Committee advances privacy bill to shield reproductive and gender‑affirming care data and limit geofencing
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
A House committee approved a substitute of HB 279 to expand protections for sensitive health‑care information, prohibit geofencing near in‑person reproductive and gender‑affirming clinics, and clarify emergency‑care obligations; the measure drew sharply divided testimony on privacy, parental access, and legal burden for providers.
The House committee on Feb. 17 approved a substitute on House Bill 279, a privacy and safety measure aimed at protecting patient and provider information for reproductive and gender‑affirming health care. The committee voted 6‑3 to advance the substitute.
Sponsor testimony said HB 279 extends existing law to add an extra layer of protection for sensitive health records, requires providers to secure records when they suspect requests would infringe protected rights, prohibits geofencing around clinics, and clarifies emergency‑care obligations consistent with federal EMTALA requirements. The sponsor introduced Ellie Rushworth, a reproductive‑rights attorney, as a technical expert.
Opponents raised concerns about scope and enforceability. Jody Hendricks (executive director, New Mexico Family Action Movement) told the committee the bill "goes beyond ordinary confidentiality" and said expanded standards risk imposing interpretive burdens on emergency physicians and could limit parental access to minors’ records. Alyssa Martinez (Executive Director, New Mexico Alliance for Life) argued the bill "prioritizes secrecy" and could shield abortion providers.
Supporters including Deborah Condit (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Diana Warren (staff attorney, ACLU of New Mexico), Haley Zock (staff attorney, Southwest Women's Law Center) and Micah Bizzini (policy manager, Bold Futures) said the bill is narrowly tailored to protect patients and providers from harassment, out‑of‑state subpoenas and digital surveillance. "Health care privacy is safety," said Haley Zock, urging passage to protect patients and providers from intimidation.
Committee members pressed experts on how the bill interacts with HIPAA, what constitutes a properly domesticated out‑of‑state subpoena or search warrant, the effect on emergency‑room decision‑making, and administrative costs for a confidential‑address registry. The sponsor estimated minimal administrative cost for a confidential address program, suggesting at most about 100 requesters.
Leader Sapanski moved a 'due pass' on the House Health & Human Services committee substitute; the clerk recorded six yes votes and three no votes. The committee advanced the substitute and directed staff and drafters to clarify statutory language and exceptions as the bill moves toward floor consideration.