• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Southwest Women's Law Center

SWLC Twitter SWLC Instagram SWLC Facebook
  • Home
  • Advocacy Issues
    • Paid Family & Medical Leave Act
    • Economic Security & Workplace Rights
      • Pregnant Worker Accommodation Act
      • Breastfeeding
      • Equal Pay
    • Reproductive Justice
      • Abortion is Healthcare
      • Reproductive Justice Framework
    • Health and Safety
  • In Session
  • News
  • Resources
    • Our Allies
    • Case Studies
    • Legal Advice & Brief Legal Services
    • Events
  • About
    • Meet the Staff
    • Board of Directors
    • History
  • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Work With Us
    • Volunteer
    • Donate

Legislature

The Southwest Women’s Law Center’s Statement Regarding Acts of Oppression during the 2021 New Mexico Legislative Session

March 19, 2021 by SWLC

This legislative session began with historic gains. We welcomed the most diverse legislature in the history of New Mexico, and for the first time, a majority of NM House members are women. We also welcomed our first African American Senator and a historic number of openly LGBTQ legislators. In addition, New Mexico’s delegation to Congress is now comprised of all women of color. Although there is still a long way to go before we have a truly representative legislature, we were thrilled to see progress toward that goal.

Unfortunately, the same forces that have long created barriers to proportional representation became apparent through acts of racism, anti-LGBTQ language, transphobia, misogyny, and white supremacy throughout the NM Legislative Session. These acts, both subtle and overt, have persisted and increased with frequency as we come into the frenzied last few days of the session. These acts of oppression have largely gone unchecked. Southwest Women’s Law Center stands in support of our queer-, woman-, and BIPOC-identifying legislators and ask that leadership acknowledge and address the acts that have been perpetrated against them.

Early on, one Senator questioned a Cabinet Secretary-designee’s ability to do her job because of her race. In another incident, a Representative called the police during a Committee hearing because she took offense to a comment made by an African American expert witness. More recently, another Republican Senator referred to some colleagues as “female dogs” after a lobbyist was caught on a hot mic using profanity to disparage Democratic Committee members.

More subtle instances have also been on display. Women, LGBTQ, and BIPOC legislators have been denied time to present their bills in certain influential committees. Those who have been allowed to present have been belittled, demeaned, and treated disrespectfully by the committees. We saw these behaviors spill over in a dramatic way onto the Senate floor during the debate of HB 20 on Thursday night, shining a more public light on what has been transpiring in committees throughout the session.

Though usually less obvious, the persistent bullying of some legislators by others demonstrates the ways in which the legislative process itself has been designed to reinforce power dynamics and allow a few members disproportionate control over what does and does not pass through the legislature. When a group of long-time legislators, mostly straight CIS men, utilize the structures of the legislature to berate and ignore legislators from diverse backgrounds, we see the system being used to silence certain voices. When diverse legislators are denied the opportunity to advance bills intended to promote equity, we see how those in power use these structures to maintain the status quo.

The people of New Mexico elected a historically diverse legislature, but legislative leaders have not done the work necessary to address the systems of oppression that have previously led to non-representative electoral bodies. As a result, a historically large number of marginalized people are facing oppression and violence embedded within the structures of those systems. It is beyond the time that we name these acts, address the structures that perpetuate them, and stand in solidarity with those who have been harmed, harassed, and mistreated while working without pay to serve and represent their communities.

 
The success of our work relies on supporters and donors like you. Help us keep the momentum of the movement. Share this email with others, follow us on social media, make a contribution. Your engagement matters!

Donate

Filed Under: Legislature, systemic inequities

Action Alert – HB38 is scheduled for February 20th in House Judiciary!

February 19, 2021 by SWLC

HB38 – The Paid Family & Medical Leave Act –will be heard on February 20th at 1 p.m. In the meantime, we need you to: 
 
1.  Email/call members of the House Judiciary Committee to express your support for the bill and ask them to vote yes on HB38.
 
2.  Mobilize your networks to email Committee members and ask them to vote yes.
 
3.  Prepare a public comment to share during the hearing.  We’ve seen the power of public comments. A 60 second story can persuade legislators and change votes. Reach out to us if you need support in preparing your remarks.
 
****************
When: February 20, 2021 01:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada)
Topic: House Judiciary Committee
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89543370073
Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16699009128,,89543370073#
or +12532158782,,89543370073#
 
Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799
Webinar ID: 895 4337 0073
 
******************
Thank you for your dedication to ensuring equitable conditions and economic security for New Mexico women and families!


