New Mexico

MLG could barely contain her excitement after NM Senate rammed through abortion up-to-birth bill

On Thursday, the New Mexico Senate voted 25-17 for an abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill, S.B. 10. During the Senate meeting, pro-life Republican members proposed compromises limiting abortions after 20 weeks while protecting conscience objections for medical workers. But the Democrats, with the votes they needed to ram the bill through, refused to concede an inch, while the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo) refused to take questions about her bill in an unprecedented move.

After the massive blow to human life, just two years after the same bill died on the Senate floor in 2019, far-left Democrat Gov. Lujan Grisham could barely contain her excitement about the anti-life bill’s passage.

Gov. Lujan Grisham wrote, “This is a simple bill. And it is powerful in its simplicity. It affirms a woman’s self-evident autonomy over her own body. And it ensures no health care provider in our state may be criminalized for providing health care. I thank and applaud the women senators who spoke in such personal terms in their supportive testimony today. This was a moment for common-sense leadership and I am grateful to the lawmakers and advocates who have met that moment.”

Actually, the Governor’s statement is inaccurate since the bodily autonomy of children in the womb is removed, health care providers would be “criminalized” by not referring or performing abortions, and abortion up to the very date of birth can be argued as definitely not “common-sense.” 

The statement comes as the Governor flew to Washington, D.C. to meet with Joe Biden just one day after she coincidentally lifted her strict ban on out-of-state travel. Yet, she had time to write up a statement praising the New Mexico Senate’s passage of the most radical anti-life bill in the nation. Some of the bill’s supporters made vile statements on the Senate floor, such as Sen. Jacob Candelaria (D-Bernalillo) who said he threw a model of a 12-week old baby “right in the trash,” calling the baby “offensive.”

Originally tweeted by Piñon Post (@PinonPost) on February 12, 2021.

However, Republican Congresswoman Yvette Herrell of the Second District wrote a starkly different statement, commenting, “It’s a sad day for New Mexico when our Senate votes to legalize abortion up to birth.” 

While pro-life members of the Senate gave Democrats chance after chance for a compromise, the bill ultimately passed. Countless health care workers have pledged to leave the state due to the hostile legislation. 

The bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where it is expected to be considered next week, according to the rabidly pro-abortion Speaker of the House Brian Egolf. “We’re not sure exactly yet when we’re going to be meeting on the floor of the House next week,” Egolf said. “If we have a meeting late in the week, we might be able to send a bill to the governor then. If not, very early in the week following.”

Chaos on Senate floor as Dems ram through abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill

On Thursday afternoon, the New Mexico Senate convened on the floor of the chamber to debate S.B. 10, an abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill.

During the debate, Republican senators offered multiple floor amendments and floor substitutes for the bill, which were all stricken down by Democrats. 

One amendment offered by Sen. William Sharer (R-San Juan) sought to keep a portion of the state statute a provision that would allow conscientious objections from medical professionals who do not wish to perform abortions.

During the debate, Sen. Jacob Candelaria (D-Bernalillo) tried to argue that state law already affirms that medical professionals would not be forced to perform abortions, however, they would still be forced to refer for abortion, which Sharer’s amendment did not include. 

While Republicans tried to ask the bill sponsor, Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo) on multiple occasions, but she refused to defend her bill by “respectfully declin[ing] to comment.” All 27 of the bill’s co-sponsors in the body refused to defend their bill. 

Sen. Crystal Diamond offered up a floor substitute for S.B. 10, which would ban abortion after 20 weeks, including conscience protections and parental consent requirements. After she offered the substitute, Sen. Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez (D-Bernalillo), who has been in the Senate for a little over one year, bashed Diamond for being a “freshman senator,” claiming Diamond was being “disrespectful” for offering the substitute. Sedillo-Lopez was later corrected on the floor by another Republican senator. 

Later in the debate, Candelaria became hostile, accusing Republican senators of using “homophobic” and “transphobic” arguments to oppose the abortion up-to-birth bill. He also threw away a 12-week model of a baby provided by the Right to Life Committee of Lea County, saying it was “offensive” to him and that babies are not actually babies at the moment of conception. 

Afterward, Sen. Ron Griggs (R-Doña Ana, Otero, and Eddy) spoke of the need to be more cordial during debate and made the pro-life argument that “somebody’s got to stand up for the little guy” in the womb. 

