Governor Michelle Grisham of New Mexico published a recent op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal, announcing she would sign HB 51, a bill intended to repeal a statute on the books from 1969 that would make abortion a felony, except in cases of rape, birth defects, or life of the mother. Grisham is the latest pro-abortion governor to write an op-ed seeking to gain support for efforts to lead a state down the path of unapologetic acceptance of abortion on demand.
HB 51 was made unconstitutional by Roe v. Wade in 1973, but would return if the Supreme Court overturned the ruling. Governor Grisham makes her position on the 1969 law clear: “I firmly support, have always supported and have made no secret about my support for excising this statute from our books. As governor, I have pledged to sign House Bill 51, which would do exactly that.” She argues that women’s right to choose abortion is one of “their most private and personally sacred decisions.”
The state already has practically no regulations on abortion. New Mexico is one of the most permissive states on abortion in the country, with no limitations on public funding for abortion, no requirement for parental involvement in a minor’s abortion request, and no waiting periods. It is one of the few states that allows late-term abortion. The state recently shot down a parental notification bill aimed at addressing a loophole “allowing pregnant teens to be taken off school premises for an abortion without a parent’s knowledge.”
READ: Emails reveal possible cover up in New Mexico woman’s abortion death
Grisham’s piece is full of the same inaccuracies pro-abortion advocates have been trotting out for decades. A woman, she says, must be “free to make a decision … none of which is anyone else’s business.” The Supreme Court “established a woman’s right to choose as the law of the land.” The right to choose abortion is one of “a woman’s most basic rights,” she claims. Grisham also leans heavily on the assumption that abortion is a form of health care, and blasts the 1969 statute for “villainizing our medical professionals.” The article ends up being the greatest hits of all the worn-out, hollow pro-abortion rhetoric imaginable. But what’s remarkable is the way Grisham skates over the core reality at question: abortion is not health care, and every abortion takes the life of a vulnerable human being.
Grisham presents herself as a defender of women everywhere, writing, “I have every intention of leading a state that values women, that empowers women, that listens to women.” She apparently feels that pro-life women or preborn female children do not meet the definition of “women” that she hopes to value, listen to, and empower. One wonders how women, not to mention their female preborn children, can be empowered and valued when they have no protections against dangerous late-term abortion procedures. Curtis Boyd, an infamous late-term abortionist headquartered in NM, owns a facility where at least one woman has died. Employees of the facility have been caught on tape offering to abort a 37-week-old baby for $17,000; Medicaid pays $9,000. Late-term abortion is a dangerous, but lucrative, procedure for abortionists. Yet Grisham has no interest in regulating or restricting those who would prey on women and their preborn children in the pursuit of money.
Grisham belittles the “fear” that some constituents expressed that the bill would “facilitate murder,” yet she offers no assurance against that concern. On the contrary, Grisham issues a passionate appeal for even more abortionists — presumably like Curtis Boyd — to set up shop in New Mexico. Speaking of abortion, she says, “I have every intention of recruiting additional medical professionals to New Mexico and retaining the excellent providers we already have.” Apparently, Grisham wants to create the conditions in which even abortionists like Kermit Gosnell would have free reign… and no oversight.
READ: Pro-lifers cry foul as New Mexico refuses to prosecute accused fetal tissue traffickers
Likewise, New Mexico’s governor brushes off the conscience protection concerns many have raised by pointing vaguely to protections in “federal law.” She offers no concrete answer, however, to the serious objections that have been raised about physicians being forced to commit abortions or face punishment if HB 51 is passed, as this measure would remove the conscience protections enshrined in Sections 30-5-1 to 30-5-3 of the 1969 statute.
And speaking of the federal law that she uses as a shield against these allegations, Grisham conveniently neglects to mention that her Democrat colleagues at the federal level are working feverishly to destroy conscience protections. Several Democrats running for president in 2020 have endorsed Medicare for All initiatives that would obliterate conscience protections by abolishing private insurance, and creating one universal government-funded health care system that mandates 100% public funding for abortion on demand.
Outspoken pro-abortion governors like Michelle Grisham are part of a broader national trend, in which abortion advocates are becoming louder, bolder, and more unapologetic about their support for abortion on demand. Pro-lifers have a duty to speak out against these elected officials. Only by doing so can we truly value, empower, and listen to the needs of women and preborn babies threatened by these politicians.
“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!