EN ESPAÑOL



Alerta para la acción – ¡HB38 será enviada al Comité judicial de la Cámara de representantes!

Ahora vamos al Comité judicial de la Cámara de representantes, en la que HB38 -Ley de ausencia pagada por motivos familiares y médicos- será presentada el 20 de febrero a la 1 p. m.  Mientras tanto, necesitamos su ayuda con lo siguiente:
 
1.  Envíe correos electrónicos/llame por teléfono a los miembros del Comité judicial de la Cámara de representantes para expresar su apoyo a esta iniciativa de ley y pedirles que voten a favor de la HB38.
 
2.  Movilizar sus redes de contactos para que envíen correos electrónicos a los miembros del Comité para pedirles que voten a favor de la iniciativa.
 
3.  Preparar un comentario de participación pública que sea compartido durante la audiencia.  Hemos visto el alcance que tienen los comentarios de participación pública. Una historia de 60 segundos puede persuadir a los legisladores y cambiar sus votos.
 
Estaremos en contacto para proporcionar más detalles acerca de los siguientes pasos una vez que se haya fijado la fecha de la audiencia.
 
****************
Cuándo: 20 de febrero de 2021, 1:00 P. M. Horario de la Montaña (EE. UU. y Canadá)
Asunto: Comité Judicial de la Cámara de Representantes
Haga clic en la liga abajo para enlazarse al webinario
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89543370073
O por iPhone one tap: EE. UU. +16699009128,,89543370073#
o +12532158782,,89543370073#
 
O por teléfono: Marque (para mejor calidad auditiva, marque el número que corresponda a su localidad): EE. UU +1 669 900 9128 o +1 253 215 8782 o +1 346 248 7799 o +1 646 558 8656 o +1 301 715 8592 o +1 312 626 6799
ID de Webinario: 895 4337 0073
****************
¡Muchas gracias por su dedicación para asegurar las condiciones de igualdad y seguridad económica para las mujeres y familias de Nuevo México!


House Judiciary Committee Members
Miembros del Comité judicial de la cámara de representantes

Gail Chasey (Chair)
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4411
Email: gail@gailchasey.com

Micaela Lara Cadena (Vice Chair)
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4210
Email: micaela.cadena@nmlegis.gov

Eliseo Lee Alcon
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4416
Email: eliseo.alcon@nmlegis.gov

Deborah A. Armstrong
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4344
Email: deborah.armstrong@nmlegis.gov

Zachary J. Cook
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4221
Email: zachary.cook@nmlegis.gov

Brian Egolf
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4782
Email: brian.egolf@nmlegis.gov

Daymon Ely
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4243
Email: daymon.ely@nmlegis.gov

Georgene Louis
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4329
Email: georgene.louis@nmlegis.gov

Matthew McQueen
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4423
Email: matthew.mcqueen@nmlegis.gov

Greg Nibert
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4211
Email: greg.nibert@nmlegis.gov

William “Bill” R. Rehm
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4214
Email: bill.rehm@nmlegis.gov

James G. Townsend
Capitol: (505) 986 – 4758
Email: townsend@pvtn.net

Donate

Filed Under: Legislature, Paid Family & Medical Leave Act

Attitudes Towards Reproductive Health Policy Among Native Americans in New Mexico: Summary of Findings

September 14, 2020 by SWLC

During the 2019 New Mexico Legislative Session, the Southwest Women’s Law Center (“SWLC”) and Forward Together/Strong Families (“FT/SFNM”) partnered on a legislative advocacy project resulting from the failure to pass House Bill (HB) 51 which would have repealed New Mexico’s dormant abortion ban.

In talking with legislators who were either Native American or represented significant Native American constituencies, many expressed the belief that Native Americans, as a monolithic group, are against abortion. The SWLC and FT/SFNM believe this stereotype caused some Democratic senators to vote against HB 51 (a few of whom had initially pledged to vote for HB51 and then recanted on that pledge), causing it to fail.

After the close of the 2019 legislative session, the SWLC recognized the need to address these stereotypes, and partnered with FT/SFNM to conduct a survey of Native American experiences and attitudes towards abortion care and reproductive healthcare in general. In 2017, FT/SFNM conducted a survey of rural New Mexicans’ attitudes towards reproductive health, which provided preliminary evidence that Native Americans who lived in rural New Mexico had progressive views in this policy area. The SWLC also discovered that there had never been a survey directed only to New Mexico’s Native American population. This survey was meant to be a more focused look at these attitudes.