Sen. Candelaria later clapped back, claiming that “as a gay man” and “as a Hispanic” he was “offended” and didn’t like what he claimed was someone telling him to “sit down and be quiet.” 

Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Santa Fe) arose to support the bill while claiming he was a “Catholic” and still backed the anti-life bill, which the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops has vehemently opposed.

Sen. Greg Baca (R-Valencia) added during the final debate, “Since [babies in the womb] can’t speak, you will forever be silenced,” said Sen. Baca. No one can speak on behalf of them because they are not here.” 

The bill sponsor, Sen. Linda Lopez, accused her Republican colleagues of “mansplaining.” She said, “I appreciate some of the mansplaining on the Senate floor today,” adding, “reproductive rights [abortion rights] are human rights.” 

After a rambunctious debate, S.B. 10 was passed on mostly party lines by a vote of 25-17. Two pro-life Democrats, Sen. Pete Campos (D-Colfax, Guadalupe, Harding, Mora, Quay, San Miguel, and Taos) and Sen. George Muñoz (D-Cibola, McKinley, and San Juan) voted against it. Sen. Candelaria relished in his “yes” vote, saying he “proudly” voted yes for the abortion up-to-birth bill.

Report: Every NM legislator bankrolled by the abortion lobby in 2020

The votes on abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bills H.B. 7 and S.B. 10 are slated for today or Friday in the New Mexico House and Senate, respectively. A lot of speculation has gone into who will vote for or against these abortion up-to-birth bills and who is being bankrolled by the abortion lobby.

We went through every donation the abortion lobbyists gave to members during the 2020 election from the New Mexico Secretary of State’s website, and all the recipients are below. The abortion groups that gave during this cycle included Planned Parenthood (abortionists) and EMILY’s List (sexist pro-abortion advocates who only give money to pro-abortion women).

Sen. Carrie Hamblen (D-Doña Ana): $5,567.36 total ($4,567.36 from Planned Parenthood, $1,000.00 from EMILY’s List).

Sen. Leo Jaramillo (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, and Santa Fe): $3,944.86 total (all from Planned Parenthood).

Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo): $4,567.35 total (all from Planned Parenthood).

Sen. Siah Correa-Hemphill (D-Catron, Grant, and Socorro): $9,567.36 total ($4,567.36 from Planned Parenthood, $5,000 from EMILY’s List). 

Sen. Brenda McKenna (D-Bernalillo & Sandoval): $4,567.36 total (all from Planned Parenthood). 

Sen. Katy Duhigg (D-Bernalillo & Sandoval): $4,567.36 (all from Planned Parenthood). 

Rep. Miguel P. Garcia (D-Bernalillo): $2,032.22 total (all from Planned Parenthood). 

Rep. Raymundo Lara (D-Doña Ana): $4,567.36 total (all from Planned Parenthood).

Rep. Linda Serrato (D-Santa Fe): $4,567.36 total (all from Planned Parenthood).

Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo): $2,516.23 total ($2,016.23 from Planned Parenthood, $500 from EMILY’s List). 

Rep. Roger Montoya (Colfax, Mora, Rio Arriba, and San Miguel): $3,944.86 total (all from Planned Parenthood). 

Rep. Kristina Ortez (D-Taos): $4,567.36 (all from Planned Parenthood).

Rep. Meredith Dixon (D-Bernalillo): $1,220.69 (all from Planned Parenthood).

Rep. Matthew McQueen (D-Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Torrance, and Valencia): $4,567.36 (all from Planned Parenthood). 

Rep. Marian Matthews (D-Bernalillo): $5,067.36 total ($4,567.36 from Planned Parenthood, $500 from EMILY’s List Federal Fund). 

Rep. Joy Garratt (D-Bernalillo): $70 total (all from EMILY’s List). 

Rep. Elizabeth Thomson (D-Bernalillo): $70 total (all from EMILY’s List). 

Rep. Dayan Hochman-Vigil (D-Bernalillo): $70 total (all from EMILY’s List). 

Rep. Natalie Figueroa (D-Bernalillo): $70 total (all from EMILY’s List). 

Rep. Debra Sarinana (D-Bernalillo): $70 total (all from EMILY’s List). 

The Piñon Post will keep you up to date on the floor votes for H.B. 7 and S.B. 10. Planned Parenthood has been lobbying in favor of these bills with well-funded misinformation campaigns, one even claiming not being able to get an abortion is similar to not being able to own a credit card.

