New Mexico

FULL LIST: These sitting ‘GOP’ legislators voted for MLG’s ‘mini’ Green New Deal

In March 2019, just a little over two years ago, during one of New Mexico’s most destructive legislative sessions to date, Republican New Mexicans were slapped in the face by people they elected and thought they could trust to help stop radical anti-energy bills. 

But unfortunately, thanks to the help of extremely moderate “Republicans” in the New Mexico House and Senate, wolves in sheeps’ clothing came out swinging to aid the failing Michelle Lujan Grisham Administration in pushing forward the single most destructive anti-energy proposal to ever become law in New Mexico — the “Energy Transition Act,” also known as MLG’s “mini” Green New Deal. 

The law forces through stringent environmental mandates, including 50% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% by 2050. It has already skyrocketed energy costs for New Mexicans, and even the bill’s biggest proponents say it needs to be heavily amended as to not completely wreck the state.

The radical environmental bill has been praised by the farthest-left extremists around, including newly confirmed Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, nominated by Joe Biden.

Now, as New Mexico fights for its political survival against other extreme environmental bills, such as S.B. 11, the gas tax on the poor, the quiet and weak “moderate” Republicans that slither around the roundhouse keep their lips zipped shut and hide as more outspoken members, who are in the extreme minority, fight alone against these harmful proposals.

So, who were these “Republicans” who helped the Governor ram through her destructive, corrosive, and anti-New Mexico “green” agenda? Here is a full list of the members who are still in power:

House of Representatives: 

Rep. Kelly Fajardo (R-Valencia) 

Office 986-4221, room 202A
kelly.fajardo@nmlegis.gov

Rep. Bill Rehm (R-Bernalillo)

Box 14768, Albuquerque, NM 87191
Office 986-4214, room 201B
bill.rehm@nmlegis.gov

See the full vote in the House of Representatives here.

New Mexico Senate:

GOP Leader Sen. Greg Baca (R-Bernalillo & Valencia)

P.O. Box 346, Belen, NM 87002
Office , room 415I
(505) 385-7303(w) greg.baca@nmlegis.gov

Sen. Ron Griggs (R-Doña Ana, Eddy and Otero) 

Office, Room 414A
(575) 439-1331(w) ron.griggs@nmlegis.gov

Caucus Chair Sen. Mark Moores (R-Bernalillo)

P.O. Box 90970, Albuquerque, NM 87199
Office, room 414D
mark.moores@nmlegis.gov

Sen. Cliff Pirtle (R-Chaves, Eddy, and Otero)

Office, Room 414B
cliff.pirtle@nmlegis.gov

See the full vote in the New Mexico Senate here.

Most of these politicians never were challenged during the Republican primary for their seats. Let us never forget these people helped ram through this destructive anti-energy, anti-jobs legislation, leading to the destruction and further decline of our state.

GOP senators escape fortressed Roundhouse to honor National Guardsmen stationed outside

While the Legislature is wrapping up, Senators Gregg Schmedes, M.D. (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe & Torrance) and David Gallegos (R-Eddy and Lea) ventured outside of the shuttered New Mexico state Capitol into the “dangerous” outdoors. 

The pair trekked outside the safe space created by Democrat politicians, complete with over $700,000 worth of metal chain-link fencing, concrete blocks, surveillance, National Guardsmen, and police fortressing the Capitol, where legislators are busy at work sneaking through bills in the least transparent legislative session in New Mexico history.

But the circumstances didn’t stop Senators Schmedes and Gallegos, two freshmen to the Senate after winning upset victories in their districts following their service in the House of Representatives. Despite claims from Democrats that the Capitol needed to be protected from the public, the two senators escaped the fortified building to honor the men and women protecting the Capitol.

“Today, Dr. Schmedes and I went out the secured fence and fought our way through no protestors the give pins to two of our NM National Guardsmen. Even though we have not had a single protester, we wanted to let them know that we supported them,” wrote Sen. Gallegos.

