NM attorney scores major legal win in groundbreaking abortion lawsuit

New Mexico attorney Mike Seibel has secured a $200,000 settlement in a closely watched wrongful-death case involving the estate of a 26-week unborn child — a case Seibel says marks an unprecedented legal development in litigation against abortionists.

The lawsuit, Wabbington v. Boyd, was brought against longtime late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd, his former Southwestern Women’s Options practice, Emily Cohen, and the late Carmen Landau. The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 14, 2026.

Seibel, working with co-counsel Justin Hall, represented the interests involved in the case through their abortion-injury legal work. According to Live Action News, the settlement is believed to be the first in which the estate of a child who died during an abortion recovered money through a wrongful-death action against abortionists.

“This is the first time that an abortionist has ever been sued for the wrongful death of a baby,” Seibel told Live Action News. “There have been numerous cases for injuries to the mother, but in this case both the mother and the baby’s estate sued.”

The legal significance goes beyond the dollar amount.

A final court order appointing a personal representative for the estate stated that Baby Wabbington was a “26 week old viable fetus” and, under New Mexico precedent, qualified as a “person as defined under the Wrongful Death Act.” The order further stated that the child was entitled to equal protection under New Mexico and federal law.

Seibel has seized on that language as an important step in developing legal recognition for unborn children.

“This case recognized the baby to have an estate, and receive compensation for wrongful death, as a ‘person’ under New Mexico law,” he said.

Case centered on informed consent

The lawsuit did not rest solely on broader arguments about abortion. At its core were serious allegations involving informed consent.

According to the complaint, the child’s mother was using methamphetamine when she presented for the abortion in 2020. The lawsuit alleged that providers knew or should have known about her substance-use history and observed signs consistent with impairment, yet nevertheless proceeded with the consent process and the abortion.

The complaint alleged that the mother lacked the legal capacity to provide valid informed consent while intoxicated and that providers failed to wait until she was sober before obtaining consent.

Seibel argued that the providers also failed to discuss programs that could have helped the mother address her substance abuse while continuing the pregnancy.

“Records contain no discussion of reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment,” Seibel said.

He pointed specifically to programs such as UNM Health’s Milagro Program, which provides prenatal care and substance-abuse treatment, as well as Lovelace Women’s Hospital’s G.R.A.C.E. Program for pregnant women dealing with addiction.

“This omission deprived the patient of material information needed to make an informed decision,” Seibel said.

Lawsuit alleged remains were never sent to funeral home

The case also included disturbing allegations about what happened after the abortion.

According to the complaint, the mother requested that the baby’s remains be released to Riverside Funeral Home for services. Instead, the lawsuit alleged that the remains were placed in a medical-waste container and destroyed.

The lawsuit accused the providers of unfair trade practices, including allegedly offering funeral services for aborted children without intending to transfer the remains to a funeral home. It also accused the defendants of attempting to limit or discourage potential malpractice and emotional-distress claims through paperwork given to patients.

Those were allegations contained in the complaint; the $200,000 settlement resolved the litigation without a trial determining each allegation.

Seibel points to major contradiction in New Mexico law

For Seibel, the case also exposes what he views as a fundamental contradiction in New Mexico law: an unborn child can be recognized as a “person” for purposes of a wrongful-death claim while abortion remains legal.

“You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law,” Seibel said.

He argued that every legal recognition afforded to an unborn child strengthens the broader argument for personhood.

“Every time we give the unborn baby rights we solidify personhood,” Seibel said.

Seibel was equally critical of the treatment of the child’s mother, arguing that she was particularly vulnerable because of her substance-use condition.

“The abortion industry preyed on the mother’s vulnerable condition for profit,” he said. “They not only failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse, but they failed to properly consent her before ending the life of her preborn child.”

He also noted that Medicaid was billed for the procedure.

A potentially significant legal foothold

Because the case settled rather than proceeding to a verdict, it does not amount to a judicial finding that every allegation in the complaint was proven.

But Seibel argues that the combination of the court’s recognition of the child’s estate, the wrongful-death framework, and the resulting monetary recovery could provide attorneys with a new avenue in future cases involving alleged abortion injuries and informed-consent failures.

“This settlement recasts the informed consent debate to give a powerful tool to collect damages against an abortionist,” Seibel said.

“But, most importantly, it was the first ever case where the dead aborted child, identified as a ‘person’ in the court record, was able to collect damages against the abortion industry.”

For Seibel, that is the larger significance of the case: not merely winning compensation, but establishing another legal foothold for treating an unborn child as a rights-bearing person under New Mexico law.