If you haven’t already, you can find your legislators to contact by clicking here

NM House and Senate to hold final votes on abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bills

Today’s a deciding moment in New Mexico, with both the House and the Senate chambers to decide the fate of a radical abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill, H.B. 7 in the House S.B. 10 in the Senate. Sens. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo) and Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) are sponsoring the legislation in the Senate and Reps. Micaela Cadena (D-Doña Ana), Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe), Joanne Ferrary (D-Doña Ana), Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo), and Georgene Louis (D-Bernalillo) are carrying the bill in the House. 

The bill would flatly strip away all protections on the books in New Mexico for women, children in the womb, and health care workers. The bill rips out portions of the law protecting medical professionals’ conscience rights, allows teen girls to get abortions on-demand with no parental consent, and paves a path for unregulated, unsafe abortions in New Mexico. 

The bill is an exact mirror image of 2019’s failed bill, which pro-life Democrats killed in the Senate. Since that vote, most of these pro-life members have been ousted by their parties or have mysteriously died. Gov. Lujan Grisham took out retribution on these pro-life Democrats by mounting well-funded primary challenges to them, made up of mostly out-of-state PACs, dark money organizations, and misinformation campaigns to malign their reputations. 

It should be noted that not a single co-sponsor of the radical abortion bills comes from any locality outside of the three Democrat-dominant population strongholds of Bernalillo, Doña Ana, and Santa Fe counties, which says a lot about where the bill comes from and where support for it comes from also.

Out-of-state abortion giants, including Planned Parenthood and far-left dark money group the American Civil Liberties Union, have spent an unknown sum on expensive mailers and digital advertisements on their deep-pocketed misinformation campaign. 

H.B. 7 and S.B. 10 were rushed through both chambers’ committees and both chambers will decide whether they support the right to life or abortion up-to-birth and infanticide. 

ACTION ALERT: Please reach out to your representative and senator here. Call them and tell them to vote “NO” on S.B. 10 or H.B. 7. Remind them how quickly the next election is coming and how you will never forget their vote on Election Day.

Rogue NM Rep. Anderson votes against pro-life bill for COVID-19 safety standards at abortion facilities

On Wednesday, the House Health and Human Services Committee met to consider H.B. 160, a commonsense proposal to protect women during COVID-19 by implementing safety protocols at abortion clinics during the pandemic.

The proposal, sponsored by state Reps. Rebecca Dow (R-Grant, Hidalgo & Sierra), Rod Montoya (R-San Juan), James Strickler (R-San Juan), and Rep. Luis Terrazas (R-Doña Ana, Grant & Sierra) would require the New Mexico Department of Health to “establish and require specific health and safety protocols to be used at facilities at which abortions are performed to prevent the spread” of COVID-19 by July 1, 2021. 

The bill states, “The requirements shall include requirements for the use of personal protective equipment, capacity restrictions, enhanced screening procedures and self-isolation and self-quarantine for persons traveling into New Mexico from high-risk areas and low-risk areas.” 

“The requirements shall remain in effect as long as any public health order is in effect pursuant to the Public Health Act for the purpose of controlling or abating the coronavirus disease 2019.” 

However, Republican-turned “Declined to State” Rep. Phelps Anderson of Roswell voted with the seven radical Democrat members to kill the pro-life bill, making this the second anti-life vote he has made in the committee this legislative session. The final vote was 8-2, with pro-life Rep. Luis Terrazas (R-Doña Ana, Grant & Sierra) being excused for the vote.

Rep. Anderson previously voted for an abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill peddled by pro-abortion groups Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, among other dark money organizations. 

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

NM State Police union leader rips Dems to shreds over anti-law enforcement bills

On Monday, New Mexico State Police Association leader Sgt. Jose Carrasco raked Democrats in the New Mexico Legislature over the coals for targeting law enforcement with their radical legislation that would give police fewer options in keeping New Mexicans safe.

Carrasco pointed out three pieces of legislation Democrats were trying to ram through, starting with S.B. 227, sponsored by far-left Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo). The bill, which is erroneously called the “inspection of police misconduct investigation,” actually takes tools away from law enforcement to keep communities safe.

“It’s taking the tools away from us, our less-lethal option tools, to be able to effect an arrest peacefully and without having to use any deadly force,” he said. “However, Lopez is taking that ability away from us.”