They presented the Guardsmen with silver and turquoise inlaid pins reading “Legislative Detail”: 

The legislative session is wrapping up to a close at noon on Saturday, March 20th, and there is still a lot of work left for Republican legislators to stop the extreme bills being rammed through by Democrats in both chambers. More info on the bills that are being passed through can be found here.

Legislative Update: $7.4B budget passes Senate, anti-police bill heads to Governor’s desk

Wednesday was busy at the Legislature, with many bills being rushed through the Senate and the House, with many extreme bills moving forward. Here are just some bills that were advanced:

ANTI-POLICE BILL

H.B. 4, sponsored by Speaker of the House Brian Egolf, is a radical bill that would directly line Egolf’s pockets. The civil litigation brought forth from the bill against law enforcers will send lucrative business to civil rights lawyers like Egolf. 

In doing so, the bill would bankrupt local communities and create a hostile environment for police officers. During testimony on the bill during the committee process, many law enforcers spoke up to talk about how the bill would put targets on their backs and force many peace officers to flee the state for less hostile areas of the country. 

On Wednesday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted 43-26 on a mostly party-line vote. It now goes to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk, where she is expected to sign it.

Read more about the bill here. 

HUGE $7.4 BILLION BUDGET PASSES SENATE

H.B. 2, the “General Appropriations Act,” passed the New Mexico Senate after a lengthy debate between Republicans and Democrats, with Democrats looking to fill more pork and radical funding mechanisms into the bill, while Republicans sought to amend the bill to cut off funding for abortions while also lowering Gov. Lujan Grisham’s contingency fund. 

Sen. Bill Sharer (R-San Juan) called the $7.4 billion pork-filled budget “bloated”

“I’ll remind this body that just a year or so ago, we built a budget about the same amount, and then we had to have a special session … to shore up the budget,” said Sen. Bill Burt (R-Chaves, Lincoln, and Otero) “I think we spent about half the reserves, about $800 million, and y’all correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s a lot of money. Currently, our reserves at this level are $1.76 billion. If we have another downturn like that, that’s going to be a little tough.”

Radical Democrat Sen. Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez sponsored amendments to double the cost-of-living adjustment for state workers to 3 percent and another to raise the wages of any state government employee who makes less than $15 an hour to at least $15.

The spending plan passed on a 29-13 vote. Two Republicans, Sen. Steve Neville (R-San Juan) and Sen. Pat Woods (R-Curry, Quay, and Union) voted with Democrats voted to support the budget. 

RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BILL HEADS TO SENATE FLOOR

On early Thursday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 12 sponsored by Reps. Javier Martinez (D-Bernalillo) and Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), an extreme recreational pot legalization bill, on a 5-4 vote. The bill was amended to include “new provisions allowing for a three-year cap on plant production and requiring an independent testing organization to regularly test the product for safety purposes,” according to a report

“I don’t believe your bill has been very carefully read,” said Sen. Joseph Cervantes to the bill sponsors during the committee meeting. He voted with Republicans against the bill.

If the bill passes the New Mexico Senate and then gets signed into law, the State of New Mexico would begin issuing licenses on March 1, 2022.

Find out out what representatives and senators are bankrolled by the marijuana lobby.

ACTION ALERT:

In these final hours of the New Mexico Legislature, extreme proposals are still making their way through. Please contact your legislators today and ask them to oppose these measures that are on the calendar:

S.B. 11 — the “Clean Fuel Standards Act,” also known as the gas tax on the poor sponsored by Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo) would result in a gas price increase of 20+ cents per gallon on New Mexicans. Contact your NM House Representative to oppose this bill. 

S.B. 230 —  the “Institutional Racism In State Agencies” bill sponsored by Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo) “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. Contact your NM House Representative to oppose this bill. 

S.B. 316 — “Gender and Orientation Data Collection” by Sen. Carrie Hamblen (D-Doña Ana) harvests “gender identity” and “sexual identity” information from New Mexicans through every state agency, which would put this private information in the hands of government bad actors who could weaponize this data against New Mexicans. Contact your NM House Representative to oppose this bill. 

