New Mexico Supreme Court Strikes Down Local Abortion Pill Ordinances

In a decisive ruling on Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court invalidated several local ordinances aimed at restricting the distribution of the abortion pill. The court unanimously concluded that these ordinances infringe upon the state legislature’s authority over reproductive healthcare.

Court’s Rationale and Legislative Authority

Justice C. Shannon Bacon, writing for the court, emphasized that the legislature holds the exclusive power to regulate reproductive care. The court stated, “Our legislature granted to counties and municipalities all powers and duties not inconsistent with the laws of New Mexico. The ordinances violate this core precept and invade the legislature’s authority.” The ruling highlighted that these local measures overstep their bounds, challenging the legislative framework established by the state.

Abortion Legal Landscape in New Mexico

New Mexico, where abortion remains legal, has become a refuge for women from neighboring states like Texas, where stricter abortion bans have been enacted following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. In response, local governments in Roosevelt and Lea Counties, along with the towns of Clovis and Hobbs, attempted to limit the use and distribution of mifepristone, a key drug used in medication abortions, by invoking the federal Comstock Act—a 19th-century law banning the mailing of abortifacients.

Private Enforcement and Court’s Response

One of the ordinances from Roosevelt County allowed private individuals, except government employees, to sue violators of the Comstock Act and seek damages of at least $100,000 per violation. The New Mexico Supreme Court criticized this provision, stating it was “clearly intended to punish protected conduct.” The court rejected the notion that local governments could create such punitive measures, underscoring the legislative overreach these ordinances represented.

By striking down these local laws, the court reaffirmed the state’s stance on reproductive rights and clarified the limits of local government authority in regulating healthcare access.