Local Pro-life Laws Under Consideration by New Mexico Court

An upcoming decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court could determine the future of several regions in the state with local pro-life ordinances, according to The Guardian.

State Attorney General Raúl Torrez brought the initial suit challenging the anti-abortion ordinances in Lea and Roosevelt counties and the cities of Hobbs and Clovis, stating that the statutes exceed the authority of local governments to regulate healthcare access and violate the New Mexico Constitution’s protections of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

However, defendants argue that the 1873 Comstock Act, a federal bill preventing anything considered immoral from being sent in the mail, supersedes state law and is now relevant since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year.

Defenders of the ordinances say the Comstock law should call into question the distribution of abortion pills and the equipment necessary for clinics to perform medical abortions, although the law has been dormant for quite some time.

Pro-life activist Mark Lee Dickson commented, “These ordinances — they don’t explicitly outlaw abortion. They’re de facto abortion bans. They’re simply requiring compliance with federal statutes.”

According to The Hill, many of the questions from the justices in a Wednesday hearing surrounded whether federal or state law should be enforced.

“The Supreme Court should nullify the ordinances at issue in this case and prohibit their enforcement, not only because they are preempted by state law but because they constitute a form of gender based discrimination and are unconstitutional,” Torrez stated after the hearing.

New Mexico is not the only state where older laws are being considered by courts on if they are relevant to abortion debates today.

The Arizona Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday about an 1864 abortion ban made before Arizona was even a state, and whether it has since been limited or superseded.