NM House Dems pass bill letting pedophiles and rapists out of prison and into communities

On Tuesday night, the New Mexico House of Representatives considered S.B. 114, sponsored by Sen. Bill O’Neill (D-Bernalillo) and Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), which seeks to allow “geriatric” convicts (age 55 or older) out on parole with a plea to the New Mexico Corrections Department. 

According to the fiscal impact report of the bill, “eligible inmates (or their representatives) submit applications for medical and geriatric parole to NMCD, and the department determines whether to recommend the applicant be granted parole under the medical and geriatric parole program.”

The bill would allow pedophiles and rapists to be released from prison on this parole program, which Republican members of the House took issue with.

Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval & Santa Fe) rose to the floor to condemn the bill. She said, “What they found in a study in 2008 is that people who are sex offenders have a decreased brain matter, and it results in a compulsive behavior where they are compelled to rape and molest children over and over again. So, when I was doing my research, there was no cure for pedophiles. And there was extremely limited rehabilitation for rapists, and that was if they were in therapy constantly and there is still a high rate of recidivism.”

“And so when I was reading through this, I was thinking, you know, a really good idea would be not to put these sex offenders back out on the street, and that’s because 50% of all rapists have a prior conviction and the typical pedophile will commit 117 sexual crimes in their lifetime. That’s nationwide. In Virginia, they have found for the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission that pedophiles molest an average of 300 children in their lifetime. So, I started thinking about that. Do we really want to release sex offenders back out into a community when the bureau of justice says they are four times more likely to be arrested on another crime?”

“And our oldest pedophile is 101 years old. So, pedophiles and sex offenders don’t quit raping and molesting children,” continued Lord.

Rep. Lord attempted to amend the bill to stop pedophiles and rapists from being released into communities to continue to cause acts of sexual and other violence upon New Mexicans. 

During the debate on the amendment, Lord said, “I don’t think that’s the kind of people we want to release.” She cited a case in New Mexico where a pedophile was released and in one week raped three children. “Sex offenders sex offend their entire life. They don’t suddenly get better.” 

The bill sponsor, Rep. Romero, claimed the amendment was “unfriendly.” 

Rep. Pettigrew said, “We’ve had conversations on this on a multitude of bills as they’ve gone through CPAC (Consumer and Public Affairs Committee), and unfortunately all of them, they seem to be unfriendly when it comes with respect to sex offense and pedophiles and different serial rapists and stuff like that. And it is unfortunate. I agree with your amendment… and I will support it.”  

However, Democrats, led by Rep. Doreen Gallegos (D-Donña Ana), voted to protect pedophiles and table the amendment on a vote of 41-28. The only Democrats who voted against tabling the amendment were Reps. Harry Garcia (D-Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Socorro, San Juan & Valencia), Candie Sweetser (D-Grant, Hidalgo & Luna), and Marian Matthews (D-Bernalillo). 

During debate on an amendment, Democrats snuck into S.B. 114 duplicative language to a bill regarding felon voting rights that looks likely dead in the Senate, H.B. 74. Republicans, including Rep. Rod Montoya (R-San Juan), brought up the House rule stating how it is against House rules to do such a thing. 

Despite that, Speaker Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe) claimed his closed-door, dead-of-night lawmaking (which includes Democrats erecting a fence around the Capitol to keep the people out of the People’s House) was “extreme transparency and openness in this entire process.” He said the discussion was “a wonderful example of complete transparency.”

The bill finally passed, without the amendment barring pedophiles and rapists out on parole, by a vote of 37-33.

Radical anti-police bill bankrupting local governments one hurdle away from becoming law

On Tuesday, the New Mexico Senate passed H.B. 4, dubbed the “Civil Rights Act,” sponsored by Speaker of the House Brian Egolf, Rep. Georgene Louis (D-Bernalillo), and Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana), all attorneys practicing civil litigation. 

