New Mexico

EXCLUSIVE: Prominent judge files ethics complaint against Speaker Egolf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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’

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. 

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.

Scroll to Top