegis.gov

Senator Gregg Schmedes – (R) (505) 986-4395gregg.schmedes@nmlegis.gov

Senator David M. Gallegos – (R) (505) 986-4278 david.rsi@hotmail.com

Senator Stuart Ingle – (R)  (505) 986-4702 stuart.ingle@nmlegis.gov

Senator Brenda G. McKenna – (D)  (505) 397-8834 brenda.mckenna@nmlegis.gov

Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez – (D) (505) 397-8847 a.sedillolopez@nmlegis.gov

Senator Elizabeth “Liz” Stefanics – (D) (505) 397-8851 lstefanics@msn.com
Remember, if you wish to testify, you must register via this link 24 hours in advance.

Abortion up-to-birth and infanticide S.B. 10 passes last committee, heads to House floor

1 Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Monday, the New Mexico House Judiciary Committee met to consider S.B. 10, a bill that would strip all conscience protections from health care providers, allow abortion up-to-birth and infanticide, and allow underaged children, possibly victims of human trafficking, to get abortions without any questions asked.

During the hearing, the Senate sponsor of the bill, Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo), did not answer any questions about her bill, as she previously did on the Senate floor when Republicans tried to ask her a question.

I was at the hearing and testified against the bill. The chair, Rep. Gail Chasey, attempted to cut me off when mentioning Sen. Lopez’s refusal to defend her bill. However, I did get my full statement into the record. 

Here’s what my one-minute statement read: 

Thank you, Madame Chair and Representatives: My name is John Block, a New Mexico native, and I oppose S.B. 10, which its own sponsor, Sen. Lopez, refused to defend on the Senate floor. And I know why she refused to defend it. It’s indefensible.

It would allow abortion up-to-birth and infanticide, let underage girls, many being victims of human trafficking, be forced into unwanted abortions by predators with no questions asked, and mandate health care workers to refer and continue care for abortion.

S.B. 10 does nothing but reward late-term abortionists, child rapists, and sex traffickers, putting vulnerable women and babies in an impossible situation. I urge the committee to vote “no” on this antiquated and staunchly anti-woman bill. Thank you.

Many other pro-lifers, including Elisa Martinez of New Mexico Alliance for Life and many others, offered cogent testimony against the bill, despite the short notice from the committee and the hearing being heard on President’s Day, a holiday. A poll that was conducted during the Zoom meeting claimed there was 50/50 support versus opposition to the bill. However, many who testified indicated how inaccurate the poll was.

During one bit of testimony from the pro-abortion side, one person complained their grandmother “didn’t have access to abortion,” and was “forced to give birth” to her mother. 

The bill passed on a party-line vote of 8-4, with all Democrats voting for it and all Republicans opposing it. S.B. 10 now moves to the House floor for third-reading and then final passage.

Here’s a vlip from the Senate debate where Sen. Jacob Candelaria (D-Bernalillo) said he threw a baby model “right in the trash.”

Heartwrenching short film shows why some New Mexicans are being forced to leave the state

3 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A recently released short film from Adelante Now Foundation, which was posted on the Artesia Chamber’s YouTube account, reveals the sad reality for some in New Mexico who are being forced to leave New Mexico by no choice of their own.

The short film highlights community members in southeastern New Mexico, including business owners, restauranteurs, high school seniors, waitresses, and others who are most affected by Gov. Lujan Grisham’s government shutdowns and the Democrats’ assault on the oil and gas industry, which provides countless jobs.

“We’re hurting the state because people that want to work,” said business owner Chad Harcrow. He said the shutdown “just beat out” people who are trying to make an “honest living,” which is why they are leaving. 

Twelve days ago I shut my business down. I shut a successful business down because I want my son in Lubbock, Texas to have a chance at education,” said John Henry, an Eddy County Commissioner. “And you’re going to see more great New Mexicans move because your family will come first.” 

An educator, Becky Argo, said she didn’t go into teaching to “be in front of a computer screen for eight hours a day.” She added, “I don’t like teaching this way and I don’t like my own personal children learning this way.” 

A high school senior, Braxton McDonald, said of the fully online education, “You basically got to learn by yourself, or you just hope that your teacher… can somehow teach it through the computer.” 

Dianne Gonzales, a waitress, said, “They shut the restaurant down. We were not able to work. We were not open anymore.” She said, “We don’t make money like the way we used to when we were waitressing.”

