--- title: "New Mexico — abortion law" description: "New Mexico is one of the most protective states in the country for abortion access. There is no ban or gestational limit — abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy. The state repealed its old criminal abortion law in 2021, and in 2023 enacted a law prohibiting any public body from restricting…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "New Mexico" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/nm.html" --- # New Mexico — abortion law _New Mexico · United States_ ## Overview **Legal throughout pregnancy; protected** New Mexico has no gestational limit on abortion, has repealed its pre-Roe criminal abortion statute, and has enacted statutory protections for reproductive health care access. New Mexico is one of the most protective states in the country for abortion access. There is no ban or gestational limit — abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy. The state repealed its old criminal abortion law in 2021, and in 2023 enacted a law prohibiting any public body from restricting or discriminating against reproductive health care. The governor has also issued executive orders blocking cooperation with out-of-state abortion investigations and preventing extradition. Abortion providers operate throughout the state, and medication abortion is available via telehealth. The only criminal restriction that remains is a ban on the 'partial-birth abortion' procedure, which carries an exception when needed to save the woman's life or prevent great bodily harm and expressly exempts the pregnant woman from any criminal liability. > "A public body or agent of a public body shall not, directly or indirectly, deny, restrict or interfere with a person's ability to access or provide reproductive health care or gender-affirming health care within the medical standard of care." > — HB 7, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, § 3(B), 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11 **Legal analysis** The pre-Roe criminal abortion statute (former NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1 through 30-5-3, enacted 1969) was repealed by SB 10, signed February 26, 2021 (2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2). The only remaining abortion-specific criminal provision is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5A-1 to 30-5A-5 (2000), which prohibits the defined 'partial-birth abortion' procedure except when performed by a physician who determines it is necessary to save the life or prevent great bodily harm of the pregnant female. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, HB 7 (2023), codified at Chapter 24 NMSA 1978, prohibits any 'public body' from denying, restricting, or interfering with access to or provision of reproductive health care, and expressly preempts conflicting local ordinances. Executive Order 2022-107 (June 27, 2022) prohibits executive branch cooperation with out-of-state civil or criminal investigations related to lawful abortion care and directs the governor's office to decline extradition requests arising from such investigations. The New Mexico Supreme Court, in State ex rel. Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County, No. S-1-SC-39205 (Jan. 9, 2025), unanimously invalidated local abortion-restrictive ordinances enacted by Clovis, Hobbs, Lea County, and Roosevelt County, holding them preempted by the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act. The New Mexico Constitution, Article II, § 18 (Equal Rights Amendment), provides an independent state constitutional basis for reproductive equality, as recognized in New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, 127 N.M. 654. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · HB 7, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, § 3(B), 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 3(B), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf) · SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2 (repealing NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1, 30-5-2, 30-5-3), FIR analysis, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF) · State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025), As quoted in NM DOJ press release, [New Mexico Department of Justice](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-supreme-court-grants-new-mexico-attorney-generals-writ-securing-statewide-reproductive-rights-a-landmark-victory-for-access-and-equality)* ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by statute | | Gestational limit weeks | — | | Limit measured from | — | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | No | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | No | | Fetal wrongful death action | Unclear | | Personhood language in law | No | | Personhood contradiction | No | | Medication abortion distinct status | No | | Mailing pills banned | No | | Method bans | D and x | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes | | Physician only law | No | | Provider max penalty | Fourth degree felony, 18 months (partial-birth abortion only) | | Helpers criminally exposed | No | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | Yes | | Waiting period hours | — | | State scripted counseling | No | | Ultrasound required | None | | In person visits required | 0 | | Parental involvement | None | | Judicial bypass available | Not applicable | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Broader than hyde | | Private insurance restricted | No | | State funding posture | Funds providers | | Rape incest exception | Not applicable | | Exceptions present | Ectopic miscarriage carveout | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Only partial-birth abortion defined** New Mexico has no general statutory definition of 'abortion'; the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines abortion as 'the intentional termination of the pregnancy of a female by a person who knows the female is pregnant.' New Mexico law no longer contains a general criminal definition of abortion, since the 1969 criminal abortion statute was repealed. The only abortion-related definition in current law is found in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which defines 'abortion' broadly as the intentional termination of a pregnancy by someone who knows the person is pregnant. There is no statute that carves out miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy treatment, or IVF from an abortion definition, because there is no abortion prohibition from which such carve-outs would be necessary. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act defines 'reproductive health care' to include abortion, contraception, miscarriage management, pregnancy-related care, fertility care, and more, but this is an inclusive definition used to define what is protected, not restricted. > "'abortion' means the intentional termination of the pregnancy of a female by a person who knows the female is pregnant" > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-2(A) **Legal analysis** The sole statutory definition of 'abortion' in current New Mexico law appears in NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-2(A): 'abortion' means the intentional termination of the pregnancy of a female by a person who knows the female is pregnant.' This definition operates only within the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The 2023 Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7) defines 'reproductive health care' inclusively at § 2(C) to mean 'psychological, behavioral, surgical, pharmaceutical and medical care, services and supplies that relate to the human reproductive system,' including services related to abortion, contraception, miscarriage management, prenatal and postpartum care, cancer treatment, and STI care. No current statute criminalizes or restricts conduct under the label 'abortion' beyond the specific partial-birth procedure. Because the criminal abortion law was repealed in its entirety in 2021, there is no statutory framework into which carve-outs for miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy, or IVF would fit — and thus no statutory ambiguity about whether such procedures fall within a prohibited category. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-2(A), subsection (A), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-2) · HB 7, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, § 2(C), 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 2(C), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf)* ## Current status **No gestational limit; abortion legal throughout pregnancy** Abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in New Mexico with no gestational limit, and state law affirmatively protects access to reproductive health care. There is no law in New Mexico that limits when in pregnancy a person may obtain an abortion. Abortion is legal at any stage of pregnancy. The state repealed its old criminal abortion ban in 2021 and has since enacted laws that actively protect reproductive health care access. A person can obtain an abortion from a licensed provider at any point in pregnancy, though in practice most clinics offer care up to certain gestational limits — Southwestern Women's Options in Albuquerque provides abortion up to 28 weeks 6 days. The only criminal restriction is on a specific late-term procedure called 'partial-birth abortion,' which a physician may still perform when necessary to save the pregnant person's life or prevent great bodily harm. > "Abortion is legal in New Mexico throughout all stages of pregnancy. As a result, state abortion laws related to reproductive healthcare vary. In contrast to many other states, New Mexico law provides few abortion restrictions." > — SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2 (repealing NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1, 30-5-2, 30-5-3) **Legal analysis** Since the repeal of NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1 through 30-5-3 by SB 10 (effective February 26, 2021), New Mexico has no general criminal prohibition on abortion and no gestational limit. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5A-1 to -5 (enacted 2000), prohibits only the specifically defined 'partial-birth abortion' procedure, and only when not necessary to save the life or prevent great bodily harm of the pregnant female. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7, 2023), § 3, affirmatively prohibits any public body from denying, restricting, or interfering with access to or provision of reproductive health care. Unlike the constitutional right to abortion formerly recognized under Roe v. Wade, the absence of restriction in New Mexico is statutory (repeal of the criminal ban), and the affirmative protections are also statutory. The New Mexico Supreme Court has not yet been called upon to rule whether the state constitution independently protects a right to abortion, though the ERA (Art. II, § 18) provides a textual basis for such a claim and was the basis for the ruling in N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, requiring Medicaid coverage of medically necessary abortions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2 (repealing NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1, 30-5-2, 30-5-3), FIR analysis, page 1, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF) · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-3) · HB 7, § 3, 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 3(B), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf)* ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Fully in effect; local restrictions invalidated** All current New Mexico abortion laws are in effect; the New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously invalidated local abortion-restrictive ordinances in January 2025 as preempted by state law. There is no injunction blocking any New Mexico abortion law, because the state's laws are protective rather than restrictive. The only court action of note is the New Mexico Supreme Court's January 2025 ruling that struck down local ordinances in Clovis, Hobbs, Lea County, and Roosevelt County that tried to restrict abortion access. The court ruled that those local measures conflicted with the state's Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act and were therefore invalid. The 1969 criminal abortion statute was repealed by the legislature in 2021, so it is no longer on the books. Executive orders from the governor protecting providers and patients from out-of-state investigations remain in effect. > "This landmark decision solidifies New Mexico's position as a national leader in reproductive rights and healthcare access. It also sends a clear message to local governments attempting to impose restrictive measures that their actions will not stand against state law." > — State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025) **Legal analysis** New Mexico has no abortion restriction currently subject to an injunction. The pre-Roe criminal abortion statute (NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1 to 30-5-3) was legislatively repealed in 2021, not merely enjoined. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5A-1 to -5) has never been enjoined and remains enforceable, though it is narrow in scope. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7) is in full effect. In State ex rel. Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County, No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025), the New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously invalidated local ordinances enacted by the cities of Clovis and Hobbs and the counties of Lea and Roosevelt that attempted to restrict abortion through Comstock Act-based prohibitions, licensing requirements, and private civil enforcement provisions. The Court held these ordinances were expressly preempted by HB 7. Executive Order 2022-107 (June 27, 2022), prohibiting executive branch cooperation with out-of-state investigations related to lawful abortion care and declining extradition, remains in effect and is binding on the executive branch. Executive Order 2022-123 (August 2022) directed the Department of Health to expand abortion access in rural and underserved communities. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025), Press release, [New Mexico Department of Justice](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-supreme-court-grants-new-mexico-attorney-generals-writ-securing-statewide-reproductive-rights-a-landmark-victory-for-access-and-equality) · Executive Order 2022-107 (June 27, 2022), Governor's press release, [Office of the Governor, New Mexico](https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/06/27/gov-lujan-grisham-takes-action-to-safeguard-abortion-access-protect-new-mexico-health-care-providers)* ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Exception for life in partial-birth ban** The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act permits the procedure when necessary to save the pregnant female's life, as determined by a physician. The only restrictive abortion law in New Mexico — the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban — allows a physician to perform the procedure when, in the physician's opinion, it is necessary to save the pregnant person's life. No special certification, documentation, or reporting requirements are specified in the statute beyond the physician's own judgment. Because New Mexico otherwise has no gestational limit or abortion prohibition, there is no need for a broader 'life exception' to any ban. > "No person shall perform a partial-birth abortion except a physician who has determined that in his opinion the partial-birth abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant female or prevent great bodily harm to a pregnant female" > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3 **Legal analysis** NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3 permits the otherwise-prohibited partial-birth abortion procedure when 'a physician who has determined that in his opinion the partial-birth abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant female or prevent great bodily harm to a pregnant female: A. because her life is endangered or she is at risk of great bodily harm due to a physical disorder, illness or injury, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy; and B. no other medical procedure would suffice for the purpose of saving her life or preventing great bodily harm to her.' The physician's own opinion is the standard; no second-physician certification or advance approval is required. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-3)* ### Physical health **Exception for great bodily harm in partial-birth ban** The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban includes an explicit exception for preventing great bodily harm to the pregnant woman when no other medical procedure would suffice. The partial-birth abortion ban allows a physician to use the procedure to prevent 'great bodily harm' to the pregnant person, in addition to saving her life. The physician must determine that no other medical procedure would achieve the same purpose. Because there is no broader abortion ban in New Mexico, this exception only matters in the narrow context of the specific partial-birth procedure covered by the ban. > "because her life is endangered or she is at risk of great bodily harm due to a physical disorder, illness or injury, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy; and B. no other medical procedure would suffice for the purpose of saving her life or preventing great bodily harm to her" > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3(A)-(B) **Legal analysis** NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3 creates a dual exception: a physician may perform a partial-birth abortion when necessary 'to save the life of a pregnant female or prevent great bodily harm to a pregnant female,' provided (A) the life-endangerment or great-bodily-harm risk arises from 'a physical disorder, illness or injury, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy,' and (B) 'no other medical procedure would suffice for the purpose of saving her life or preventing great bodily harm.' The term 'great bodily harm' is not defined within the act, leaving interpretation to the physician and, ultimately, to the courts. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3(A)-(B), subsections (A) and (B), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-3)* ### Mental health **No mental health exception needed** No statutory mental health exception exists because there is no abortion ban from which such an exception would be necessary, except for the narrow partial-birth procedure. Because abortion is legal throughout pregnancy in New Mexico with no gestational limit, a person does not need a 'mental health exception' to obtain an abortion. The only restriction — the partial-birth abortion ban — has exceptions for life and great bodily harm but does not separately list mental health. For any other abortion procedure, no exception is needed. **Legal analysis** New Mexico has no general abortion prohibition from which a mental health exception would be carved out. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3, excepts only life endangerment and great bodily harm; 'great bodily harm' is not defined in the act and has not been judicially construed to include or exclude psychiatric harm. In any other abortion context, the absence of restrictions means no exception framework is necessary. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-3)* ### Rape **No rape exception needed** No rape or incest exception exists because there is no abortion ban from which such exceptions would be necessary. Because New Mexico places no gestational limit or other restriction on abortion, a survivor of rape or incest may lawfully obtain an abortion at any stage of pregnancy without needing to invoke a special exception. The state does not require reporting the assault to law enforcement as a condition of care. **Legal analysis** The repealed 1969 criminal abortion statute contained exceptions for rape and incest within its definition of 'justified medical termination' (former NMSA 1978 § 30-5-1(C)). With that statute's repeal in 2021, those exceptions became moot. No current law conditions abortion access on whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2, FIR analysis, page 1, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF)* ### Incest **No incest exception needed** No incest exception exists because abortion is not restricted; the repealed 1969 statute's incest exception no longer applies. Since New Mexico does not restrict abortion, a person who becomes pregnant through incest does not need any special exception to obtain care. Abortion is available at any stage of pregnancy regardless of the circumstances of conception. **Legal analysis** Same analysis as rape exception above: the pre-2021 statutory incest exception was part of the repealed criminal abortion statute and has no current relevance. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2, FIR analysis, page 1, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF)* ### Fatal fetal anomaly **Not restricted; no exception needed** No fetal anomaly exception exists because there is no abortion restriction from which it would be carved out. New Mexico does not restrict abortion based on gestational age, so a person who receives a diagnosis of a severe or fatal fetal anomaly may obtain abortion care without needing to satisfy any special exception criteria. The decision rests with the patient and their medical provider. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute limits abortion based on fetal condition, diagnosis, or gestational age. The absence of restrictions makes a fetal anomaly exception unnecessary. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Ectopic/miscarriage care unrestricted** Treatment of ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage management is not restricted; the repealed criminal statute no longer applies, and the partial-birth ban's definitions exclude these procedures. Managing an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage is standard medical care and is not restricted by any New Mexico law. The repealed criminal abortion statute no longer governs, and the current Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act affirmatively protects 'managing a pregnancy loss' as part of reproductive health care. The partial-birth abortion ban's definitions of 'miscarriage' and 'stillbirth' in the injury-to-pregnant-woman statute (§ 30-3-7) explicitly exclude induced abortion, but this is a criminal statute dealing with third-party assault, not with medical care. > "'miscarriage' means the interruption of the normal development of the fetus, other than by a live birth and which is not an induced abortion" > — NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7(B)(1) **Legal analysis** NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7(B)(1) defines 'miscarriage' as 'the interruption of the normal development of the fetus, other than by a live birth and which is not an induced abortion.' This definition operates only for the purposes of the injury-to-pregnant-woman offense (a third-party assault statute) and does not restrict medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous miscarriage. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7, § 2(C)(3)) includes 'managing a pregnancy loss' within the protected category of reproductive health care. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7(B)(1), subsection (B)(1), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-3/section-30-3-7)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **Legal; D&X/partial-birth ban only** All procedural abortion methods are legal except the specifically defined 'partial-birth abortion' procedure, which is prohibited unless necessary to save life or prevent great bodily harm. All surgical and procedural abortion methods are legal in New Mexico. The only method-specific restriction is a ban on 'partial-birth abortion,' which is defined as a procedure in which a physician intentionally extracts an independently viable fetus from the uterus into the vagina and mechanically extracts the cranial contents to induce death. Even this procedure is permitted when a physician determines it is necessary to save the pregnant person's life or prevent great bodily harm. New Mexico has no ban on dilation and evacuation (D&E), the standard second-trimester method, and no 'dismemberment abortion' ban. Providers in the state offer surgical abortion through at least 28 weeks 6 days of pregnancy. > "The provisions of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act shall apply only to the exact procedure specified in that act. The provisions of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act are not intended to criminalize any other method of terminating a woman's pregnancy." > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(B)-(C) **Legal analysis** The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5A-1 to -5, defines 'partial-birth abortion' at § 30-5A-2(C) as 'a procedure in which any person, including a physician or other health care professional, intentionally extracts an independently viable fetus from the uterus into the vagina and mechanically extracts the cranial contents of the fetus in order to induce death.' The prohibition at § 30-5A-3 applies only to this exact procedure. Section 30-5A-5(B) expressly states that the act 'shall apply only to the exact procedure specified,' and § 30-5A-5(C) states that the act is 'not intended to criminalize any other method of terminating a woman's pregnancy.' New Mexico has no ban on dilation and evacuation (D&E) or any other surgical abortion method. The act's non-severability clause at Laws 2000, ch. 55, § 6 provides that if § 30-5A-3 is held invalid, the entire act is invalid. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(B)-(C), subsections (B) and (C), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-5) · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-2(C), subsection (C), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-2)* ### Medication **Legal; available via telehealth and mail** Medication abortion with mifepristone/misoprostol is legal, can be prescribed via telehealth, and can be mailed to patients within New Mexico; no state law restricts it separately from procedural abortion. Medication abortion — using the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol — is fully legal in New Mexico. It can be prescribed through telehealth appointments and delivered by mail. Patients must be physically located in New Mexico during the telehealth consultation. Several clinics and virtual providers offer medication abortion, typically up to 11 or 12 weeks of pregnancy. There is no state law requiring in-person dispensing of abortion medication, no ban on mailing abortion pills, and no requirement that only a physician prescribe them. The FDA's regulation of mifepristone (the REMS program) applies federally, but New Mexico imposes no additional restrictions. > "Abortion is legal in New Mexico. The abortion pill (also known as a medication abortion) is offered up to 11 weeks and 4 days after the first day of your last menstrual period." > — Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, New Mexico Telehealth **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute separately regulates medication abortion. The repealed criminal abortion statute (former §§ 30-5-1 to -3) did not distinguish between medication and procedural methods. The current statutory framework — the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act — treats abortion generally, without distinguishing medication from procedure. Medication abortion is thus governed by the same permissive regulatory framework. No state prohibition on mailing abortion pills exists. The federal FDA mifepristone REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) applies nationally, but New Mexico has not enacted any state-level restrictions on telehealth prescribing, pharmacist dispensing, or mail delivery of abortion medication. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains offers medication abortion via telehealth in New Mexico; patients must be physically present in the state during the telehealth appointment. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, New Mexico Telehealth, [Planned Parenthood](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/new-mexico/albuquerque/87111/new-mexico-telehealth-vc-3895-90210/abortion)* **Editor's note.** Federal developments — including the Comstock Act enforcement posture, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, and potential changes to mifepristone regulation — may affect medication abortion availability nationally; this analysis reflects the current state of New Mexico law. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Self managed **No criminal exposure for self-management** A person who self-manages an abortion in New Mexico faces no criminal liability under state law; the repealed criminal abortion statute no longer applies, and the partial-birth ban expressly exempts the woman. In New Mexico, a person who ends their own pregnancy — whether by obtaining pills online, through the mail, from a friend, or by using herbs or other methods — does not face criminal prosecution under state law. The old law that could have been used to prosecute someone for self-managing an abortion was repealed in 2021. The only remaining abortion crime, the partial-birth abortion ban, explicitly says the pregnant woman cannot be held criminally responsible as an accomplice or co-conspirator. New Mexico's injury-to-pregnant-woman statute applies only to a person other than the woman and explicitly excludes abortion from its definitions. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act prohibits public bodies from prosecuting a person based on actions taken during pregnancy. There are no known instances of anyone in New Mexico being prosecuted for self-managing an abortion. > "A public body or agent of a public body shall not, directly or indirectly, deprive, through prosecution, punishment or other means, a person's right to act or refrain from acting during the person's pregnancy based on the potential, actual or perceived effect on the pregnancy." > — HB 7, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, § 3(C), 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11 **Legal analysis** Self-managed abortion is not criminalized in New Mexico. The 1969 criminal abortion statute, which could have been applied to self-induced abortion under former § 30-5-3 ('administering to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or other substance, or using any method or means whereby an untimely termination of her pregnancy is produced'), was repealed by SB 10 in 2021. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, § 30-5A-5(D)-(E), expressly provides: 'The provisions of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act are not intended to subject a woman, upon whom the procedure specified in that act is performed, to criminal culpability as an accomplice, aider, abettor, solicitor or conspirator' and 'are not intended to subject any person to criminal culpability pursuant to laws governing attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit a crime.' The injury-to-pregnant-woman statute, § 30-3-7, applies only to 'a person other than the woman.' The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7), § 3(C), prohibits any public body from 'depriv[ing], through prosecution, punishment or other means, a person's right to act or refrain from acting during the person's pregnancy based on the potential, actual or perceived effect on the pregnancy.' New Mexico's general homicide statutes (Chapter 30, Article 2) do not define a fetus as a 'human being' and have not been used to prosecute pregnant women for pregnancy outcomes. No reported New Mexico case involves prosecution of a woman for self-managed abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · HB 7, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, § 3(C), 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 3(C), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf) · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(D), subsection (D), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-5) · NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7(A), subsection (A), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-3/section-30-3-7)* ## Actors ### Who may perform **No physician-only restriction; APRNs may provide** New Mexico does not have a physician-only abortion law; advanced practice registered nurses, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants may provide abortion care within their scope of practice. There is no law in New Mexico requiring that only a physician perform or prescribe an abortion. The physician-only restriction that existed under the repealed 1969 criminal statute is no longer in effect. Advanced practice clinicians — including nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants — may provide both medication and procedural abortion care within their professional scope of practice. New Mexico recognizes APRNs as independent practitioners. There is no requirement that abortions be performed in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center; clinics and outpatient facilities are not subject to targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws. > "Under current law, Section 30-5-2 NMSA 1978 is entirely enforceable, and this section and Section 30-5-1 NMSA 1978 are enforceable only to the extent that they criminalize and punish the act of performing an abortion on an unconsenting woman, or the performance of an abortion by a person who is not a physician licensed by the state of New Mexico." > — 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-19 (1990) **Legal analysis** Prior to the 2021 repeal, the 1969 criminal abortion statute (former NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1 to -3) was interpreted by the Attorney General to remain enforceable 'only to the extent that they criminalize and punish the act of performing an abortion ... by a person who is not a physician licensed by the state of New Mexico.' 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-19; see also State v. Strance, 1973-NMCA-024, 84 N.M. 670. With the repeal of those sections by SB 10 (2021), no physician-only restriction remains in New Mexico statute. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines 'physician' (§ 30-5A-2(D)) but only for purposes of who may perform the excepted procedure under that act, not as a generally applicable restriction. New Mexico's APRN Nurse Practice Act provides for independent practice and prescriptive authority. Guttmacher Institute data confirms New Mexico allows advanced practice clinicians to provide both medication and aspiration abortion. No New Mexico statute requires abortions to be performed in hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, or specially licensed abortion facilities. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-19 (1990), Annotation — Enforceability of section, [Justia (annotation to NMSA § 30-5-3)](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2018/chapter-30/article-5/section-30-5-3) · SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2, FIR analysis, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF)* **Editor's note.** The 1990 Attorney General opinion predates the 2021 repeal; it is cited here only to show the pre-repeal interpretation. ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **Expressly exempt from all criminal liability** The pregnant woman is expressly exempt from criminal liability under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act prohibits prosecution based on pregnancy-related conduct. A pregnant person cannot be prosecuted under New Mexico law for obtaining an abortion, for agreeing to an abortion, or for any action taken during pregnancy that might affect the pregnancy. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act specifically says a woman cannot be charged as an accomplice, aider, abettor, solicitor, or conspirator. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act prohibits public bodies from prosecuting a person based on the effect their actions might have on a pregnancy. The injury-to-pregnant-woman criminal statute applies only to third parties. No New Mexico homicide statute treats a fetus as a 'human being' for purposes of homicide prosecution. There are no known prosecutions of pregnant women for pregnancy outcomes in New Mexico. > "The provisions of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act are not intended to subject a woman, upon whom the procedure specified in that act is performed, to criminal culpability as an accomplice, aider, abettor, solicitor or conspirator." > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(D) **Legal analysis** The pregnant woman is shielded from criminal liability by multiple layers of express statutory language: (1) The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, § 30-5A-5(D), exempts the woman from accomplice, aider-abettor, solicitation, and conspiracy liability. (2) The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, HB 7 § 3(C), prohibits any public body from depriving 'through prosecution, punishment or other means, a person's right to act or refrain from acting during the person's pregnancy based on the potential, actual or perceived effect on the pregnancy.' (3) The injury-to-pregnant-woman statute, § 30-3-7(A), limits the offense to 'a person other than the woman.' (4) New Mexico has no fetal homicide statute — no provision in Chapter 30, Article 2 (Homicide) defines a fetus or unborn child as a 'human being.' (5) The repealed criminal abortion statute (former § 30-5-3) never criminalized the woman herself; it criminalized 'administering to any pregnant woman' — i.e., the provider, not the woman. The State v. Grissom and State v. Willis cases from the pre-repeal era confirm that the abortion statute was directed at the person performing the abortion, not the pregnant woman. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(D), subsection (D), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-5) · HB 7, § 3(C), 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 3(C), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf)* #### Physician **Fourth degree felony for partial-birth violation** A physician who performs a prohibited partial-birth abortion faces a fourth degree felony charge (18 months imprisonment); no other criminal exposure for abortion provision exists under New Mexico law. The only criminal risk a physician faces for performing an abortion in New Mexico is under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: performing the prohibited procedure is a fourth degree felony, which carries up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. A physician performing any other abortion procedure, at any gestational stage, faces no criminal liability under state law. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act and the governor's executive orders protect physicians from out-of-state investigations, subpoenas, extradition, and professional licensing actions based on lawful abortion care provided in New Mexico. > "a person who violates Section 3 [30-5A-3 NMSA 1978] of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978" > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(A) **Legal analysis** NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(A) provides: 'Except as provided in Subsections B, C, D and E of this section, a person who violates Section 3 [30-5A-3 NMSA 1978] of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978.' Under NMSA 1978 § 31-18-15(A)(7), a fourth degree felony carries a basic sentence of eighteen months imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000 (NMSA 1978 § 31-19-1). The physician's license may also be at risk under the Medical Practice Act (NMSA 1978 ch. 61, art. 6) for conviction of a felony. However, because the ban applies only to the 'exact procedure specified,' physicians performing lawful abortions — including late-term procedures using methods other than the narrowly defined partial-birth procedure — face no criminal exposure. Executive Order 2022-107 directs the State Regulation and Licensing Department to work with professional licensure boards to protect abortion providers from out-of-state sanctions. HB 7 (2023) provides additional protection by prohibiting 'public bodies' from restricting access to or provision of reproductive health care. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(A), subsection (A), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-5)* #### Prescriber pharmacist **No criminal exposure for lawful prescribing or dispensing** Non-physician prescribers and pharmacists who prescribe or dispense abortion medication lawfully face no criminal exposure under New Mexico law. Advanced practice clinicians who prescribe abortion medication and pharmacists who dispense it are not subject to any criminal penalty under New Mexico law, as long as they are acting within their professional scope of practice. Since the physician-only limitation from the repealed statute no longer applies, APRNs, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants may prescribe abortion medication. Pharmacists may dispense mifepristone and misoprostol pursuant to valid prescriptions. New Mexico law does not single out abortion medication for special prescribing or dispensing restrictions. Out-of-state prescriptions are not targeted by any New Mexico statute. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute imposes criminal or civil liability on prescribers or pharmacists for abortion-related prescribing or dispensing, provided they act within their professional scope of practice. The FDA REMS for mifepristone applies federally, but New Mexico imposes no additional state-level restrictions. The repealed criminal abortion statute (former § 30-5-3) criminalized 'administering to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or other substance' — a prohibition that could have reached prescribers and, arguably, dispensing pharmacists. With the repeal, no corresponding state prohibition exists. HB 7's protections for 'providing' reproductive health care extend to the full range of clinical actors involved in abortion care. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2, FIR analysis, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF)* **Editor's note.** Pharmacists should continue to monitor the federal Comstock Act enforcement posture, particularly as it may affect mailing of abortion medication. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Nurses and staff **No criminal exposure for assisting** Nurses, clinic staff, and other clinical personnel who assist in lawful abortion care face no criminal or civil liability under New Mexico law. Nurses, medical assistants, clinic administrators, and other staff who help provide abortion care are not at risk of prosecution under New Mexico law. The partial-birth abortion ban exempts from criminal culpability anyone who might be charged under attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy theories. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act protects the provision of reproductive health care. Because New Mexico has no general abortion prohibition, there is no predicate offense for which staff could be charged as accomplices. > "The provisions of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act are not intended to subject any person to criminal culpability pursuant to laws governing attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit a crime." > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(E) **Legal analysis** The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, § 30-5A-5(E), expressly states that the act is 'not intended to subject any person to criminal culpability pursuant to laws governing attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit a crime.' HB 7 protects both access and provision of reproductive health care. With the repeal of the criminal abortion statute, there is no basis for accomplice or conspiracy liability for assisting lawful abortion care. The general accomplice statute, NMSA 1978 § 30-1-13, requires a completed offense; since performing a lawful abortion is not an offense, there is no completed crime to which accomplice liability can attach. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(E), subsection (E), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-5)* #### Other helpers **No criminal or civil exposure** Friends, family members, employers, and others who assist a person in obtaining an abortion — by paying, driving, or otherwise helping — face no liability under New Mexico law. There is no law in New Mexico that criminalizes or creates civil liability for helping someone obtain an abortion. A friend who drives someone to a clinic, a parent who pays for the abortion, an employer who reimburses travel expenses, or anyone else who assists in any way is not subject to prosecution or lawsuit under state law. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act protects the ability to access reproductive health care, and New Mexico has no 'abortion trafficking' law, no civil bounty statute, and no law penalizing those who help fund abortion care. **Legal analysis** New Mexico has no statute analogous to Texas's SB 8, Idaho's abortion trafficking law, or any other provision that would impose civil or criminal liability on those who assist a person in obtaining an abortion. The reproductive health care definition in HB 7 is broad enough to encompass assistance with access. No state statute prohibits funding, transporting, lodging, informing, or otherwise assisting a person seeking abortion care within New Mexico. Out-of-state efforts to reach these helpers are blocked by Executive Order 2022-107 (prohibiting cooperation with out-of-state investigations) and HB 7. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · HB 7, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 3(A), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf)* ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **No restriction on travel assistance** New Mexico has no 'abortion trafficking' statute, no law restricting travel for abortion, and no criminal or civil exposure for helping someone travel — whether within the state or across state lines — to obtain an abortion. Helping someone travel to obtain an abortion is fully legal in New Mexico. This includes driving a friend to a clinic in New Mexico, helping a minor travel within the state, or assisting someone who is coming from another state (like Texas or Oklahoma) to obtain care in New Mexico. There are no laws that penalize travel assistance, and the state's shield protections extend to those who facilitate access. Unlike some other states, New Mexico has not enacted an 'abortion trafficking' law that would criminalize helping a minor cross state lines for abortion care without parental consent. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute criminalizes or creates civil liability for travel to obtain an abortion — whether the travel is within the state, from another state into New Mexico, or from New Mexico to another state. The state has no 'abortion trafficking' statute, no law restricting interstate travel for abortion, and no law penalizing those who assist with such travel. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7), § 3, prohibits public bodies from restricting or interfering with access to reproductive health care, which encompasses travel assistance. The governor's Executive Order 2022-107 prohibits executive branch cooperation with out-of-state investigations, including extradition, effectively shielding those who assist travelers from out-of-state enforcement efforts. The New Mexico Supreme Court's January 2025 ruling in State ex rel. Torrez struck down local ordinances that attempted to restrict abortion, some of which contained provisions that could have been construed to reach travel assistance. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Executive Order 2022-107 (June 27, 2022), Governor's press release, [Office of the Governor, New Mexico](https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/06/27/gov-lujan-grisham-takes-action-to-safeguard-abortion-access-protect-new-mexico-health-care-providers)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Funding **No restriction on funding abortion or travel** State law does not prohibit any person or entity — including abortion funds, employers, family members, or charitable organizations — from paying for abortion care or related travel expenses. Anyone may pay for an abortion or for travel, lodging, child care, or other expenses related to obtaining an abortion, without fear of legal consequences under New Mexico law. Abortion funds operate legally in the state. Employers may include abortion travel benefits in their health plans or expense policies. There is no New Mexico law that targets those who provide financial assistance for abortion. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute prohibits paying for abortion services or abortion-related travel. Unlike some states that have enacted restrictions on abortion funding organizations or employer benefits, New Mexico imposes no such limits. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act's protection of access to reproductive health care encompasses financial assistance. The state has no civil bounty law that would allow private lawsuits against those who fund abortion care. Organizations such as the New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and other abortion funds operate openly in the state. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Mailing pills **No state ban on mailing abortion pills** New Mexico imposes no state-level prohibition on mailing abortion medication into or within the state; telehealth providers routinely mail pills to in-state patients. There is no New Mexico law that prohibits sending or receiving abortion medication by mail. Telehealth providers routinely mail mifepristone and misoprostol to patients in New Mexico. The federal Comstock Act is a separate federal question; New Mexico does not enforce it as state law. The New Mexico Supreme Court has rejected local ordinances that attempted to invoke the Comstock Act to restrict abortion access, holding that they are preempted by state law. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute prohibits the mailing or shipping of abortion medication. The local ordinances enacted by Clovis, Hobbs, and certain counties attempted to invoke the federal Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1461-1462) as a basis for restricting abortion pill distribution; these ordinances were invalidated by the New Mexico Supreme Court in State ex rel. Torrez (Jan. 2025), which held they were preempted by HB 7. The federal question — whether the Comstock Act independently restricts mailing of abortion medication — remains unresolved at the federal level, but New Mexico state authorities will not cooperate with any such enforcement effort. At the practical level, telehealth abortion medication is widely available in New Mexico; Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Hey Jane, Aid Access, and other providers serve patients in the state via mail-order pharmacy. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025), Press release quoting AG Torrez, [New Mexico Department of Justice](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-supreme-court-grants-new-mexico-attorney-generals-writ-securing-statewide-reproductive-rights-a-landmark-victory-for-access-and-equality)* **Editor's note.** Federal developments regarding the Comstock Act and mifepristone regulation may alter the practical availability of mailed abortion medication; this analysis reflects New Mexico state law. ### Providing information **No liability for providing abortion information** Providing information, referrals, or websites about abortion carries no liability under New Mexico law; the state's protective statutes and the First Amendment provide overlapping shields. There is no risk under New Mexico law for giving someone information about where or how to obtain an abortion, providing a referral to a clinic, or sharing a website address. New Mexico's Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act protects access to reproductive health care, which includes the right to seek and share information. The First Amendment independently protects truthful speech about lawful medical procedures. New Mexico has no law that compels speech (such as state-scripted counseling) or restricts speech about abortion. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute restricts or penalizes the provision of information about abortion. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act protects the 'ability to access' reproductive health care, which necessarily encompasses information-seeking. The First Amendment, as interpreted in Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), protects truthful advertising and information about lawful abortion services. New Mexico's absence of any law targeting abortion-related speech — such as 'aiding and abetting' by providing information — means that general constitutional protections are the only framework, and those protections are strong where the underlying conduct (abortion) is lawful. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Civil bounty **No SB8-style civil bounty law** New Mexico has no private civil enforcement mechanism for abortion restrictions; the state's protective framework is the opposite of an SB8-style bounty scheme. New Mexico does not have any law that allows private individuals to sue abortion providers, patients, or helpers for damages — the type of law known as an 'SB8-style' civil bounty. The only private right of action in New Mexico's reproductive health framework goes the opposite direction: the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act gives individuals the right to sue public bodies that restrict or interfere with their access to reproductive health care. Local ordinances that attempted to create private civil enforcement (including Roosevelt County's ordinance authorizing damages of at least $100,000 per violation) were struck down by the New Mexico Supreme Court in January 2025. > "Creating a private right of action and damages award that is clearly intended to punish protected conduct far exceeds any interest that is 'incident[al] to the exercise of an independent municipal power.'" > — State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025) **Legal analysis** New Mexico has enacted no statute comparable to Texas SB 8 (codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 171.207-171.208) that creates a private civil cause of action against those who perform, aid, or abet abortion. HB 7, §§ 4-5, creates two enforcement mechanisms — one for the Attorney General or district attorneys (civil penalty of $5,000 or actual damages per violation) and a private right of action for aggrieved persons — but both run in favor of reproductive health care access, not against it. The Roosevelt County ordinance that authorized private damages of at least $100,000 was invalidated by State ex rel. Torrez. New Mexico's legislature and courts have consistently rejected civil bounty mechanisms. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025), Press release quoting court opinion, [New Mexico Department of Justice](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-supreme-court-grants-new-mexico-attorney-generals-writ-securing-statewide-reproductive-rights-a-landmark-victory-for-access-and-equality) · HB 7, § 5, 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 5(A), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf)* ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **No mandatory waiting period** New Mexico imposes no mandatory waiting period between counseling and the abortion procedure; a patient may receive care the same day as their first contact with a provider. There is no requirement in New Mexico that a person wait any amount of time between receiving information about an abortion and actually having the procedure. A person can have a counseling appointment or consultation and proceed with the abortion on the same day. This applies to both medication abortion and procedural abortion. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute imposes a waiting period for abortion. The repealed criminal abortion statute did not contain a waiting period requirement. The current statutory framework — the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and HB 7 — contains no delay or waiting period mandate. Unlike many states that require 24, 48, or 72 hours between mandated counseling and the procedure, New Mexico imposes no such temporal restriction. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Mandatory counseling **No state-scripted mandatory counseling** New Mexico does not require state-scripted counseling or mandatory informational materials before an abortion; providers follow standard medical informed consent. New Mexico does not require abortion providers to read a state-prepared script, distribute state-mandated materials, or give specific warnings before performing an abortion. Providers follow the normal medical standard of informed consent — explaining the procedure, its risks, benefits, and alternatives — just as they would for any other medical procedure. There is no requirement to inform the patient about fetal development, adoption alternatives, or supposed 'abortion reversal' — topics common in other states' mandatory counseling laws. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute mandates specific pre-abortion counseling content, state-prepared informational materials, or scripts. The repealed criminal abortion statute contained no such requirements. HB 7's definition of reproductive health care 'within the medical standard of care' (§ 3(B)) reinforces that clinical judgment, not legislative scripting, governs the provider-patient interaction. New Mexico is among a minority of states with no mandatory counseling law. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Ultrasound requirement **No ultrasound requirement** New Mexico has no requirement that a patient undergo an ultrasound, view an ultrasound image, or receive a verbal description of ultrasound findings before an abortion. A person seeking an abortion in New Mexico is not required by law to have an ultrasound, to look at an ultrasound image, or to listen to a description of ultrasound findings. While a provider may perform an ultrasound as part of their clinical assessment (for example, to determine gestational age), this is a matter of medical judgment, not a legal mandate. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute requires an ultrasound before an abortion, much less mandates display or description of ultrasound images. The state has none of the ultrasound requirements that exist in other jurisdictions — not an 'offered' requirement, not a 'mandatory performed' requirement, and not a 'mandatory display' requirement. Clinical assessment, including any imaging, is left to the provider's professional judgment. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### In person visits **Zero legally mandated in-person visits** New Mexico law requires zero in-person visits for an abortion; medication abortion is available entirely via telehealth, and procedural abortion requires only the procedure visit. Because New Mexico imposes no waiting period, no mandatory counseling, no ultrasound requirement, and no requirement that medication be dispensed in person, a person can complete the entire medication abortion process — from consultation to receiving pills — without a single in-person visit. For procedural abortion, only the procedure visit itself is necessary. This makes New Mexico one of the least burdensome states in the country in terms of the number of trips and in-person interactions required to obtain an abortion. **Legal analysis** With no mandatory waiting period, no in-person counseling requirement, no ultrasound mandate, and no requirement that medication be dispensed in a clinical setting, the number of legally compelled in-person visits for abortion in New Mexico is zero. For medication abortion via telehealth, the entire process can be completed remotely. For procedural abortion, one visit is needed for the procedure itself — but this is a medical necessity, not a legal compulsion. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ## Minors ### Parental involvement **No enforceable parental involvement law** New Mexico has no enforceable parental consent or notification requirement for minors seeking abortion; the parental consent provision in the repealed 1969 statute is no longer in effect, and no replacement has been enacted. A minor in New Mexico can obtain an abortion without involving a parent or guardian. The old law that required parental consent was part of the 1969 criminal abortion statute, which was repealed in 2021. The repeal legislation (SB 10) eliminated the parental consent provisions along with the rest of the criminal ban. No new parental involvement law has been enacted. In practice, a young person can consent to their own abortion care in New Mexico without notifying or obtaining permission from a parent. > "Senate Bill 10 repeals the provisions in statute, Sections 30-5-1 through 30-5-3 NMSA 1978, which make abortion illegal in New Mexico." > — SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2 **Legal analysis** The 1969 criminal abortion statute, former NMSA 1978 § 30-5-1, defined 'justified medical termination' to require, among other things, consent of the minor's parent or guardian for patients under 18. Following Roe v. Wade, this provision was judicially limited: the 1990 Attorney General Opinion 90-19 stated that § 30-5-1 was enforceable 'only to the extent that they criminalize ... the performance of an abortion on a woman under the age of 18 years without the consent of both the woman and her then living parent or guardian.' However, the entire statute — including this remaining shred — was repealed by SB 10 (2021). No replacement parental involvement law has been enacted. A prior Attorney General opinion had already concluded that a 1990s-era parental notification enactment was unenforceable, and it was never codified. The New Mexico Family Planning Act (NMSA 1978 §§ 24-8-1 to -8) does not address abortion-specific consent rules for minors, but its general framework supports confidential access to family planning services. In practice, New Mexico providers treat minors as capable of consenting to their own abortion care. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2, FIR analysis, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF) · 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-19 (1990) — annotated at former NMSA § 30-5-3, Annotation — Enforceability of section, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2018/chapter-30/article-5/section-30-5-3)* ### Judicial bypass **Not applicable — no parental requirement** Because New Mexico has no enforceable parental involvement law, there is no judicial bypass procedure; a minor does not need to go to court to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. Because minors in New Mexico do not need parental consent or notification to obtain an abortion, there is no need for a judicial bypass — a court procedure that in other states allows a minor to get permission from a judge instead of a parent. A minor simply schedules and receives care directly, like any other patient. **Legal analysis** Judicial bypass is a procedural mechanism that exists only in conjunction with a mandatory parental involvement law, typically providing an alternative to parental consent or notice via court authorization. Because New Mexico has no enforceable parental involvement requirement for abortion, there is no judicial bypass statute, no bypass standard, and no bypass procedure. The repeal of the former criminal statute's parental consent provision eliminated the predicate to which a bypass might attach. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal or paternal consent/notice law** New Mexico has no statute requiring spousal consent, paternal consent, or notice to the father before an abortion. There is no law in New Mexico that requires a married person to tell their spouse about an abortion or get their spouse's permission. Similarly, there is no law requiring notice to or consent from the biological father or any other person. The decision to have an abortion belongs to the pregnant person alone. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute conditions abortion on spousal consent, spousal notification, or paternal consent or notice. The repealed criminal abortion statute contained no such provision. No current New Mexico statute purports to give a spouse or biological father a veto, notice right, or cause of action related to abortion. The state has never enacted a spousal involvement law. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Enforceability **Not applicable; Danforth/Casey not at issue** There is no spousal or paternal involvement statute on New Mexico's books, so the enforceability questions raised by Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and Planned Parenthood v. Casey do not arise in this jurisdiction. Because New Mexico has never had a spousal consent or notice law for abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court cases striking down such laws — Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) — do not directly apply here. Even after the Dobbs decision, which could theoretically reopen the question of spousal involvement laws, New Mexico has not enacted one. The legislature's current orientation is protective of abortion access, making enactment of a spousal involvement law unlikely in the near term. **Legal analysis** Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), struck down a Missouri spousal consent requirement. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), reaffirmed the invalidity of spousal notification requirements under the undue burden standard. Both holdings were grounded in the now-overruled federal constitutional right to abortion. After Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), the federal constitutional barrier to spousal involvement laws has been removed. However, New Mexico has no such law on the books. The state's Equal Rights Amendment (N.M. Const. art. II, § 18) could independently support a challenge to any future spousal involvement enactment, but this question has not been litigated. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Other paternal rights **No paternal veto or standing for abortion-related claims** New Mexico law does not recognize a biological father's right to block an abortion, to be notified, to sue for damages, or to assert wrongful-death claims based on abortion. Under New Mexico law, a biological father or spouse has no legal right to prevent an abortion, to receive notice that an abortion is planned, or to sue anyone for damages related to an abortion. The New Mexico wrongful death statute has not been interpreted to extend to fetal loss from abortion, and the injury-to-pregnant-woman statute explicitly excludes induced abortion from its definitions of miscarriage and stillbirth. Courts in other states have generally rejected paternal injunction suits, and no reported New Mexico case has recognized such a claim. > "'miscarriage' means the interruption of the normal development of the fetus, other than by a live birth and which is not an induced abortion" > — NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7(B)(1) **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute confers standing on a biological father or spouse to seek an injunction against an abortion, to demand notice, or to recover damages for an abortion performed on a partner. New Mexico's wrongful death statute, NMSA 1978 § 41-2-1, has been interpreted in case law to permit recovery for the death of a viable fetus, but this interpretation applies in the context of tortious third-party injury, not abortion. The New Mexico Court of Appeals recognized a wrongful-death claim for a viable fetus in an unpublished or limited context, but New Mexico courts have never extended this to abortion. The injury-to-pregnant-woman statute, § 30-3-7(B), defines 'miscarriage' and 'stillbirth' as 'not an induced abortion,' precluding criminal prosecution or civil claims arising from lawful abortion. No putative-father registry exists in New Mexico that would provide abortion-related standing to biological fathers. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7(B)(1), subsection (B)(1), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-3/section-30-3-7)* **Editor's note.** New Mexico case law on wrongful death for a viable fetus exists in the tort context but has not been applied to abortion; the contours of this potential liability should be monitored. ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **No fetal homicide statute** New Mexico has no fetal homicide or feticide statute; killing a fetus outside the abortion context is not separately criminalized as homicide, though injury to a pregnant woman causing miscarriage or stillbirth is a third-degree felony. New Mexico does not have a law that treats the killing of a fetus as murder, manslaughter, or feticide. The state's homicide statutes (which cover murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide) apply only to the killing of a 'human being,' and New Mexico courts have not extended this to fetuses. The most relevant criminal provision is the 'injury to a pregnant woman' law, which makes it a third-degree felony for someone other than the pregnant woman to injure her during a felony and cause a miscarriage or stillbirth. This law explicitly says that its definitions of miscarriage and stillbirth do not include induced abortion. > "Injury to a pregnant woman consists of a person other than the woman injuring a pregnant woman in the commission of a felony causing her to suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth as a result of that injury." > — NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7 **Legal analysis** New Mexico has no stand-alone fetal homicide or feticide statute. Chapter 30, Article 2 (Homicide) of the NMSA defines offenses — murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide — in terms of killing a 'human being,' and no provision within that article defines 'human being' to include a fetus or unborn child. New Mexico courts have not construed the homicide statutes to reach fetal death. The injury-to-pregnant-woman statute, NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7, creates a third-degree felony for a person other than the pregnant woman who injures her during the commission of a felony and thereby causes miscarriage or stillbirth. The definitions of 'miscarriage' and 'stillbirth' in subsection (B) expressly exclude 'an induced abortion.' This is a crime against the pregnant woman and does not treat the fetus as a separate victim. A 2013 legislative attempt (HB 84) to create fetal homicide and injury-to-unborn-child offenses did not pass. Federal law's Unborn Victims of Violence Act (18 U.S.C. § 1841) applies only to federal crimes. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7, subsection (A), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-3/section-30-3-7)* ### Wrongful death **Viable fetus may support wrongful-death claim in tort context** New Mexico courts have recognized that a viable fetus may be a 'person' for purposes of the wrongful death statute, but this tort doctrine has not been applied in the abortion context and is unlikely to extend there. New Mexico's wrongful death statute — which allows family members to sue when someone's death is caused by another's negligence or wrongdoing — has been interpreted by courts to potentially apply to the death of a viable fetus. However, this interpretation has been used in cases involving car accidents or medical malpractice, not abortion. Because abortion is legal in New Mexico and the injury-to-pregnant-woman statute explicitly excludes induced abortion from its definitions, a wrongful-death claim based on a lawful abortion is unlikely to succeed. **Legal analysis** New Mexico's wrongful death statute, NMSA 1978 § 41-2-1, permits a cause of action when 'the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another.' The New Mexico Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on whether a fetus is a 'person' under this statute. Some lower courts and legal commentary have suggested that a viable fetus may qualify, consistent with the broader trend in tort law recognized in other jurisdictions. However, no reported New Mexico decision has applied wrongful death to a lawful abortion. The explicit exclusion of 'induced abortion' from the 'miscarriage' and 'stillbirth' definitions in the criminal injury-to-pregnant-woman statute (§ 30-3-7(B)), while not controlling on the civil wrongful-death question, signals legislative intent not to treat abortion as a fetal death for legal purposes. *Sources — Verify before publication · Medium confidence · NMSA 1978 § 41-2-1, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-41/article-2/section-41-2-1)* **Editor's note.** The viability of a wrongful-death claim for fetal loss caused by abortion has not been tested in New Mexico courts. The law in this area is unsettled. ### Personhood definition **No statutory or constitutional fetal personhood** No New Mexico statute or constitutional provision defines 'person,' 'human being,' or 'child' to include a fetus or unborn child for purposes of abortion regulation or criminal law. New Mexico law does not define a fetus as a 'person.' The state's constitution does not contain fetal personhood language. No statute defines 'human being' or 'child' to include the unborn in a way that would affect abortion rights. The state's Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees equality of rights regardless of sex, has been interpreted to protect reproductive autonomy rather than fetal interests. > "'fetus' means the biological offspring of human parents" > — NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-2(B) **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute or constitutional provision contains fetal-personhood language. The New Mexico Constitution, Article II, § 18 (ERA) guarantees equality on account of sex. The criminal code (Chapter 30) does not define 'human being' in the homicide article to include a fetus. The injury-to-pregnant-woman statute (§ 30-3-7) criminalizes causing miscarriage or stillbirth as an injury to the woman, not as a homicide of a separate person. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act's definition of 'fetus' as 'the biological offspring of human parents' (§ 30-5A-2(B)) operates only within that act's narrow scope. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7) protects a person's right to act during pregnancy without state interference based on effect on the pregnancy, which is fundamentally incompatible with fetal personhood as a legal concept. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-2(B), subsection (B), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-2)* ### Contradictions analysis New Mexico's legal framework is internally consistent in its treatment of fetal personhood. The state has no fetal homicide law and no statutory or constitutional personhood definition that includes the unborn. The injury-to-pregnant-woman statute (§ 30-3-7) treats the loss of a pregnancy caused by a third-party felony as an injury to the woman, not as the death of a separate person — and it explicitly carves out 'induced abortion' from its definitions of miscarriage and stillbirth. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act's definition of 'fetus' as 'biological offspring of human parents' is limited to that single statute and does not confer personhood. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act's prohibition on prosecuting pregnancy-related conduct (§ 3(C)) reinforces that the pregnant person's autonomy is the protected interest. Unlike jurisdictions where fetal-homicide statutes coexist uneasily with abortion exemptions — creating the contradiction that the same fetus is a 'person' if a third party kills it but not if the pregnant person has it aborted — New Mexico's legal system avoids this tension by declining to recognize fetal personhood in any criminal or civil context. The wrongful-death question is the only area of potential ambiguity, but no reported decision has applied it to abortion. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth prescribing fully permitted** Abortion medication can be prescribed via telehealth to patients physically located in New Mexico, by in-state or out-of-state providers, without any state-law barrier. A person in New Mexico can receive a prescription for abortion medication through a telehealth appointment — a video or phone call with a provider. The pills can then be mailed directly to them. The patient must be physically located in New Mexico at the time of the telehealth visit, but the provider can be in New Mexico or in another state. Several services, including Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and virtual clinics like Hey Jane and Aid Access, offer this option. **Legal analysis** New Mexico imposes no state-law barrier to telehealth prescribing of abortion medication. No statute requires an in-person examination or in-person dispensing. The Board of Pharmacy and the Medical Board have not imposed abortion-specific telehealth restrictions. The requirement that 'you must be physically present in the state of New Mexico to receive medication abortion care via Telehealth' (Planned Parenthood website) reflects standard telehealth prescribing norms, not a state-specific legal mandate. Out-of-state providers prescribing to New Mexico patients should comply with New Mexico's general telehealth and licensing requirements; New Mexico participates in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which facilitates cross-state practice. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains — New Mexico Telehealth, [Planned Parenthood](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/new-mexico/albuquerque/87111/new-mexico-telehealth-vc-3895-90210/abortion)* **Editor's note.** Federal telehealth prescribing rules and the Ryan Haight Act (which generally requires an in-person visit for controlled substances) do not apply to mifepristone or misoprostol. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Out of state travel **Travel out of state for abortion is lawful** New Mexico residents may lawfully travel to other states for abortion care, and the state protects them from out-of-state enforcement efforts related to that travel. It is legal for a New Mexico resident to travel to another state to obtain an abortion. New Mexico law does not restrict or penalize such travel. If another state attempts to investigate or prosecute a New Mexico resident for traveling there to obtain an abortion, New Mexico's governor has ordered state agencies not to cooperate with those investigations, and the state will not extradite the person. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute restricts a resident's right to travel out of state for any purpose, including abortion. The constitutional right to travel (protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause) independently shields interstate travel for lawful purposes. Executive Order 2022-107 prohibits New Mexico executive branch agencies from cooperating with out-of-state investigations related to lawful reproductive health care and directs the governor's office to decline extradition requests. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7) protects 'a person's ability to access' reproductive health care, which encompasses seeking care out of state. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Executive Order 2022-107 (June 27, 2022), Governor's press release, [Office of the Governor, New Mexico](https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/06/27/gov-lujan-grisham-takes-action-to-safeguard-abortion-access-protect-new-mexico-health-care-providers)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Shield or hostile laws **Robust shield protections for providers and patients** New Mexico is a leading shield state, with statutory protections (HB 7), executive orders, and a Supreme Court ruling that together protect providers and patients from out-of-state investigations, subpoenas, extradition, and licensing actions related to lawful abortion care. New Mexico has some of the strongest 'shield' protections in the country for abortion providers and patients. These protections work on multiple levels: the Governor's executive order blocks state agencies from cooperating with out-of-state investigations and prevents extradition for abortion-related charges. The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act prohibits any public body — state or local — from restricting or interfering with reproductive health care. The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously struck down local anti-abortion ordinances. The Governor has also directed professional licensing boards to protect providers from out-of-state licensing sanctions. Together, these protections mean that a provider who lawfully performs an abortion in New Mexico — including on a patient from a state where abortion is banned — is shielded from having New Mexico assist another state's prosecution or license revocation attempt. > "the governor's executive order ... prohibits, unless required by court order, executive branch cooperation with out-of-state investigations and legal actions (including extradition) arising from the lawful provision of abortion in New Mexico and gives a directive to the State Regulation and Licensing Department to work with boards of professional licensure to protect abortion providers from out-of-state sanctions" > — Reproductive Rights, 'New Mexico' **Legal analysis** New Mexico's shield framework consists of three layers: (1) Executive Order 2022-107 prohibits executive branch cooperation with out-of-state civil or criminal investigations related to lawful reproductive health care, directs the governor to decline extradition requests, and instructs the Regulation and Licensing Department to protect providers' professional licenses from out-of-state sanctions. (2) The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7, 2023), codified at Chapter 24 NMSA 1978, prohibits any public body from denying, restricting, or interfering with access to or provision of reproductive health care, and creates enforcement mechanisms including a private right of action against violating public bodies. (3) The New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in State ex rel. Torrez (Jan. 2025) invalidated local ordinances that attempted to restrict abortion access, holding them preempted by state law. Combined, these authorities establish that New Mexico will not be a conduit for other states' abortion-related enforcement. The shield applies to providers, patients (including out-of-state patients), and those who assist. New Mexico has not enacted laws targeting out-of-state abortion activity — the state is a 'shield' state, not a hostile state. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Reproductive Rights, 'New Mexico', [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/new-mexico) · HB 7, §§ 3-5, 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 3(B), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf)* ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **All medically necessary abortions covered** New Mexico Medicaid covers all medically necessary abortions using state funds, going beyond the federal Hyde Amendment's limits, as required by the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson. New Mexico's Medicaid program covers all abortions that are medically necessary, not just those in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. This goes beyond what the federal Hyde Amendment requires. The federal government does not pay for most abortions under Medicaid, so New Mexico uses its own state money to cover the additional procedures. The coverage was ordered by the New Mexico Supreme Court in 1999, which ruled that limiting Medicaid abortion coverage to rape, incest, and life endangerment violated the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment because it denied women equal access to medically necessary care while men on Medicaid faced no comparable restriction on medically necessary procedures. > "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person." > — New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, 127 N.M. 654, 986 P.2d 450 **Legal analysis** In New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, 127 N.M. 654, 986 P.2d 450, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the state's Medicaid regulation (Rule 766) limiting abortion coverage to cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment violated Article II, § 18 of the New Mexico Constitution (the Equal Rights Amendment). Applying strict scrutiny, the Court found that the regulation discriminated on the basis of sex because it denied medically necessary care only to women, while similarly situated men faced no such restriction. The Court ordered the state to use state-only funds (not federal Medicaid dollars, which are restricted by the Hyde Amendment) to cover all medically necessary abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. This ruling remains binding precedent. The state's Medicaid agency (now the Health Care Authority) implements this mandate. Federal Medicaid dollars continue to be available only for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment per the Hyde Amendment. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, 127 N.M. 654, 986 P.2d 450, Case summary, [Legal Momentum / Cornell LII](https://www.law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/resource/New_Mexico_Right_to_Choose_NARAL_v_Johnson_1999) · N.M. Const. art. II, § 18, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-mexico/article-ii/section-18)* ### Private insurance **No state mandate or prohibition on private coverage** New Mexico neither mandates nor prohibits private insurance coverage of abortion; coverage is governed by plan terms and general insurance law. New Mexico does not have a law that either requires private health insurance plans to cover abortion or prohibits them from doing so. Whether a particular private insurance plan covers abortion depends on the plan's own terms. Some plans cover abortion, others do not, and some offer it as an optional rider. Because abortion is legal in New Mexico, there is no legal barrier to an insurance company offering abortion coverage if it chooses to. **Legal analysis** No New Mexico statute mandates abortion coverage in private health insurance plans, nor does any statute prohibit or restrict such coverage. SB 189 (2026 Regular Session) would have required group health plans and individual insurance policies to cover abortion and gender-affirming care without cost-sharing, but this bill died in committee. In its absence, coverage is determined by plan design and market practice. New Mexico does not have a law comparable to those in several other states that prohibit abortion coverage in plans offered through the health insurance exchange or require separate riders. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · SB 189, 2026 Regular Session (died in committee), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=S&legtype=B&legno=189&year=26)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Exchange plans **No special restriction on marketplace plans** New Mexico does not restrict abortion coverage in plans sold on the state's health insurance marketplace (BeWell); coverage depends on each plan's design. Health insurance plans sold through New Mexico's marketplace, BeWell, are not prohibited by state law from covering abortion. Whether a particular plan covers abortion depends on that plan's design. The federal Affordable Care Act allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in marketplace plans, but New Mexico has not done so. Consumers should check individual plan documents to determine whether abortion is covered. **Legal analysis** Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. § 18023, states may enact laws prohibiting abortion coverage in Qualified Health Plans offered through the health insurance exchange. New Mexico has not enacted such a prohibition. Accordingly, marketplace plans on BeWell may offer abortion coverage at the insurer's discretion, subject to federal requirements that any abortion coverage beyond Hyde-restricted cases be funded through separate premium payments. No state law further restricts exchange-plan abortion coverage. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### State funding of providers **State affirmatively funds reproductive health providers** New Mexico does not defund abortion providers; the state has allocated capital outlay funds for reproductive health clinic development and supports Title X family planning services. New Mexico does not have a law that blocks state funding from going to organizations that provide abortion care. Instead, the state has actively funded reproductive health infrastructure. Governor Lujan Grisham's Executive Order 2022-123 allocated $10 million in capital outlay funds for the development of a reproductive health care clinic in southern New Mexico. The state's Family Planning Program, which receives Title X federal funds, supports low- and no-cost family planning services. The state has not sought to exclude Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers from state-funded health programs. **Legal analysis** New Mexico has no 'defunding' statute that bars state funds from reaching abortion providers. Executive Order 2022-123 (August 2022) designated $10 million in capital outlay for a reproductive health clinic, directed the Department of Health to expand abortion access in rural and underserved areas, and directed the Department of Human Services to improve efficiency of reproductive health care access. The state's Title X Family Planning Program (NMSA 1978 §§ 24-8-1 to -8) supports family planning services without excluding abortion providers. Federal defunding efforts (such as the 2025 federal budget reconciliation provision blocking Medicaid payments to certain abortion providers) affect federal, not state, funds, and New Mexico has joined multistate litigation challenging those restrictions. The governor broke ground on a new reproductive health clinic in Doña Ana County in September 2024. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Executive Order 2022-123 (August 2022), [Office of the Governor / Reproductive Freedom Alliance](https://reprofreedomalliance.org/state-details/new-mexico)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Physician or any person performing prohibited partial-birth abortion | Violation of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-3 | Fourth degree felony: 18 months imprisonment, fine up to $5,000 (NMSA 1978 § 31-18-15(A)(7), § 31-19-1); potential license discipline under Medical Practice Act (NMSA 1978 ch. 61, art. 6) | Verified at source | | Pregnant woman | None — expressly exempt from criminal liability for abortion under NMSA 1978 § 30-5A-5(D) and HB 7 § 3(C) | None | Verified at source | | Third party who injures pregnant woman causing miscarriage or stillbirth | Injury to a pregnant woman, NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7 (excludes induced abortion from definitions of 'miscarriage' and 'stillbirth') | Third degree felony: 3 years imprisonment, fine up to $5,000 (NMSA 1978 § 31-18-15(A)(8), § 31-19-1) | Verified at source | | Public body that violates Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act | Civil violation of HB 7 (prohibiting denial, restriction, or interference with reproductive health care access) | Civil penalty of $5,000 or actual damages per violation, whichever is greater; injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **February 26, 2021** — Governor Lujan Grisham signed SB 10, repealing the 1969 criminal abortion statute (former NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1, 30-5-2, 30-5-3). The repeal eliminated the criminal prohibition on abortion, the physician-only provision, the parental consent requirement, and the conscience exemption — removing the last vestiges of New Mexico's pre-Roe criminal abortion framework. (2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2) *Sources — SB 10, 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2, FIR analysis, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF)* - **June 27, 2022** — Three days after the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, Governor Lujan Grisham signed Executive Order 2022-107, prohibiting executive branch cooperation with out-of-state civil or criminal investigations related to lawful reproductive health care in New Mexico, directing the governor to decline extradition requests from other states for abortion-related charges, and instructing the Regulation and Licensing Department to protect providers' professional licenses from out-of-state sanctions. *Sources — Executive Order 2022-107 (June 27, 2022), Press release, [Office of the Governor, New Mexico](https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/06/27/gov-lujan-grisham-takes-action-to-safeguard-abortion-access-protect-new-mexico-health-care-providers)* - **August 0, 2022** — Governor Lujan Grisham signed Executive Order 2022-123, allocating $10 million in capital outlay for a new reproductive health clinic, directing the Department of Health to expand abortion access in rural and underserved communities, and directing the Department of Human Services to improve efficiency of reproductive health care access. *Sources — Executive Order 2022-123 (August 2022), [Reproductive Freedom Alliance](https://reprofreedomalliance.org/state-details/new-mexico)* - **January 23, 2023** — Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the New Mexico Supreme Court (State ex rel. Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County, No. S-1-SC-39205) challenging local abortion-restrictive ordinances enacted by Clovis, Hobbs, Lea County, and Roosevelt County that invoked the Comstock Act, imposed licensing requirements, and created private civil enforcement mechanisms. *Sources — State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, petition filed Jan. 23, 2023, Press release, [New Mexico Department of Justice](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-supreme-court-grants-new-mexico-attorney-generals-writ-securing-statewide-reproductive-rights-a-landmark-victory-for-access-and-equality)* - **March 16, 2023** — Governor Lujan Grisham signed HB 7, the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, prohibiting public bodies from denying, restricting, or interfering with access to or provision of reproductive and gender-affirming health care; creating enforcement mechanisms including a private right of action; and expressly preempting conflicting local laws. (2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11) *Sources — HB 7, 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11, Section 3(B), [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf)* - **January 9, 2025** — The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the state, striking down all local abortion-restrictive ordinances in Clovis, Hobbs, Lea County, and Roosevelt County. The Court held the ordinances were expressly preempted by the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7) and that local governments may not enact or enforce measures that conflict with state law protecting reproductive health care access. *Sources — State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025), Press release, [New Mexico Department of Justice](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-supreme-court-grants-new-mexico-attorney-generals-writ-securing-statewide-reproductive-rights-a-landmark-victory-for-access-and-equality)* - **January 30, 2025** — HB 234 (2025 Regular Session), the 'Medical Care for All Infants Born Alive' bill, was introduced by Republican legislators. The bill would have required medical care for infants born alive, including during attempted abortions. It died in committee (sent to HCPAC/HJC, no further action). *Sources — HB 234, 2025 Regular Session, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=H&legType=B&legNo=234&year=25)* - **March 6, 2026** — Governor Lujan Grisham signed SB 30 (2026 Regular Session, Chapter 48), repealing NMSA 1978 § 24-14-18, the 49-year-old statute that required reporting of each induced abortion to the state registrar within five days. The repeal eliminates the state's abortion reporting mandate. *Sources — SB 30, 2026 N.M. Laws ch. 48, [BillTrack50 / NM Legislature](https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1944675)* ## Pending changes ### Potential EMTALA preemption litigation (Moyle v. United States implications) (Litigation) **Status.** The U.S. Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States, 603 U.S. __ (2024), dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, returning EMTALA preemption questions to the Ninth Circuit. New Mexico is in the Tenth Circuit, and EMTALA preemption has not been directly litigated in New Mexico federal courts. Because New Mexico has no abortion ban that could conflict with EMTALA's emergency-stabilization requirements, EMTALA preemption is less salient here than in ban states. However, New Mexico hospitals receiving Medicare funds remain obligated under EMTALA to provide emergency stabilizing treatment, which could include abortion in appropriate circumstances. If federal courts, including the Tenth Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court, ultimately hold that EMTALA broadly preempts state abortion restrictions, the ruling would have limited practical effect in New Mexico (since New Mexico has no ban) but could affect border-state patients seeking emergency care. Conversely, a ruling limiting EMTALA's reach would not affect abortion access within New Mexico given the state's protective legal framework. *Sources — Moyle v. United States, 603 U.S. __ (2024) (per curiam), slip op. at 1, [Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf)* ### SB 189 (2026) — Reproductive Health Care Coverage (Legislation) **Status.** Introduced January 29, 2026; died in committee (25% progression). Would have required group health plans, individual insurance policies, HMOs, and nonprofit health plans to cover abortion and gender-affirming care without cost-sharing, and eliminated prior authorization and utilization review requirements. If revived or reintroduced in a future session, the bill would mandate comprehensive abortion coverage with no deductibles, copays, or coinsurance in virtually all private health insurance plans in New Mexico, making abortion effectively free at the point of service for insured patients. The bill's failure in 2026 leaves private insurance coverage voluntary. *Sources — SB 189, 2026 Regular Session, [New Mexico Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=S&legtype=B&legno=189&year=26)* ### Federal defunding litigation — Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding (Litigation) **Status.** The 2025 federal budget reconciliation law (the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act') included a provision blocking federal Medicaid payments to certain abortion-providing entities, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, for one year. New Mexico joined 22 Democratic-led states in litigation challenging this provision. A federal district court in Massachusetts (Talwani, J.) issued a preliminary injunction in December 2025 blocking enforcement. The case is on appeal. New Mexico state officials have indicated they will seek to backfill any gaps with state funds if the federal defunding is ultimately upheld. If the defunding provision is ultimately upheld and no state backfill is provided, Planned Parenthood clinics in New Mexico could lose federal Medicaid reimbursement for non-abortion services (contraception, STI testing, cancer screenings), potentially affecting clinic finances and patient access to the full range of reproductive health services, though abortion services themselves are not directly funded by federal Medicaid dollars. *Sources — Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Kennedy, No. 1:25-cv-11649 (D. Mass., preliminary injunction Dec. 2, 2025), [Politico / KFF](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/02/judge-blocks-provision-of-law-that-strips-medicaid-funding-for-planned-parenthood-affiliates-00673962)* ### Future shield-law expansion legislation (Legislation) **Status.** New Mexico's executive and legislative branches have progressively strengthened shield protections since Dobbs (EO 2022-107, HB 7 in 2023). Legislature may consider further shield enhancements, including expanded protections for providers using telehealth across state lines, data privacy protections for abortion patients, and protections for employers who cover abortion travel. Further legislation could make New Mexico an even stronger destination for abortion care by reducing legal risks for providers serving out-of-state patients and protecting patient data from out-of-state subpoenas. ## Key authorities - **SB 10 (2021) — Repeal of Criminal Abortion Statute** — 2021 N.M. Laws ch. 2 (repealing NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5-1, 30-5-2, 30-5-3) _(Statute)_ · [nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF](https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/21%20Regular/firs/SB0010.PDF) Eliminated New Mexico's pre-Roe criminal abortion ban, removing the last statutory prohibition on abortion and its associated restrictions (physician-only, parental consent, conscience exemption). - **Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act** — NMSA 1978 §§ 30-5A-1 to 30-5A-5 (2000) _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/ch…](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-5a/section-30-5a-3) The only remaining criminal abortion restriction in New Mexico; prohibits a narrowly defined procedure subject to life and great-bodily-harm exceptions, and expressly exempts the woman from liability. - **Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act (HB 7)** — 2023 N.M. Laws ch. 11 (codified at Chapter 24 NMSA 1978) _(Statute)_ · [nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regul…](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23%20Regular/bills/house/HB0007.pdf) Affirmatively protects reproductive health care access, preempts local restrictions, and creates enforcement mechanisms including a private right of action; the centerpiece of New Mexico's post-Dobbs protective framework. - **New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson** — 1999-NMSC-005, 127 N.M. 654, 986 P.2d 450 _(Case)_ · [law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/reso…](https://www.law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/resource/New_Mexico_Right_to_Choose_NARAL_v_Johnson_1999) New Mexico Supreme Court held that the state ERA requires Medicaid coverage of all medically necessary abortions, establishing a constitutional sex-equality foundation for reproductive rights. - **State ex rel. Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County** — No. S-1-SC-39205 (N.M. Jan. 9, 2025) _(Case)_ · [nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-m…](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-supreme-court-grants-new-mexico-attorney-generals-writ-securing-statewide-reproductive-rights-a-landmark-victory-for-access-and-equality) Unanimously invalidated local abortion-restrictive ordinances, confirming that HB 7 preempts local attempts to restrict abortion and that localities may not create private enforcement mechanisms. - **New Mexico Equal Rights Amendment** — N.M. Const. art. II, § 18 (adopted 1972, effective July 1, 1973) _(Constitution)_ · [law.justia.com/constitution/new-me…](https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-mexico/article-ii/section-18) Provides the state constitutional foundation for sex-equality analysis in reproductive rights; interpreted to require equal treatment of abortion in Medicaid and potentially other contexts. - **Executive Order 2022-107** — Executive Order 2022-107 (June 27, 2022) _(Agency guidance)_ · [governor.state.nm.us/2022/06/27/gov-luja…](https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/06/27/gov-lujan-grisham-takes-action-to-safeguard-abortion-access-protect-new-mexico-health-care-providers) Shields providers and patients from out-of-state investigations, prohibits extradition for abortion-related charges, and directs licensing boards to protect providers. - **Injury to Pregnant Woman** — NMSA 1978 § 30-3-7 (1985) _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/ch…](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-3/section-30-3-7) The closest New Mexico comes to a fetal-protection criminal statute; creates a third-degree felony for third-party injury causing miscarriage or stillbirth, but expressly excludes induced abortion from definitions. - **SB 30 (2026) — Repeal of Abortion Reporting Statute** — 2026 N.M. Laws ch. 48 (repealing NMSA 1978 § 24-14-18) _(Statute)_ · [billtrack50.com/billdetail/1944675](https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1944675) Eliminated the 49-year-old requirement that each induced abortion be reported to the state registrar, removing a data-collection mechanism that could have been used for enforcement or surveillance. - **Executive Order 2022-123** — Executive Order 2022-123 (August 2022) _(Agency guidance)_ · [reprofreedomalliance.org/state-details/new-mexico](https://reprofreedomalliance.org/state-details/new-mexico) Directed $10 million in capital outlay for reproductive health clinic development and charged state agencies with expanding abortion access in rural and underserved areas. - **Family Planning Act** — NMSA 1978 §§ 24-8-1 to 24-8-8 (1973) _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/ch…](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-24/article-8/section-24-8-1) Establishes the statutory framework for family planning services in New Mexico, including the Title X program, and prohibits imposition of standards as prerequisites for receiving family planning services. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. Before publication, verify: (1) the exact text of EO 2022-107 from an official PDF; (2) any 2025 regular session bills beyond HB 234 that may have been enacted and affect abortion access; (3) the precise language and holdings of State ex rel. Torrez from the official opinion on nmonesource.com; (4) whether the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act has been codified in a specific Chapter 24 article and what its official NMSA section numbers are; (5) whether any APRN scope-of-practice regulation or Board of Nursing guidance explicitly addresses abortion provision; (6) whether any New Mexico appellate decision since 1999 has interpreted the state ERA in relation to abortion beyond the Medicaid context; (7) the current status of the federal Medicaid defunding litigation as of publication date. Unresolved points: The full text of Executive Order 2022-107 could not be retrieved from the governor's website (page not found error); content was verified through press releases and secondary sources. The exact operative language of the extradition-refusal provision should be verified against the official PDF. — The New Mexico Supreme Court's full opinion in State ex rel. Torrez (Jan. 9, 2025) was referenced via the NM DOJ press release and linked to nmonesource.com, but the full opinion text was not independently reviewed for precise holdings on each challenged ordinance provision. — New Mexico case law on whether a viable fetus qualifies as a 'person' under the wrongful death statute (NMSA 1978 § 41-2-1) is sparse and not definitively resolved; the analysis reflects the best available interpretation but this is a low-confidence area. — Whether New Mexico's APRN scope-of-practice regulations explicitly mention abortion or whether abortion provision is simply treated as within the general scope of practice was not confirmed through primary regulatory text. Guttmacher Institute data (secondary source) confirms APRN abortion provision is permitted. — The current status of conscience/refusal protections for healthcare providers who object to abortion: the old § 30-5-2 (persons and institutions exempt) was repealed with SB 10 in 2021. Whether any other statute or regulation fills this gap was not conclusively determined. Federal conscience protections (Church Amendments, Weldon Amendment) continue to apply..