The bill has the ability to bankrupt local communities with slews of frivolous civil rights lawsuits, end qualified immunity and put a target on law enforcers’ backs. Local governments from all across the state are vehemently opposed to the measure, as well as many local law enforcement officials from all over New Mexico.

During the Senate debate of the bill, Sen. Bill Sharer (R-San Juan) said, “We don’t want to deprive somebody of their civil rights, but we also don’t want to make the taxpayers of whatever jurisdiction just pour money into this endless pit of lawsuits.”

Sen. Stewart Ingle (R-Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Lea, and Roosevelt) said, “We have the most liberal liability laws of any place except Washington, D.C., and the stuff we didn’t have has now been added through this.” He added, “It’s going to open up areas for liability that we have never seen before. And our counties and our cities, our highway departments, every state agency we have, I think, is going to be subject to things that they have never even thought about.” 

“More money for insurance or claims means less money for essential services or higher taxes,” said Santa Fe County Attorney Greg Shaffer during testimony against the bill in a Senate committee. “This shifting of risk impacts all citizens,” he said. “More money for insurance or claims means less money for essential services or higher taxes.”

In a previous hearing of the bill, Detective Shaun Willoughby of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association said, “This particular bill takes away our ability. This is basically a tax increase. We are taxing the public all over the state of New Mexico. Hurting budgets that can be used for training on the mental health, can be used for resources and social programs in the poorest state in the nation.” 

Proponents of the police-attacking bill came sponsored by dark money groups like billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s “Moms Demand Action,” the Soros-funded “Sierra Club,” “ProgressNow New Mexico,” and “Equality New Mexico.” These groups’ supporters claimed H.B. 4 was a necessary reform for civil rights while not addressing how it would cripple local municipalities’ budgets, open these localities to million-dollar frivolous lawsuits, and put targets on peace officers’ backs. 

Egolf has been criticized for sponsoring the bill, as it would directly benefit his private law practice, which is 60% civil litigation and claims. His unethical sponsorship of the bill led a prominent retired judge to file an ethics complaint against Egolf. He had his lawyer file a motion to dismiss the ethics complaint, as reported on Friday. During House consideration of H.B. 4, Egolf voted against an amendment proposed by Rep. T. Ryan Lane (R-San Juan) to bar legislators from financially benefiting from the bill.

The measure barely squeaked by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a vote of 5-4, with Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo) voting with all Republicans against the radical measure. Another similar measure was brought forth by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) regarding tort claims and qualified immunity. However, it was swiftly rejected, with two Democrats voting to kill the bill. Cervantes also may profit off of his co-sponsorship of H.B. 4 despite his claims that he has “no conflict of interest or financial motive in bringing this legislation.” Only time will tell on that.

The Senate amended the bill to eliminate mandatory attorney fees. However, the small concession did not fix New Mexico’s small communities and local governments’ many concerns. In its amended form, the bill will go to the House of Representatives for concurrence before it is sent to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham for a signature. It passed the Senate on a 26-15 with one Democrat in opposition, Sen, George Muñoz (Cibola, McKinley, and San Juan), siding with all Republicans against the extreme bill.

According to the New Mexico House Republicans at 10:37 p.m. on Tuesday that “[W]e are recessed until the Speaker’s bill, HB 4, is passed by the Senate and he can bring it to our chamber for concurrence.” 

Sen. Stewart callously dismisses concerns as committee rams through gas tax hike on the poor

On Tuesday, the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee convened to discuss S.B. 11, the de-facto gas tax on the poor by over 20 cents per gallon. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo). 

When asked simple questions about her bill and the math not adding up in the cost of gasoline pushed on consumers, she erroneously claimed, “Gas is cheaper now than when they started.” However, according to raw gas prices from California and Oregon, the states she championed as models for New Mexico, the prices in 2014 and 2015 for California and Oregon respectively were cheaper then than when they implemented the clean fuel standards.

