NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website. The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR:	Komadina		DATE TYPED:	1/27/03		HB
SHORT TITLE:		Define “Life” and “Death”, CA				SB	SJR 7
					ANALYST:		Chavez

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained		Estimated Additional Impact		Recurring or Non-Rec	Fund Affected
FY03	FY04	FY03	FY04
			$30.0 (FY 05)	Non-Recurring	General Fund
			See narrative	Non-Recurring	General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Conflicts with SJR 8

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Attorney General’s Office (AG)

Department of Health (DOH)

New Mexico Health Policy Commission (HPC)

LFC Files

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Joint Resolution 7 amends Article II, Section 18 of the Constitution of New Mexico to provide definitions of life and death. Life is defined as beginning with conception and the onset of cell division while death is defined as the cessation of the natural division of cells.

Significant Issues

The Attorney General (AG) suggests that to the extent this language may be applied in the context of abortions, the federal constitution has been interpreted to supercede any such language. Additionally, this resolution conflicts with a woman’s fundamental right of privacy guaranteed under the federal constitution. Although this right is not explicitly mentioned in the federal constitution some courts have found it in various amendments to the constitution.

The Department of Health (DOH) states Senate Joint Resolution 7 would require amendment or repeal of some existing New Mexico law. Further, DOH indicates it will have a significant impact on the availability of contraceptives such as emergency contraception and the termination of pregnancy. Moreover, DOH expressed concern that since the beginning of life is viewed differently by various cultures and religions passing this resolution may be seen as a conflict between church and state.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

No appropriation is contained in this bill. However, a $30.0 non-recurring impact to the general fund will likely occur in FY 05 (the next general election is in November 04) for advertising and printing costs incurred by the Secretary of State for this ballot measure. The impact to the general fund will occur in the preceding fiscal year if a special election is called prior to November 04. There will likely be an additional non-recurring fiscal impact to the general fund for the repeal or amendment of existing New Mexico law.

The AG may also experience fiscal implications in the event of a judicial challenge to this legislation.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

DOH indicates that the proposed resolution could significantly impact many different program areas. Additionally, because of the nature of the proposed resolution both DOH and the AG may be faced with legal issues and questions that potentially may impact staff time in the event of a judicial challenge to this legislation.

CONFLICT

Senate Joint Resolution 7 conflicts with Senate Joint Resolution 8, which proposes a different definition of the beginning of human life, to be at the point of fertilization and continue until natural death.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

On page 1, line 18 the use of the term “natural” with respect to the division of cells is ambiguous.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The following is in the context of abortions:

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court determined that a woman’s right to seek an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy was protected under the right to privacy contained in the United States Constitution. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. In that case, the Court specifically stated it was irrelevant, in determining the validity of Texas’ abortion statute, that the state had adopted the theory that life began at conception. The Court stated “[W] e do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.” Id. at 162.

Other state legislatures have attempted to define when life begins. However, federal courts have found this to be insufficient to overcome the protection afforded in the federal constitution.

Until the federal constitutional protection afforded every woman in her first trimester of pregnancy is modified in the federal constitution or reinterpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, language such as this proposed constitutional amendment will have no impact on that protection.

FC/ls