Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may 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 02/04/05 HB

SHORT TITLE Define Human Life & Death

SB SJR 1CA

ANALYST Wilson

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

See Narrative

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney General’s Office (AGO)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Joint Resolution 1 proposes to amend the New Mexico Constitution to define human life

and death as follows:

Human life begins with conception and the onset of cell division and continues until the

natural division of cells stops, which constitutes death.

SJR 1 will amend the New Mexico constitution to give a fetus the same rights as a person who

cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The bill also grants a

fetus equal protection of the laws.

The amendment will be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next general

election or at any special election prior to that date that may be called.

Senate Joint Resolution 1 -- Page 2

Significant Issues

The AGO provided the following:

In the reproductive rights context, this bill conflicts with a woman’s fundamental right to

privacy under the federal constitution. In 1973, the United Supreme Court determined

that a woman’s rights to seek an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy was protected

under the right of privacy contained in the United States Constitution. In Roe v. Wade,

the Court specifically stated it was irrelevant, in determining the validity of Texas’ abor-

tion statute, that the state had adopted the theory that life began at conception. The Court

stated, “we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the

rights of a pregnant woman that are at stake.” The Rhode Island legislature adopted a

“conclusive presumption or finding of fact” that life begins at conception, which the state

asserted survived constitutional challenge under Roe. Neither the federal district nor ap-

pellate court found this legal presumption to be sufficient to overcome the protection af-

forded in the federal constitution. As the Fifth Circuit noted, while the state could

choose to assert or not assert its interest in fetal life, it could not “make its interest any

more constitutionally robust and bind the U.S. Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit court,

to accord it more constitutional significance.” Similarly, a provision in an Illinois statute

that recognized a human being from the time of conception was found to have no sub-

stantive effect by the federal district court when it reviewed and struck down that state’s

abortion statute. Unless and until the federal constitutional protection afforded every

woman in her first trimester is modified in the federal constitution or reinterpreted by the

U.S. Supreme Court, language such as this proposed constitutional amendment would

have no impact on that protection.

Additionally, this bill may create confusion with existing law concerning justifiable

homicide, the imposition of capital punishment and other “unnatural” death-related mat-

ters, perhaps even health-care directives. this proposed constitutional amendment also de-

fines when life ends as when “the natural division of cells stops, which constitutes death”,

its adoption might raise questions as to the continued validity of state laws addressing

other matters involving “unnatural” death, including justifiable homicide, the imposition

of capital punishment, and other existing law that may authorize or excuse a death that is

not the result of natural causes. To this extent, a decision that is otherwise authorized un-

der the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act to terminate life-sustaining treatment might

be subject to challenge, depending on how one interprets the meaning of natural death in

that

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The Secretary of State can handle the ballot requirements with existing resources.

In the event of a judicial challenge to this legislation, or any other statute, regulation or law

which may be impacted, the AGO will have to commit resources.

DW/lg