Senate committee advances bill to limit public-records disclosure of abortion-provider contact and scheduling details

Senate Majority Leader Wirth presented Senate Bill 57 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the panel voted to give the bill a do‑pass recommendation after extended testimony and public comment.

The bill would add a narrow exception to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) for records “containing personal identifying information or sensitive information related to the practice of a medical provider who performs medical services related to abortion,” according to the sponsor's remarks at the hearing.

The bill’s sponsor said he introduced the measure after hearing from obstetricians and gynecologists who provide abortion care at the University of New Mexico about repeated, voluminous IPRA requests. “When I heard her story and what she has to deal with on a regular basis with respect to IPRA, I was willing to do something that I'm always hesitant to do,” the sponsor told the committee before yielding to a physician witness.

Dr. Eve Espy, a board‑certified obstetrician‑gynecologist on faculty at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences, described the practical impact she and colleagues face. She said requests arrive in high volume, often from out‑of‑state PO boxes, and can seek decades of communications. “For example, just in the last week, I received a request for all emails to and from Eve Espy from September 2020 2024 to the present,” Dr. Espy testified, adding that the requests can include “names, personal information, clinical schedules, travel plans, calendar information, requests for mentoring.”

Witnesses and public commenters said the combination of volume and detail creates safety risks and harms recruitment and retention. Kat Sanchez of BoldFutures, a reproductive justice organization, told the committee that IPRA disclosures can be used to “track” providers and clinic logistics, and said her organization supports a do‑pass on the bill. Jennifer Getz, director of the New Mexico Commission on the Status of Women, said responding to IPRA consumes staff time that would otherwise be used for clinical work and urged support for the proposal.

Opponents, including Elisa Martinez of New Mexico Alliance for Life, said the measure is an overbroad attack on transparency. Martinez noted past records obtained through public‑records processes that led to criminal referrals and resignations, and argued IPRA already contains limits.

Committee members asked for clarification about the bill’s scope and the phrase “sensitive information,” a term not defined in IPRA. Dr. Espy and other witnesses described the kinds of material they wanted protected beyond patient medical records: resident and faculty shift schedules, travel plans, mentoring inquiries, and outreach from trainees in hostile jurisdictions. Senator Wirth and other senators discussed drafting language that would protect information tied to abortion practice without immunizing all records of a provider who performs many kinds of care.

Senator Stewart moved a do‑pass recommendation. The committee chair called for objections; Senators Paul and Thornton registered objections but all other members voted in favor. The clerk announced that the bill had a do‑pass recommendation as written.

Supporters said the bill is intended to protect providers, trainees and staff from harassment and threats. Opponents said transparency should not be curtailed without clearer statutory definitions and safeguards.

The bill will advance with the committee’s recommendation; further drafting and amendment on the definition of “sensitive information” were discussed as likely next steps.