Rep. James Strickler (R-San Juan) brought up the fact that the California equivalent of New Mexico’s Legislative Finance Committee urged the state to shut down the clean fuel standards program due to cost concerns with transportation that ultimately went on to the consumer. 

He noted how in Farmington, where he is located, “We pay probably 25 to 30 cents higher in gasoline costs up here.” 

Stewart clapped back, “I don’t” have concerns. “I’m certainly proud that you all are concerned about low income. I don’t think it’s going to impact us,” she said, adding, “We’ve got two years to phase this in. We’re going to do it right.”

Rep. Rod Montoya (R-San Juan) echoed Rep. Strickler’s concerns, saying, “The poor are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones most affected by this.” 

At this point, Stewart got frustrated, as she did in multiple other committee hearings when faced with the truth about her unaffordable gas tax on the poor. She said,  “When everybody talks about, ‘Oh the poor are gonna be hurt,’ I do believe the poor care about the climate,” she said.

“This is bigger than just the cost of gasoline…. This program does not really affect the cost of gasoline, like so many other factors that go into it.” 

“Two cents a year — That is nothing,” she said, claiming, “I am not concerned about that because I do believe this is kind of fear mongering…. I want to answer honestly because that’s how I feel about it.” 

“The cost is in the transportation — that’s where the poor people in rural New Mexico get hit,” Montoya clapped back.

He added that the example of supposed “new investment” in New Mexico used by Stewart, a company in Clovis, had their production in Texas which was across the border.

“The problem was the delivery cost,” said Montoya. He noted that transportation costs would be “astronomical” if someone lived in a more rural area, such as Deming. “The cost was going to be outrageous,” said Montoya. 

“That’s where the poor people in rural New Mexico get hit,” he said, “The cost to transport is where the cost comes from.” 

“If you live in California and you have a lot more outlets like that, the cost goes down…. that’s a real number that’s a real factor.”  

When Stewart was pressed on the lack of legislative oversight that the commission responsible for implementing the clean fuel standard would have, she replied, “No. I have seen us year after year after year come back and make changes” She added, “I have no fears about that.” 


After dismissing the very real concerns of the rural representatives, Democrats made a motion to pass the bill, with all Democrats voting for it while all Republicans stood up for the poor and voted against it, with the S.B. 11 passing on a vote of 7-4. The gas tax on the poor bill now heads to the House floor for final approval.

Find and contact your legislator to oppose the bill by clicking here.

Assisted suicide via lethal drugs bill one step away from becoming law after passing Senate

In a sad turn of events in New Mexico, the state Senate approved one of the most extreme assisted suicide via lethal drugs bills to the House of Representatives to concur with the amendments, then to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham for her signature. The Governor promised to sign the radical anti-life bill that will jeopardize those living with terminal conditions.

The bill passed despite bipartisan opposition to the radical measure, with a final vote of 24-17. Democrats, Pete Campos of Las Vegas, George Muñoz of Gallup, and Benny Shendo Jr. of Jemez Pueblo joined Republicans in voting against the measure. Despite invoking his Catholic faith and saying he attended mass at the Cathedral, Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) voted with anti-life Democrats to approve the bill.

During debate. Sen. Gregg Schmedes (R-Tijeras) said, “My concern is that when we legalize this practice, as we’ve seen in other states, the overall suicide rate goes up.” He added, “When I use the word ‘suicide,’ I don’t use it flippantly. Suicide’s the intentional taking of your life.”

The bill, which is opposed by multiple disability rights groups, the Navajo Nation, and many patients living with terminal conditions, seeks to further normalize a culture of death in New Mexico by letting medical professionals prescribe lethal drugs to patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that could take their lives anytime up to six months.

The bill would legalize doctors to prescribe a “cocktail” of lethal drugs to patients suffering from terminal illnesses, which will save insurance companies money. 