Watch the full video here: 

Job-killing Dem anti-fracking bill clears first hurdle in NM Senate despite bipartisan opposition

5 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Saturday, the Senate Conservation Committee met via Zoom to consider S.B. 149, which claims to be a bill that prohibits new fracking licenses but would in actuality kill all fracking in the State of New Mexico. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Bernalillo) and Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo), both candidates for the open U.S. House seat being vacated by Deb Haaland.

The bill’s sponsor had a long-winded and controversial out-of-state witness, Dr. Sandra Steingraber, who has committed her life’s work to end fracking. 

After a long list of reasons why she hated fracking, such as her accusation that it “turns fresh water into poison,” she ultimately admitted she did not have the science to conclude what fracking’s effects were regarding the transmission of alleged “toxic chemicals.” She also claimed “toxic air pollution” occurred “as soon as the drill bit goes into the ground,” another misleading statement.

Steingraber later revealed the entire point of her testimony, to bring forth “environmental justice” to what she believed are “disproportionately affected” groups, including black people, Native Americans, and others. She also accused the oil and gas industry of lying, saying employment statistics regarding oil and gas’ job creation numbers “has been greatly exaggerated by the industry.” She noted how the industry’s fatality rate is “four to seven times” that of the national workforce. However, most American workforce jobs do not require such manual labor capabilities of jobs in industries such as oil and gas, construction, and other such labor-heavy industries. She left out statistics from these comparable professions.

Many supporters of the bill, many being lawyers who would no doubt benefit off of litigation tied to “environmental justice” said the bill would “take an enormous responsibility of regulating that industry to make sure our environmental and public health is protected,” as someone from the New Mexico Environmental Law Center noted. Others from dark money groups such as the Sierra Club gave their support for the bill.

Many folks who live in the areas that would be most affected by Sedillo Lopez and Roybal Caballero’s bill spoke up about how it would affect their livelihoods. One woman who lived in the oil patch said, “I’ve lived in this state for forty years. I thought this bill was about not issuing any more permits. I now understand it is the full intent of the bill is to stop fracking altogether.” 

Sen. Sedillo Lopez said of her bill, it would “put urgency on the need to regulate, adding that, “New Mexico should be open for business, not be open for exploitation. With this industry, we have been exploited.” She did not back up her arguments with facts, other than deferring to her out-of-state witness.

Sedillo Lopez also didn’t know how to answer basic questions from her fellow senators about the bill, such as its fiscal impacts on the state, accusing Gov. Michelle Luja n Grisham’s cabinet of flubbing the numbers provided in the official fiscal impact of the bill in the fiscal impact report (FIR).

Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) asked, “Has the governor committed to sign this bill if you were to pass it?” Sedillo Lopez admitted she had not.

Cervantes continued, fiscal “impact for the year from July one of this year to next year… would be $1.65 billion.” He asked Sedillo Lopez if she knew exactly how much of the state budget would be lost due to her bill. 

“The FIR impact would be about a fourth of the budget,” Sedillo-Lopez said the impact “would be less or the same as the impact of the last year,” meaning the COVID-19 pandemic crisis where the oil and gas industry plummeted its production to record levels, leaving irreparable damage to the state economy.  

Sedillo Lopez later conceded, “I understand that the impact would be anywhere from a fourth and a third of our budget.”  Sedillo Lopez claimed the FIR was wrong and did not consider “one thousand permits” already granted by the state. She said the info was “incorrect,” saying it assumed that there would be “no new wells.” 

Cervantes pressed her, saying, “You are saying if we were to pass this bill,” it would be a proposal “even [Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s] own agencies reject” He added, “ I would hope you would correct the [New Mexico] Secretary of Energy and all the other cabinet secretaries” and say they ‘don’t know what they’re doing.’” 

Then Cervantes added, “If we assume the administration knows what it’s doing and we have to cut our budget form a third to a fourth,… do you have a bill that would supplant that amount of money in the works” to “generate that thirty percent or forty percent of revenue in the state?”

Sedillo-Lopez fumbled around, saying there were many “tax bills,” including one that would “reverse the tax cuts that were during the Richardson and Martinez administrations.”

“Which one of the tax bills would be the largest tax increase and how much would it generate to that $1.6 billion?” 

“I do not know the answer to that,” said Sedillo-Lopez. Her co-sponsor, Rep. Roybal Caballero, said, “I don’t think any of us have an answer to a specific question,” and if “they equate to the amount the senator [Cervantes] is asking.” 