The SWLC and FT/SFNM contracted with opinion research firm Latino Decisions, and in March and April of 2020, they conducted a mixed mode (phone and internet) survey of over 300 Native American adults in New Mexico. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest sample of Native Americans in New Mexico ever collected for the purpose of understanding experiences of Native Americans and attitudes toward reproductive health policy.

The survey sought to illuminate the diversity of opinions on a range of reproductive health topics within the Native American population of New Mexico and to discover any trends. The SWLC and FT/SFNM plan to use this data to identify whether there are needs within Native populations that we should be addressing, what approaches would be most beneficial, and inform legislators about the diversity of opinion among their Native American constituents.

Methodology

Latino Decisions conducted the survey Attitudes Toward Reproductive Health Policy Among Native Americans between March 24, 2020 and April 7, 2020, completing 302 interviews of Native American adults in New Mexico. Of the 302 completed interviews, 158 were conducted over the phone (cell-phone/landline) and 144 were web-based.

The data collection effort was aimed at ensuring the sample was reflective of the state’s Native American population. The survey included several demographic factors to compare the outcome of these measures with data from the US Census. The results were weighted to known population characteristics using the Current Population Survey from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The nominal margin‐of‐error for the poll is 5.6%.

We have included several figures from the demographic content of the survey to provide the ability to assess the sample’s demographic profile.

Demographics

Slightly over half of respondents are affiliated with the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in New Mexico, and one of the largest in the continental United States. Just about a quarter of respondents are Pueblo. Pueblo respondents came from 18 of the 19 Pueblos, with generally 1-2% of the sample from each one, and 6% from Zuni. The only Pueblo not represented is the Pueblo of Zia. Additionally, 3% are Cherokee Nation-affiliated, 1% are Mescalero Apache, 11% marked “Other,” and 7% didn’t know. This is roughly proportional to the population of each tribe in New Mexico. The majority of respondents are enrolled tribal members, at 77%; eighteen percent were not enrolled and 5% didn’t know. This is a higher rate of enrolled members than most of the New Mexico surveys conducted by Latino Decisions in the past.

Respondents were 52% female, 46% male, and 2% transgender or two-spirit. The age of respondents was varied, although all respondents were 18 years or older. Nearly half of respondents live on reservation or tribal lands, while 37% live off tribal lands and 14% split time across both areas.

Perceptions Regarding Access to Reproductive Health

When asked, “do you think Native Americans in your community have access to reproductive healthcare?”, 65% of respondents said yes, 22% said no, and 13% said that they didn’t know. Respondents living in rural areas or on tribal lands were the most likely to say they had access, at 67%, while respondents living off tribal land or in urban areas were much more likely to answer in the negative (42% and 35%, respectively). From this data, it seems that reproductive healthcare is less attainable for Native Americans living in cities, away from tribal lands. This might be explained by the data that 81% of respondents receiving healthcare from IHS or Tribal 638 clinics reported that they were able to access the reproductive health services they want and need. Alternately, it could be related to a greater awareness of the spectrum of reproductive healthcare by respondents in urban areas, and an attending perception that Native Americans in these urban areas are unable to access such care.

These responses on reproductive healthcare access must be contrasted with those answering whether respondents’ healthcare provider offered abortion services: only 29% of respondents said “yes.” The group that was most likely to say that Native Americans in their community had access to reproductive healthcare was the least likely to say that a clinic in their community provides abortions: Native Americans living on reservations and tribal lands (67% v. 10%). This discrepancy may be explained by the exceptionalism afforded to abortion care, specifically the preconception that it is not “normal” reproductive healthcare. The fact that abortion access is so limited on reservations and tribal lands can be attributed, at least in part, to the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds on abortion, except in a few cases (rape, incest, threat to the woman’s life), and this limitation affects Indian Health Service (“IHS”) clinics because they rely on federal funding. Surprisingly, active military respondents who are Native American were the most likely to say that a clinic in their community provides abortions (55%), despite the fact that the military’s TRICARE program is also subject to the Hyde Amendment. Urban respondents and those living off tribal land were the second most likely (44% each) to say that a clinic in their community provides abortion.

Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported that they were currently receiving reproductive healthcare from IHS, and a further 4% from Tribal 638 clinics. Of those who don’t receive healthcare at IHS, 29% said that they were uncomfortable receiving their care at IHS clinics, 17% said it was because of the quality of care they receive, and 13% cited difficulty getting an appointment. The lowest percentage (5%) marked that they don’t go to IHS because these clinics don’t provide the reproductive healthcare that they want or need.

The majority of people surveyed (89%) agreed that Native American women and families deserve to make their own healthcare decisions without government interference.

Attitudes Regarding Abortion and Reproductive Health Policy in New Mexico

When asked whether they would support or oppose a law that would make it a criminal offense for doctors to perform abortions, 45% of respondents said they would oppose, 25% said they would support, and 27% said they didn’t have a strong opinion either way. Broken down by political affiliation, Republican respondents were the most likely (38%) to say they would support making abortion a criminal offense. Only 22% of Independent respondents and 23% of Democrat respondents said they would support such a law. While men and women opposed such a law at approximately the same rate (45% and 44%), men were more likely to support the law (31% v. 21%) and women were more likely to say that they didn’t have a strong opinion either way (32% v. 21%). Active military respondents were by far the most likely to support abortion criminalization at 55%, while veteran respondents were the least likely to support, at 16%. In general, Native Americans in New Mexico are against making the provision of abortion care a criminal offense, and more respondents said they didn’t have a strong opinion than those who would support criminalization. Because the question did not specify that this would criminalize safe abortions, it is unclear whether some respondents who were supportive or ambivalent about criminalization were thinking of unlicensed or harmful doctors performing unsafe abortions.

Many respondents (59%) agreed that, if someone they care about has made the decision to have an abortion, they want them to have support—only 20% disagreed. When asked if they can hold their own moral views about abortion and still trust a woman and her family to make this decision for themselves, 72% of respondents said yes. This shines a light on the complexity that is often missing from national debates around abortion: people hold nuanced views, and even those who are not in favor of abortion recognize the humanity and need for support of people who decide to have an abortion.

Personal Experiences with Reproductive Health Challenges in New Mexico

Respondents were asked about their own experiences with abortion, miscarriage, infertility and sexual violence, as well as how those experiences shaped their views.

Around one-third of respondents (35%) said they have a friend or family member who has had an abortion, and 20% said they or their partner had accessed abortion care. This is consistent with national rates of abortion frequency. Fourteen percent of respondents or their partner had experienced infertility or trouble getting pregnant, and 21% had experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth. Nationally, 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage and about 1% in stillbirths, putting these survey responses on the high end of prevalence.

An equal portion of respondents (43%) said that their own experiences around reproductive healthcare “has made me realize we need more access to reproductive health[care] in New Mexico” and “has not had any impact on my views.” Only 10% of respondents said their experiences “made me realize we need less access to reproductive health[care] in New Mexico.”

Respondents who have personal experience with abortion listed who they turned to for emotional support: 45% turned to a family member, 41% turned to friends, 27% to their partner or spouse, 17% to a medical provider, 12% to internet support forums, and 5% to a faith leader (respondents were allowed to choose more than one). A quarter of respondents say that they didn’t seek or need support, while 11% said that they didn’t have the support they needed. This question was only asked of a small number of respondents, and so responses should be viewed as anecdotal, not statistically significant.

Twenty-two percent of respondents had been the victim of sexual assault or violence at some point in their life. In the US, 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes, and this data is consistent with those national rates. It bears noting that sexual violence is underreported, and the real incidence of sexual violence is higher than the numbers show.

Experience with Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC)

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) includes intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants, which provide low-level doses of hormones that inhibit fertilization of the egg. LARC is one of the most effective forms of birth control, but also one of the most expensive in terms of up-front costs. In the US, LARC can cost up to $1,000 out-of-pocket, although it is starting to be covered by more insurance plans. Additionally, healthcare providers must be trained in LARC insertion and removal, which has meant that not every office prescribing birth control has the experience or capacity to offer LARC.

In this survey, 57% of respondents said their healthcare provider offered LARC, 25% said they did not, and the remainder didn’t know. When this data was broken down by healthcare provider, 69% of respondents who received their healthcare from Indian Health Service (IHS) said that their provider offered LARC, compared with 59% from Tribal 638 clinics, and 50% from other providers. Respondents living off reservation were more likely to say that their healthcare provider offered LARC than respondents living on a reservation (74% v. 64%). Additionally, Pueblo respondents reported more access to LARC, at 67%, than Navajo respondents, at 56%. This is likely because of the relative locations of Pueblos and the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation, which covers a tremendous amount of land, is located in the northwestern region of New Mexico, which is more rural and frontier, whereas Pueblos are generally located on the Rio Grande corridor, near larger population centers, except for Zuni, Acoma, and Laguna Pueblos.

