By CatholicVote | Created at 2025-01-18 00:22:52 | Updated at 2025-01-18 02:59:28
2 hours ago
The attorney representing the cities of Hobbs and Clovis, New Mexico, says he is “thrilled” with a ruling issued January 9 by the New Mexico Supreme Court that invalidates his clients’ local ordinances outlawing abortion.
Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law PLLC explained in a statement what might appear on the surface to be a surprising reaction to the loss.
“This is the first court to hold that an ordinance requiring compliance with the federal Comstock Act prohibits the shipment and receipt of abortion-related paraphernalia in states where abortion remains legal,” Mitchell wrote. “We look forward to litigating these issues in other states and bringing the meaning of the federal Comstock Act to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The Comstock Act is an 1873 federal statute that prohibits any person from “knowingly” using the mail system to send any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.”
The local governments of both Hobbs, in 2022, and Clovis, in 2023, voted to become Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn, an initiative that seeks to protect unborn children from abortions one town or city at a time.
Founded by Right to Life of East Texas Director Mark Lee Dickson, Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn invites towns, cities, and counties to explore whether an ordinance that seeks to protect women, babies, and local governments from abortion is right for them.
About 51 cities in Texas and 17 in other states – Nebraska, Ohio, Louisiana, Iowa, New Mexico, and Illinois – have passed ordinances to become Sanctuary Cities.
Additionally, six counties in Texas adopted ordinances outlawing abortion and abortion trafficking while two in New Mexico (Lea and Roosevelt Counties) had passed ordinances “requiring abortion providers to comply with federal law,” i.e., the Comstock Act.
Dickson told CatholicVote during an interview last March that, in New Mexico, the ordinances outlaw abortion de facto due to their reliance on the Comstock Act.
Today, the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico issued their ruling in State of New Mexico, ex. rel. Raul Torrez, New Mexico Attorney General v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County, Board of County Commissioners for Roosevelt County, City of Clovis, and City of…
— Mark Lee Dickson (@MarkLeeDickson) January 9, 2025Live Action News provides a report of the sequence of events leading up to the New Mexico high court’s ruling: “Immediately after the ordinances passed, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez (who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood) requested and received an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Request for Stay from the New Mexico Supreme Court, halting implementation of the ordinances.”
“The state legislature then passed HB7, essentially declaring any ordinance that violates the state’s ‘Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act’ as null and void,” Live Action News’ report continues. “Despite the AG’s lawsuit, the City of Eunice moved forward final passage of its ordinance the same day the AG filed suit. The City of Eunice then sued Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and AG Torrez, setting the stage for a showdown that could make its way to the United States Supreme Court.”
The New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn ordinances states: “Because we conclude the Ordinances, in their entirety, plainly conflict with 18 provisions of the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act … we hold the Ordinances are preempted by state law.”
“From our reading of the Ordinances, we distill the following,” the court continued: “the Ordinances contain nearly identical language and seek to restrict local access to abortion services by purportedly requiring compliance with the federal Comstock Act … The Comstock Act, in part, imposes felony liability for the mailing of ‘[e]very article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; . . . Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose.”
The New Mexico Supreme Court cited a recent Department of Justice slip opinion titled “Application of the Comstock Act to the Mailing of Prescription Drugs That Can Be Used for Abortions.” The opinion argued that the Comstock Act did not apply in situations in which “the sender lacks the intent that the recipient will use them unlawfully.”
Live Action News observed that the particular phrase “intends them to be used unlawfully” suggests the Comstock Act could apply in cases in which someone sends abortion-inducing drugs in the mail, intending them to be used “unlawfully.”
Dickson said in a statement regarding the court’s ruling that, in reference to the Comstock Act, the New Mexico Supreme Court doesn’t “realiz[e] what they have done.”
The New Mexico ordinances, he added, “remain on the books and it remains a federal crime for anyone to ship or receive abortion-related materials in these cities and counties, or anywhere else in New Mexico. I look forward to more cities and counties throughout New Mexico recognizing the Comstock Act in their jurisdiction.”
Attorney Mike Seibel, who also represented the City of Hobbs in the case, previously told Live Action News that due to “the liberal makeup of the New Mexico Supreme Court,” his clients were “anticipating an appeal to the United States Supreme Court on the Comstock law.”