The bill would eliminate police officers’ ability to use force unless they first tried “all possible de-escalation” efforts. It bans rubber bullets, chokeholds and bans law enforcers from using canines. 

“We can’t even use a canine anymore, like at all. They’ve taken all the tools that we use to go in there and hopefully take the people or person into custody without having to use lethal force. You’re taking that away from us. I hope, I hope and I pray, that I can at least have a fighting chance and have my ballistic vest on when I go into the residence. I hope that we can still do that.”

Sgt. Carrasco blasted Democrats for sponsoring the bill, adding, “it’s going to be the criminals using deadly force on the officers that are trying to enforce your laws that you wrote.”

Another bill Sgt. Carrasco noted was H.B. 4, which prohibits “qualified immunity.” 

“There are bad senators, bad representatives, bad doctors, bad priests, bad nurses. There’s bad in every single profession. But yet, we’re the ones that get picked on nonstop,” Sgt. Carrasco said. He told lawmakers, “We’ve never said we’re perfect–we’re human. But I guarantee you… I don’t know if you’ve seen the studies or not, but 99 percent of the officers do a great job.”

He then called out radical far-left House Speaker Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe) for talking about slain Police Officer Darian Jarrott in Deming after a press conference.

Sgt. Carrasco said to Egolf, “One thing that I wanted to tell you, Mr. Egolf, and I wish I could tell you face to face, is that my brothers and sisters do not appreciate you making a comment about our brother at all.” 

“It wasn’t even heartfelt. We would just wish that you … just didn’t say anything about our fallen brother because he’s one of the ones that you’re trying to take rights away from, too.”

Another bill Sgt. Carrasco mentioned  was H.B. 140, a horrifying Democrat-sponsored bill that would eliminate minimum sentences for child rapists and sexual predators. Egolf defended the detestable bill, saying it would merely “restore discretion to judges.” But Sgt. Carrasco didn’t let Egolf get away that easy.

“So somebody that commits a rape on a child, they want to remove the minimum sentence, and there’s other heinous crimes in there.”

Sgt. Carrasco added, “When you have senators and representatives personally attacking law enforcement, creating laws that basically tie our hands so we can’t enforce the laws, we can’t protect ourselves, we can’t protect the citizens, something finally has to be said.” 

Watch Sgt. Jose Carrasco’s full video here:

Western senator vows to block Deb Haaland’s nomination to DOI over her ‘radical views’

Over the weekend, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) announced that he was “deeply concerned” with Joe Biden’s cabinet nominee for the Department of the Interior, Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM). He vowed to block Haaland’s nomination if his needs were not addressed.

Daines’ statement following his conversation with Haaland reads as follows: 

“After our conversation, I’m deeply concerned with the Congresswoman’s support on several radical issues that will hurt Montana, our way of life, our jobs and rural America, including her support for the Green New Deal and President Biden’s oil and gas moratorium, as well as her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. I am also concerned by the responses I received about the role of the Department and lack of appreciation for issues that impact Montana such as wildlife management and hunting and sportsman access. I’m not convinced the Congresswoman can divorce her radical views and represent what’s best for Montana and all stakeholders in the West. Unless my concerns are addressed, I will block her confirmation.”

Sen. Daines’ objection to Haaland’s radical policies, as reported on for years in New Mexico, will not necessarily doom the New Mexico congresswoman’s chances of nomination, but it will complicate them, which according to the Daily Montanan, “Instead of moving Haaland’s nomination hearing, which still has yet to be scheduled as of Monday afternoon, the Senate would have to forward her through the cloture process, a more cumbersome path.” 

Daines’ concerns come after shouts against Haaland from New Mexico, the state she claims to represent, and around the nation opposing her nomination. Pro-energy group Power the Future wrote in a statement, “It’s no surprise to the Senator and others raise serious concerns about the extreme positions of Congresswoman Haaland. Leaders in her home state of New Mexico may turn a blind eye to her radical ideas, but those who fight for our nation’s energy workers know there is too much at stake for our nation. There is no doubt Deb Haaland would be the most radical Interior Secretary in the history of our country” 

Aside from her radical views on just about every issue imaginable, she does not have the qualifications to lead the Department of the Interior (a factor Biden has not cared much about through his other nominees, such as Pete Buttigieg for Department of Transportation). 