During the bill’s hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday, the “expert witnesses,” law professor Robert Schwartz and physician Steven Kanig could not even list the drugs that would be prescribed to end an individual’s life and admitted that there is no set “cocktail” that is used. Schwartz claimed the concoction of harmful drugs “has been refined over the years” and that “these drugs do change.”

H.B. 47, which devalues human life and dangerously violates ethical codes in medicine, is sponsored by anti-life extremist Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) and a few other partisan Democrats in the Legislature. 

Gov. Lujan Grisham’s press secretary Nora Sackett said in a statement, “The governor has been a lifelong advocate for seniors and their independence, as well as for the importance of dignity and respect in making choices about one’s own health and treatment.” 

The American Medical Association (AMA) itself decries assisted suicide as an affront to the practice of medicine. According to the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics Medical Opinion 5.7

“Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” 

“Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Physicians:

Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.

Must respect patient autonomy.

Must provide good communication and emotional support.

Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.

In Oregon and California–states that allow assisted suicide–patients have been denied payment for treatments to save their lives, but have been told that less-costly lethal drugs would be covered. Assisted suicide creates a strong economic incentive to deny treatment, which is the antithesis of the above medical ethics mandate from the AMA to provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control. 

According to official numbers from Oregon, suicide in the general population in the state is 40% above the national average during the 20 year period that Oregon has had legal assisted suicide. 

In July, it was reported that New Mexico’s suicide rate was the highest in the nation. This bill would further encourage suicide as a socially acceptable alternative to life–a dangerous mindset to place in the minds of people young and old living in our state. By embracing more death and treating people who have a terminal illness as expendable, New Mexico would be dehumanizing individuals and treating them as a burden. 

In Canada, where assisted suicide is legal for the ill and the elderly, they are now trying to force through assisted suicide for people who have disabilities, claiming it will save health care costs (as the country has a socialized medicine system). They are threatening patients, such as a man named Roger Foley, who has cerebellar ataxia, a degenerative neurological condition, giving him only two options: pay $1,800 per day to remain in a hospital after he was mistreated at a government-assigned agency home care center, or kill himself with life-ending drugs. The legalization of H.B. 47 would usher in Canada’s so-called “progressive” policies, ultimately leading to disabled people being included in future bills to kill themselves because they are given impossible choices such as the one Mr. Foley had.

Also, the unsafe life-ending drugs used in the killing of these terminally ill patients would force patients to agree to the below statement that they understand it could take longer than three hours of excruciating pain for them to finally be poisoned to death:

“I understand the full import of this request, and I expect to die if I self-administer the medical aid in dying medication prescribed. I further understand that although most deaths occur within three hours, my death may take longer.” 

As Charlie Camosy, a bioethics professor in the theology department of Fordham University in New York said, “A medical system that kills is no longer recognizable as healing and caring.”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Deb Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) gleefully rejoiced the final Senate passage of the anti-life bill, writing on Twitter, “This is a tremendous win.”

The bill, which was amended on the Senate floor, now goes to the state House of Representatives. The House already has approved the bill, but will need to approve the amendments. Then it will go to the Governor’s desk for a signature, ushering an even more aggressive culture of death in New Mexico, following the passage of S.B. 10, a bill legalizing abortion up-to-birth and infanticide and stripping all protections for women, medical professionals, and babies in the womb.

Assisted suicide bill advances from committee amid ugly spat between Sen. Ivey-Soto, Pro Tem Stewart

On Sunday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) met to consider multiple proposals, chief among them H.B. 47, which is a rabidly anti-life assisted suicide via lethal drugs bill brought forth by Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) and Sen. Liz Stefanics (D-Bernalillo, Lincoln, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Torrance, and Valencia). 

The bill would legalize doctors to prescribe a “cocktail” of lethal drugs to patients suffering from terminal illnesses, which will save insurance companies money. The bill is opposed by the American Medical Association’s guide of ethics, the Navajo Nation, multiple Catholic organizations, and disability rights groups. 