Fifty-eight percent of female respondents have never used LARC, while 14% had used it in the past, but are not currently using it, and only 8% are currently using LARC.

Of the respondents who had been prescribed LARC, but hadn’t used it, 67% said that this decision was because they had heard LARC can lead to problems with pregnancy after removal of the device, 27% said they preferred other options, while 18% said they heard it was a painful procedure and 15% said they felt pressure not to take it. This is once again a small subset of the total respondents, and so the numbers are not statistically significant, but they do indicate that there is misinformation about LARC’s long-term effects.

Key Take-Aways

Native Americans in New Mexico have varied attitudes and experiences around reproductive health; as suspected, they are not a monolithic group. The data shows how different affiliations and demographics relate to disparate viewpoints within the Native American population of New Mexico, and that even these other factors don’t fully account for an individual’s beliefs.

Native American constituents are not generally opposed to abortion. They are more likely to oppose the criminalization of abortion than support it.. Native Americans overwhelmingly agree that their women and families deserve to make their own healthcare decisions, free from government interference.

There is room for improvement in Native American access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare.

Recommendations
The SWLC and FT/SFNM should share these findings to indigenous-lead organizations, Native American advocates, and those interested in serving Native populations, and partner on next-steps. While the data is a useful starting point, it is important to collaborate and support Native American advocates in order to make sure that plans are responsive to the needs and sensitivities of this demographic, and that the organizations remain accountable to the people they are trying to serve.


Misinformation about LARC is common, and the data shows a concern with LARC’s impact on subsequent pregnancies after removal of the IUD. In addressing this information, it will be important to consider who is delivering the message and whether they are deemed trustworthy, especially because of the long history of medical abuse of Native American women and families in the US.


In addressing LARC uptake and contraceptive use, the SWLC, and other partners should pursue strategies that build trust between Native American patients and healthcare providers. This will include making it easier for patients to get whichever kind of birth control they choose, whether it’s LARC or not, and facilitating both easy insertion and removal so that patients don’t feel compelled to keep LARC. Part of this effort will be continued work for parity in provider reimbursement rates for insertion and removal of LARC.

The Hyde Amendment continues to pose an obstacle for patients who wish to receive a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion, at IHS. There is a broad-based movement to repeal this amendment, and to the extent possible, the SWLC and FT/SFNM should continue and support and participate in the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. In the interim, IHS and 638 clinics are permitted under the Hyde Amendment to perform abortion care for individuals who fall under the exceptions built into the Amendment. Upon information and belief, still both IHS and 638 clinics are not providing this reproductive health service, or it is very limited. Follow up conversations should occur with the IHS about this. Pending repeal of the Amendment in total, the SWLC should continue working with reproductive health and justice partners to ensure that IHS and 638 clinics are providing every reproductive health service as allowed by law to Native individuals living in New Mexico.

Last, the partnership of organizations serving Native Americans in New Mexico should investigate why healthcare access in urban areas seems to be worse for Native Americans than on reservations or tribal lands. There may be hidden barriers to access that need to be addressed.

***

References:

1 This summary was authored by Kearney Coghlan, Harvard Law School, Class of 2022, Student and SWLC Summer Law Clerk, with the supervision of Terrelene Massey, Esq., (Navajo), Executive Director, and Wendy Basgall, Esq., Staff Attorney.

2 Recognition of Partners on the survey Attitudes Toward Reproductive Health Policy Among Native Americans: Survey Development and Research: Southwest Women’s Law Center, Forward Together/Strong Families New Mexico, and Latino Decisions. Part 1 of this research on rural New Mexico included the work of Bold Futures. Contributing Organizations: Indigenous Lifeways and Tewa Women United. Compilation and Analysis: Latino Decisions. Additional national data analysis provided by Forward Together/Strong Families New Mexico.

