Anti-abortion ordinance would rely on residents

The proposed Roosevelt County anti-abortion ordinance set for a vote next month is different than an ordinance passed in Hobbs and tabled in Clovis: The proposed Roosevelt ordinance is intended to rely on legal action by county residents for enforcement.

In the ordinance, brought before the Roosevelt County Commission by Commissioner Rodney Savage, there are details about who may bring action against an abortion operation:

“The requirements of this section shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in section 3. No direct or indirect enforcement of this section may be taken or threatened by Roosevelt County or any of its employees or agents against any person or entity, by any means whatsoever…”

The “Section 3” referenced in the proposed ordinance refers to Section 3 of that ordinance which is titled “Private Right of Action”: “Any person, other than the state, its political subdivisions, including Roosevelt County, and any officer or employee or agent of a state or local governmental entity in this state, has standing to bring and may bring a civil action…”

The proposed Clovis and adopted Hobbs ordinances do not have this language.

Hobbs City Attorney Efren Cortez said Thursday, “The city of Hobbs’ abortion business ordinance does not create a private cause of action against the abortion business.”

Savage said the Roosevelt County ordinance was also created by the Austin, Texas, attorney who crafted the Clovis and Hobbs ordinances.

“Jonathan Mitchell sent me this ordinance,” Savage said. “He is the one who formulated this for Roosevelt County.”

A voice mail left to a phone number listed as Mitchell’s office was not returned.

A common element in the Clovis, Hobbs and Roosevelt County ordinances and proposals is the reliance on an old federal law forbidding domestic shipping of abortion tools or medicines.

Roosevelt County Attorney Michael Garcia said he is reviewing that part of the ordinance.

“As for the federal law referenced in the draft ordinance, I’m becoming familiar with it, and intend to research further how it might relate to state or local legislation in New Mexico,” Garcia said. “As for why it wasn’t enforced before the Dobbs decision, I’m not certain, though it’s easy to see how Roe would have been a factor.”

Roe refers to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade that allowed abortion in the United States. Dobbs refers to the case in which the Supreme Court ruled in June that abortion is not a constitutional right, overturning Roe vs. Wade.

“My constituents and people in my district encouraged me to take this action,” Savage said of introducing the ordinance.

Savage said he came to Clovis when the city’s proposed anti-abortion ordinance was being considered.

“I went to the rally, watched the commission actions on the ordinance,” Savage said. “I watched the Hobbs meeting.”

Savage said he plans to bring the ordinance he introduced to the Roosevelt County Commission to be considered for adoption at the Jan. 10 regular meeting.

“That will give us time to study it, think about it, give constituents time to review it and our lawyers time to review it,” Savage said.

Savage said commissioners have to make sure the proposed ordinance meets New Mexico statutes.

“We’re still going to have to gather quite a bit of information,” Savage said.

Savage said he believes the people in his district support the ordinance.

“I am convinced the constituents in my district are anti-abortion,” Savage said. “They do not want their children to grow up with it thinking that it’s OK [abortion].”

Savage maintains there is no New Mexico law allowing abortion.

“There is no law allowing it or against it,” Savage said. “So to say we’re offering an ordinance that ‘flies in the face of New Mexico law’ is wrong. If there is a statute that grants abortion we’ve got to find out.”

A message to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office requesting comment on the proposed Roosevelt County ordinance was not returned.

As for abortion’s legality in the state Lujan Grisham did comment when Hobbs adopted its anti-abortion ordinance.

“This resolution, authored by out-of-state extremists working to further their special interest agenda, is a clear affront to the rights and personal autonomy of every woman in Hobbs and southeastern New Mexico, and we will not stand for it,” the governor stated in a news release.

“Reproductive health care is legal and protected in every corner of our state. Providers delivering health care have every right to establish a practice, and all women have the right to access medication abortion services, no matter where in New Mexico they call home.”

Ninth Judicial District Attorney Brian Stover outlined the language that allows abortion in New Mexico.

“Abortion is considered a medical procedure,” Stover wrote in a text. “Most of the time medical procedures are legal if the patient consents to the procedure. Thus, there is currently not a statute that makes abortion legal.”

Stover defined the difference between what is “legal” and what is “allowed.”

“If something is legal then anyone can do it at any time. A matter is allowed when it is regulated in some fashion. Something is illegal when there is a criminal penalty brought against the person who does the act,” Stover said.

Stover said before 2021 there was an anti-abortion law on the books in New Mexico, but that law was repealed in February 2021 by Senate Bill 10.

“Partial birth abortion is still illegal in New Mexico,” Stover said. “And of course, causing a woman to abort her baby without her consent is illegal.”

Hobbs is the only municipality in New Mexico that has passed the anti-abortion ordinance. The Clovis measure was tabled by a 7 to 1 city commission vote Nov. 3.

A similar measure moved a step closer to being adopted in Lea County Thursday. County Commissioners there voted 5 to 0 to move the measure for a final vote in January.

Otero County voted on an unenforceable anti-abortion resolution in July as did Alamogordo in August.