During the committee, the “expert witnesses,” law professor Robert Schwartz and physician Steven Kanig could not even list the drugs that would be prescribed to end an individual’s life and admitted that there is no set “cocktail” that is used. Schwartz claimed the concoction of harmful drugs “has been refined over the years” and that “these drugs do change.”

Chairman Cervantes asked multiple questions regarding the legality of the bill, such as its clause listing that a physician would be compelled to list the patient’s underlying condition as their cause of death instead of the lethal drugs. Another concern regarded proof that the patient was not being coerced into the decision, as well as the effectiveness of these drugs to end the patient’s life. He also asked about redundancies in the bill, such as the term “a peaceful death,” referring to the ending of the patient’s life. He said, “The issue here is not to produce that, but rather to produce death. And that really is straightforward.” 

No other senator, Republican, or Democrat asked the bill sponsors or their expert witnesses about the bill, other than Sen. Katy Duhigg (D-Bernalillo and Sandoval) arguing with the Chairman over exempting doctors from liability. 

During the consideration of a previous bill in the committee, H.B. 129, Senate Pro Tem Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo), and Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo) had a spat over amendments to the bill, with Stewart claiming she was not sent amendments in advance. 

Later, during consideration of the anti-life H.B. 47, Ivey-Soto had informed the committee that he had been asked by leadership not to exercise his “senatorial duties” on any House bills and that he would no longer be hearing House bills in his Senate Rules Committee.

He said, “I just wanted to let everybody know that since I have been asked by leadership not to exercise my senatorial duties on any House bills, I will not be participating in the consideration of any House bills. I am terribly sorry for this. We will also no longer, in my committee, be considering any House bills at this time for the foreseeable future. Thank you very much, and I wish everyone well on this bill and I’m very sorry not to be participating in the consideration of this bill because I find it to be incredible for us to be doing in our work in the Legislature.” 

In prior committee hearings in his Rules Committee, Sen Ivey-Soto has gotten into spats with Sen. Mimi Stewart. She has been critical of his inclination to amend bills to not create problems later on. In contrast, she has been focused on ramming through as much radical legislation despite any ramifications in the future. 

Before the final vote on H.B. 47, Republicans on the committee made a motion to table it, with it dying on a vote of 3-5. The anti-life bill ultimately passed through the committee 5-3 despite many indications of opposition from Chairman Cervantes, with him voting to advance the bill. Cervantes said he intends to offer amendments to the bill on the Senate floor, the proposal’s next stop before the Governor’s desk.

URGENT ALERT: Sign up to testify against anti-life assisted suicide via lethal drugs bill TODAY

On Sunday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider radical assisted suicide H.B. 47 sponsored by Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) at 3:00 p.m. Please sign up to testify below.

The bill seeks to further normalize a culture of death in New Mexico by letting medical professionals prescribe lethal drugs to patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that could take their lives anytime up to six months.

H.B. 47, which devalues human life and dangerously violates ethical codes in medicine, is sponsored by anti-life extremist Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) and a few other partisan Democrats in the Legislature. 

The American Medical Association (AMA) itself decries assisted suicide as an affront to the practice of medicine. According to the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics Medical Opinion 5.7

“Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” 

“Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Physicians:

Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.

Must respect patient autonomy.

Must provide good communication and emotional support.

Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.

In Oregon and California–states that allow assisted suicide–patients have been denied payment for treatments to save their lives, but have been told that less-costly lethal drugs would be covered. Assisted suicide creates a strong economic incentive to deny treatment, which is the antithesis of the above medical ethics mandate from the AMA to provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control. 

According to official numbers from Oregon, suicide in the general population in the state is 40% above the national average during the 20 year period that Oregon has had legal assisted suicide. 

In July, it was reported that New Mexico’s suicide rate was the highest in the nation. This bill would further encourage suicide as a socially acceptable alternative to life–a dangerous mindset to place in the minds of people young and old living in our state. By embracing more death and treating people who have a terminal illness as expendable, New Mexico would be dehumanizing individuals and treating them as a burden. 