The Piñon Post reported back in November: 

But in reality, Haaland has no qualifications to speak of. Not a single piece of legislation she has sponsored in her short two-year tenure in the House has become law, and she has a record of straight-up lying to the American people. Not to mention the fact that despite her multiple attempts at passing the bar to become a lawyer, she has failed. 

During a candidate debate in October, Haaland misled on multiple issues. She claimed she worked in “a bipartisan way” while in Congress, despite voting with socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 95% of the time, she called a leftist Black Lives Matter/Antifa mob committing arson and vandalism in Lafayette Square near the White House “peaceful,” she claimed she did not support Antifa, despite calling them “peaceful protestors,” saying she has never “missed a vote,” despite missing several, and falsely claiming President Trump called COVID-19 a “Democrat hoax,” which liberal fact-checkers have even admitted is incorrect. 

Aside from her failed record in Congress and desperate attempts to woo members of the socialist AOC “squad,” she has proven no qualifications for the job she currently holds, much less that of a cabinet position in a presidential administration.

The move by western Sen. Daines to stymie Haaland’s confirmation gives even more credibility to the assertion that Haaland is not qualified for the role and holds extraordinarily fringe political views.

NM House Dems kill GOP bill to lower seniors’ tax burden by exempting Social Security income

On Monday, Democrats in the New Mexico House Taxation and Revenue Committee voted to block a bill, H.B. 49 that would lower New Mexico senior citizens’ tax burden by exempting their Social Security income (SSI). The anti-senior citizen vote will continue New Mexico’s policy of forcing senior citizens to shell out a chunk of their Social Security checks to the NM State government.

Two of H.B. 49’s five sponsors, Reps. Cathrynn Brown (R-Eddy) and Rebecca Dow (R-Grant, Hidalgo & Sierra) said of their bill, “New Mexico cannot afford another year of being uncompetitive with our neighboring states. It’s time to level the playing field. Studies show that many senior citizens would consider moving to New Mexico if we did not tax Social Security income, and quite a few retirees would decide to stay. If legislators are serious about attracting retirees to New Mexico, this is a meaningful way to show it. In the long run, not only will New Mexico seniors get the tax relief they deserve, but the state will benefit culturally and economically from the new influx of retirees.” 

The bill previously passed the Labor, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee on February 2nd, with a “do pass” recommendation from the committee and rare bipartisan support. During its first committee, Reps. Eliseo Alcon (D-Cibola & McKinley), Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo), and Angelica Rubio (D-Doña Ana) opposed the bill.

However, the seemingly commonsense bill met its fate in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee, chaired by far-left Rep. Javier Martinez (D-Bernalillo). 

After the disappointing vote, the New Mexico House Republicans tweeted, “Social Security tax exemption (HB49) was blocked by @NMHouseDems. What a year for our senior citizens… first being kicked out of senior homes bc state offered more $ for COVID beds, basically endless lines for vax and food, and now a double down on taxing SSI.” 

This is a developing story. The final vote tally and the names of the representatives who voted against New Mexico seniors will be added once the final vote tally is available.

NM Dems’ paid sick leave bill is the most extreme and ‘punitive’ to employers in the nation, says DWS

In January, state Reps. Angelica Rubio (D-Doña Ana), G. Andrés Romero (D-Bernalillo), Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo), and Linda Serrato (D-Santa Fe) filed H.B. 37, which is an extreme bill pertaining to “paid sick leave,” which has the potential of killing countless small businesses in New Mexico, as reported on earlier.

The bill would force every single employer in the state (160,000 out of 340,000 being small businesses) to provide up to fifty-six hours of paid sick leave to employees, regardless of how many hours the employee works per week or if they are an independent contractor. “Employees shall accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked,” says the bill. The Department of Workforce Solutions (DWS) notes that “Employers could not avoid liability for sick leave by misclassifying the employee as an independent contractor.”

Putting employers on the hook for thousands in paid sick leave, as well as all the administrative costs involved in tracking and reporting compliance to DWS, would put many small “mom and pop” shops out of business, with few protections for the employer if an employee were to complain and take the business to court. 

Not only are the employers forced to delve out thousands of dollars in paid sick leave, but the leave can be used for an array of different things, including the following: 

1) An employee’s mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; medical diagnosis, care or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; or preventive medical care; 

(2) an employee to care for a family member with a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; to care for a family member who needs medical diagnosis, care or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; or to care for a family member who needs preventive medical care; or 

(3) an absence necessary due to domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking suffered by the employee or employee’s family member; provided that the leave is for the employee to obtain medical or psychological treatment or other counseling, relocate, prepare for or participate in legal proceedings or obtain services or to assist the employee’s family member with any of those activities.