Also, during questioning, Senators David Gallegos (R-Eddy & Lea) and Steven Neville (R-San Juan), who live on opposite sides of the state, noted how they have lived right next to fracking wells, raising their families next to them for years and their families and communities are even healthier than those where Sedillo Lopez and Roybal Caballero live in–Bernalillo County. 

Sen. Gallegos told Sedillo Lopez that she doesn’t know the issue, as he and his constituents do. “I know you don’t live there, you don’t go to school there, nor do you need a doctor from there,” but it is “important to our constituents” in the oil patch. He also said S.B. 149 is “going to inflict fiscal damage to the state” and “harm the hospital system and the school districts” across New Mexico that rely on oil and gas funding. 

Neville took exception with the expert witness’ testimony, saying the truth “is just not is what is being portrayed by the expert and the sponsor.”

Charwoman Liz Stefanics (D-Bernalillo, Lincoln, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Torrance, and Valencia) asked Sedillo-Lopez if she was open to turning the proposal into a “reporting bill versus a pause on fracking” to “gain factual information from all of the departments,” Sedillo Lopez said she would only consider such a change in the bill’s last scheduled committee–Senate Finance. 

Sen. Gallegos asked for a vote to table the bill. The motion died on a bipartisan vote of 5-4, with Sen. Cervantes voting with the Republicans on the committee to table the bill. A motion to pass the bill from Sedillo-Lopez and seconded by newly sworn-in Sen. Carrie Hamblen (D-Doña Ana) with the same vote of 5-4.

After the vote, Chairwoman Stefanics said, “While I support moving on to various energy sources, I am also very concerned about affecting the finances of our state.” S.B. 149 now heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here’s what some are saying about the bill and its sponsors:

GOP defector who voted for abortion up-to-birth and infanticide claims his vote ‘makes no difference’

1 Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In a response to concerns from a Republican Roswell city counselor about Rep. Phelps Anderson’s “yes” vote in the House Health and Human Services Committee on an abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill, Anderson seemed to brush off the concerns of the lawmaker, claiming his vote “makes no difference.” Anderson left the Republican party over his vote.

In his note, he also used the Democrats’ talking point that the 1969 law currently protecting unborn life is “antiquated” while not addressing the fact that the bill would also strip conscience protections for health care workers and allow underaged girls, some under the influence of predators, to get abortions without parental consent.

Anderson claimed “dark forces” from “outside the community” were trying to bring “exaggerations and falsehoods” about his vote. 

Here is an excerpt from Anderson’s note: 

I write this note to give you an explanation of recent events. hope my response helps clear the air as today there are dark voices outside the community bringing exaggerations and falsehoods. 

Two weeks ago I voted yes in the House Health Committee to pass House Bill 7 (the repeal of New Mexico’s 1969 Abortion Law). The antiquated law was ruled unconstitutional in 3973 by the U. S. Supreme Court. I believe the repeal of New Mexico’s Abortion Law makes no difference. A yes or no vote changes nothing. very few laws bring no change and HS 7 is one of these few bills. 

Thank you for your words concern and support for my work in the New Mexico Legislature. The COVID circumstances here in Santa Fe make the job even more difficult. Constituent input and comment is sorely lacking under the locked down State Capitol. I know I have disappointed some of you in Chaves, Lea and Roosevelt Counties. Disappointing people is not my intention but tough Legislative decisions please some and disappoint others. That said, unpopular votes are not a reason to resign from office as tough decisions are an everyday occurrence in the Legislature. 

After the abortion up-to-birth and infanticide vote, Rep. Anderson once again voted against life in the womb by rejecting a commonsense Republican bill to mandate safety protocols at abortion clinics during COVID-19. 

Rep. Anderson represents Chavez, Lea, and Roosevelt Counties, which includes a large part of Roswell. Roswell is a “sanctuary city for the unborn.”

During the committee hearing when Anderson voted for H.B. 7, he said the following:

the one thing I have heard today that I do think might change based on testimony is the conscience clause, and that will make a difference in how I vote on the House floor if I go and believe that the conscience clause is not—is being removed. And I kinda think that I believe right now that that’s not what this repeal is doing, but I will—but we will see this bill again. 

What are your thoughts on Anderson’s vote for abortion up-to-birth and infanticide H.B. 7? Will Anderson finally stand with his constituents when the bill hits the House floor or will he vote with Democrats and the abortion lobby and back the bill? 

The Piñon Post has launched a petition calling for the resignation of Rep. Anderson for betraying his constituents. Sign the petition here. 

1 … 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 … 135

Stay Updated

Scroll to Top