In Canada, where assisted suicide is legal for the ill and the elderly, they are now trying to force through assisted suicide for people who have disabilities, claiming it will save health care costs (as the country has a socialized medicine system). They are threatening patients, such as a man named Roger Foley, who has cerebellar ataxia, a degenerative neurological condition, giving him only two options: pay $1,800 per day to remain in a hospital after he was mistreated at a government-assigned agency home care center, or kill himself with life-ending drugs. The legalization of H.B. 47 would usher in the so-called “progressive” policies of Canada, ultimately leading to disabled people being included in future bills to kill themselves because they are given impossible choices such as the one Mr. Foley had.

Also, the unsafe life-ending drugs used in the killing of these terminally ill patients would force patients to agree to the below statement that they understand it could take longer than three hours of excruciating pain for them to finally be poisoned to death:

“I understand the full import of this request, and I expect to die if I self-administer the medical aid in dying medication prescribed. I further understand that although most deaths occur within three hours, my death may take longer.” 

As Charlie Camosy, a bioethics professor in the theology department of Fordham University in New York said, “A medical system that kills is no longer recognizable as healing and caring.”

Here is a quick and informative video from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition against H.B. 47:

ACTION ALERT: 

H.B. 47 will be heard on Monday. However, the committee requires people to sign up 24 hours in advance to testify. Please sign up to testify by emailing SJC@nmlegis.gov with your Name, Entity Represented, Bill #, For or Against, and indicate if you wish to speak. Written comments are limited to 300 words or less. You will be contacted by our Zoom Operator with the virtual meeting instructions.

Your help in defeating this bill will mean the difference between a culture of life or a culture of careless death in New Mexico. We should champion policies that promote life for all people in New Mexico, from conception to natural death. Contact the committee members here:

Dem senator questions why Dems want to raise taxes amid revenue boom—then votes for tax hike

On Saturday, the Senate Taxation, Business, and Transportation Committee voted 7-4 on H.B. 291 to advance a sweeping tax hike on New Mexicans making over $500,000 annually while also phasing out other tax breaks passed in 2013. 

During committee comments, Sen. Bill Tallman (D-Bernalillo) made quite a fuss over the bill increasing taxes while loads of government money was coming in to help the state. He pondered whether this was the right time for such an action.

“Now that we’re learning that we’re going to get a considerable amount of money from the federal government, I was wondering what we are so determined to increase taxes because I would be… in favor of increasing the working families tax credit and the LICTR (Low-Income Comprehensive Tax Rebate), and forget about increasing taxes for a year or two because they’re raising such a small amount.” He added, “The income tax is only going to raise $40 million. That’s what, one-third of one percent of our $7.3 billion budget,” said Tallman. 

He said, “I hate to argue with you against my good friend, Peter Wirth–Senator Wirth. And I was just wondering why we’re so determined to raise taxes–which I’m not against raising taxes maybe down the road–but why are we so determined to raise it in light of the fact that we’re so flush with money coming in this year?” 

Sen. Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) responded, saying that the tax hike was meant to be a “recurring” partial fix to a “permanent problem” with what he described as waning oil and gas revenues. 

But despite Tallman lobbying against raising taxes in the current legislative session, he voted for S.B. 291 anyway. 

The bill would ultimately harm businesses that are already struggling due to the COVID-19 pandemic and which employ low-income workers in the state. The new tax hike would disincentivize businesses from investing in New Mexico because higher-income business owners would not invest in the state due to over-taxation.

There are many other proposals working their way through the Legislature that will directly impact lower-wage workers and working families, notably S.B. 11, which is a clean fuel standards bill that would ultimately raise the price of gasoline to over 20 cents per gallon–crippling the poor.

The bill now heads to the Senate floor, and despite Tallman’s manufactured concern in the Tax Committee, it appears he will likely vote for the measure on the Senate floor. 

Scroll to Top