Repealing 1969 abortion law should be priority
When those who work in public health talk about health care access, we aren’t just talking about geographical access.
Health care access also implies the opportunity and financial means to take time off work; to cover the cost of being seen by a medical provider, gas and child care. It asks whether specialists serve in every corner of the state, not just the residents of metropolitan areas. It requires providing culturally appropriate services in the primary languages for New Mexicans of all racial and ethnic identities. It means having knowledge and humility regarding Indigenous beliefs on medicine and healing; and providing affirming, compassionate and knowledgeable medical care for LGBTQIA New Mexicans. Health care access means many things.
Soon the members of our Legislature will again be asked to ensure health care access for all New Mexicans by repealing the 1969 law that essentially bans abortion. Four years after its passage, the Supreme Court deemed such laws unconstitutional; but recent ideological shifts in the court threaten to upend this decision, leaving New Mexicans seeking abortion care vulnerable.
The law is over five decades old and does not fit with our culture and values; it contains unnecessary hospital admitting requirements, government intrusion into private medical matters, and cruel and unnecessary requirements for victims of sexual assault/ abuse.
In 1969, it may have been medically sound to only perform an abortion in a hospital, but today many medical procedures that were previously required to be performed in a hospital are performed safely in outpatient or clinical settings. In the rare event that an emergency occurs during any of these procedures, the medical team can stabilize the patient and transport them to a hospital. Requiring an abortion to be performed in a hospital does not improve the quality of care to patients; rather, it limits the ability of physicians to provide that care, increases health care costs and decreases accessibility.
Under the 1969 abortion ban law, any person attempting to access abortion services is required to request a hearing before a committee that would judge whether that access was to be granted. Take a moment to consider this scenario: You walk into a hospital requesting medical care — any type of medical care — and you are denied.
Instead, you are referred to a committee of people you don’t know and who don’t know you. Yet they have the ability to judge whether you will receive essential medical treatment. And in the event that a pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest, the law requires the victim to submit an affidavit on how they became pregnant for abortion care to even be considered.
Best practices for health care providers today include trauma-informed care, meaning if a medical provider knows or suspects their patient has experienced a trauma, including rape or incest, they should take special care not to add to that trauma while providing medical care. It would be cruel and inhumane to force a patient to attest under penalty of law to the details of their trauma in order to receive medical care.
New Mexicans have nuanced and deeply held feelings about abortion, but I’m asking you to think about this bill as something bigger than abortion. The 1969 law singles out half of New Mexicans and says we are incapable of deciding what medical care is best for our lives and our bodies. It says that half of New Mexicans don’t deserve quality health care in outpatient and clinical settings that are geographically accessible and cost-effective. It says that politicians have the right to make private and personal decisions for New Mexicans without a second thought. I’m asking you to imagine this bill was about any other essential medical procedure other than abortion. Could you still support it?