3 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=american%20indian%20new%20mexico&g=0400000US35&hidePreview=false&tid=ACSDT5Y2018.B02014&vintage=2018&layer=VT_2018_040_00_PP_D1&cid=B02010_001E

4 https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services/

5 https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/fb_induced_abortion.pdf

6 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298; https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/stillbirth/data.html

7 https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html

8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662967/

9 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29544988/

***

DOWNLOAD PDF REPORT

Latino Decisions Data

In collaboration with:

Filed Under: Abortion, Advocacy, HB51, Health, health care, Legislature, Reproductive Health

HB-25 Signed into Law

March 10, 2020 by SWLC

We did it! HB-25, protecting pregnant women and new mothers from discrimination was signed into law. Thank you for your support.

***
via The Office of the Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham

Governor signs anti-discrimination bill

Mar 6, 2020 | Press Releases

Measure adds pregnancy, childbirth as protected class

SANTA FE – Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday signed into law a measure protecting pregnant women and new mothers from workplace discrimination.

House Bill 25, sponsored by Rep. Gail Chasey and Sen. Liz Stefanics, amends the New Mexico Human Rights Act to add pregnancy, childbirth or conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth as a class protected from employment discrimination.

READ FULL PRESS RELEASE

Filed Under: Advocacy, Legislature, News, Pregnant Worker Accommodation Act Tagged With: HB25, Pregnant Worker Discrimination, Pregnant Worker Rights

HB 25/a heads to the Governor’s Desk for signature.

February 24, 2020 by SWLC

CALL TO ACTION: Contact Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to sign the Pregnant Worker Accommodation Act into law.

On February 18th, Pregnant Worker Accommodation bill, House Bill 25/a, was heard on the floor of the New Mexico State Senate. HB 25/a provides pregnant workers the opportunity to continue to work to support their growing families without risking the health of a pregnancy or the loss of a job. The bill was passed unanimously with a vote of 41 – 0, paving the way for the bill to move to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk for her signature.  

Since the 2019 session, bipartisan support for HB25/a has grown to include business interest groups, including the Association of Commerce and Industry, the NM Hospitality Association, the Hispano Chamber of Commerce, Albuquerque Teachers Federation, and National Education Association – NM. They join a number of women’s rights and worker rights advocacy groups, who have stood in support of this important legislative effort for years, including ACLU-NM, Bold Futures, Planned Parenthood, Indigenous Women Rising, and NM RCRC. 

The Southwest Women’s Law Center (SWLC) has been serving as an expert on the bill along with Attorney Tim White, and ACLU-NM Attorney Elinor Rushforth. SWLC supports policies that help New Mexican women and their families reach economic security and stability. 

During the 2020 legislative session, HB 25/a received widespread support from Democrats and Republicans. HB 25/a passed the House of Representatives unanimously by a vote of 65-0.  SWLC is requesting that supporters of HB 25/a call the Governor’s office (505-476-2200) to ask her to sign the bill into law. 

HB 25/a requires employers with four or more employees to grant reasonable accommodation for an employee with a need arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or a related condition, as long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer. Reasonable accommodation may include a change to the employee’s work environment, work rules or job responsibilities to accommodate a pregnant worker with a need arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions.    

The Governor has until March 11, 2020, to sign the bill into law.

To support SWLC’s efforts on HB 25/a, please donate at swwomenslaw.org.

Respectfully,
Terrelene Massey,  Executive Director

Filed Under: Advocacy, Legislature, Pregnant Worker Accommodation Act Tagged With: HB25, NM State Senate, Pregnant Worker Accommodation Act

Before Footer

Additional Resources

  • Resources
  • Advocacy Issues
  • Archives
  • Work With Us
  • Volunteer
  • Events
  • Privacy Policy

Support the Southwest Women’s Law Center.

SWLC Twitter SWLC Instagram SWLC Facebook
Serving the state of NM
505.244.0502
Non-Profit 501c3 Organization

With your support, we can make powerful shifts in protecting women and girls in the state of New Mexico.

Learn more on how you can help

Subscribe

* indicates required
                    
                    
                    
                    
Please choose your interest(s)
      
            
            
      

Thank You

With your support, we are able to do more. We are incredibly grateful!

  • Con Alma Health Foundation
  • Ford Foundation
  • McCune Charitable Foundation
  • National Institute for Reproductive Health
  • New Venture Fund
  • Nirvana Mañana Institute
  • The Ruth M Knight Foundation, Inc.
  • Santa Fe Community Foundation
  • W.K. Kellogg Foundation


Copyright 2005-2022 | Southwest Women's Law Center | Non-Profit 501c3 Organization

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}