The bill also forces the employer to be on the hook for up to 80 hours of “supplemental leave” during a pandemic, which the employee could use not only to take care of their children (as state employees are currently allowed to do) but any “family member when that family member’s care provider is unavailable due to the public health emergency.”

When using the paid sick leave, the employee must make a “good faith” effort to alert the employer ahead of time, while not being required to “find a replacement worker as a condition of using paid sick leave.” If the employee claims they must use paid sick leave for “an emergency, unexpected illness, domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking,” then no notice to the employer is required.

According to DWS, “Employees alleging employers violating the act but also advocacy groups lacking usual standing in court could seek relief.” That means social justice groups could swoop in and allege a complaint, opening an expensive inquiry into the employer. The bill would force an investigation by DWS within 30-days, which the department notes “is inconsistent with other investigations that the Labor Relations Division (LRD) is tasked with.” 

“HB37 imposes new notice and recordkeeping obligations on employers and subjects them to monetary penalties for violating the proposed law, allowing courts to impose liquidated damages ranging from $500 to $1,000 per violation plus actual damages, back pay and benefits, reinstatement, rescission of disciplinary action, litigation costs and attorney fees,” writes DWS.

The Department of Workforce Solutions, headed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham-appointed Secretary Bill McCamley, gave a startling rebuke of the legislation, writing that the bill is the most aggressive and “punitive” to employers in the entire nation.

A cursory review of similar PSL legislation across the United States reveals that no single state law has as aggressive an array of requirements and employer penalties as HB37… Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have PSL statutes, none of which are as comprehensive and punitive as HB37,” wrote the Department. 

DWS also notes that the claims required by the bill would force the Department to “establish an entire new class of cases” that it must investigate and litigate, requiring “considerable additional funding in order to support the personnel and structural enhancements required to execute these mandates,” despite no appropriation being tied to the bill.

The Department has problems already with juggling unemployment claims during the COVID-19 pandemic due to Gov. Lujan Grisham’s harsh lockdowns. And while New Mexicans are still waiting in line for their unemployment checks, 24,872 citizens are on the hook to pay back DWS’s “overpayments,” which haunts the department.

H.B. 37 is related to two other paid sick leave bills, H.B. 20 and H.B. 38, which outline longer-term medical and family benefits. However, this bill is by far the most aggressive, and as DWS notes, the most “punitive” to businesses, although it takes issue with portions of the other bills. 

The bill has been referred to the House Labor, Veterans’ and Military Affairs Committee (HLVMC) for initial consideration. Members of the Committee can be reached here

Report: GOP rep. who voted for abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill switches parties

The Piñon Post learned Friday that Republican Rep. Phelps Anderson (Chaves, Lea & Roosevelt) who voted for an abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill in a Health and Human Services Committee hearing last week, changed his party affiliation to “Declined to State” after getting blowback.

Republican Leader Jim Townsend said, “I received a letter from him, and I have had a conversation with him, and he has left the Republican Party.”

The Santa Fe New Mexican reported that a text message from Anderson read, “Sorry,” adding, “Not today as I have done enough.”

During the committee hearing, Rep. Anderson claimed he understood concerns health care providers had about the bill regarding conscience rights, however, he voted to advance the measure anyway. 

After the vote, the Piñon Post send a letter asking the Republican Party leadership in the House of Representatives to hold a censure vote on Anderson by this Friday. However, that vote would no longer be necessary, now that Anderson has relinquished his affiliation with the Republican Party–a pro-life party. 

The renunciation by Rep. Anderson leaves his memberships on the Health and Appropriations & Finance committees in jeopardy, as the House Republicans will want Republicans on committees, especially influential committees like Appropriations and Finance.  

Rep. Anderson previously refused to comment on his vote, telling the Santa Fe New Mexican, “I think It’s best that I just leave that one alone now.”

The anti-life bill, H.B. 7, advanced from the Health and Human Services Committee on a vote of 8-3 and subsequently passed the House Judiciary Committee. It is unclear how Rep. Anderson will vote on the bill when it reaches the House floor. 

Scroll to Top