The Referendum Project, as it’s called by the Republican party, is a disinformation campaign based on conspiracy theories and willful misinterpretation of several bills passed in the Senate and House in the spring legislative session. 

The claims of the website NMBadBills, the apparent headquarters of the Referendum Project, are sometimes so outlandish they are hard to refute; as if those believing these claims are so different from us fundamentally that it becomes difficult to even begin to address the wild accusations. 

We are all neighbors and while this serves as a primer and introduction to understand and refute the claims from the Referendum Project, it also serves to appeal to the logic and reason of those who are shocked and afraid of these claims, but want more information to decide for themselves. 

Two of the bills the Referendum Project has taken umbrage with are HB-7 and HB-4, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care and Voting Rights Protections Act, respectively. 

The Truth About HB-4 Voting Rights Protections

A talking point for the NMBadBills website analysis is that an opt-out system violates the rights of those who want to abstain from voting, people with developmental and mental disabilities, and undocumented immigrants. Per NMLegis.gov: HB-4 “amends the Absent Voter Act to provide for a permanent absentee voter list. A registered voter may request to be placed on a list maintained by the county clerk to receive a mailed ballot for every election without having to first submit an application for each upcoming election (as current law requires). Voters on this list would be mailed a reminder notice before being sent the ballot. 

If the notice or other piece of election mail is returned undeliverable then the voter would NOT be mailed a mailed ballot. A voter also may be removed if a voter fails to return a mailed ballot in two consecutive elections, a registration is canceled, or if a voter has moved outside of the county, or has requested to be removed from the list.” In other words, if a person does not want to vote, they do not have to and if they don’t respond they won’t be registered.

Most of the other talking points against HB-4 are slippery slope arguments that rely upon fear and emotion rather than logic and reason. 

For example, there is a fear that inmates in prison will be able to vote. This is patently untrue. Per the bill: HB-4 defines the term “correctional facility” to bar a voter from voting while incarcerated. It also allows offenders to vote upon being released. It DOES NOT allow incarcerated people to vote. Per the bill as found on the NM Legislation website: HB 4 “authorizes a person convicted of a felony to be able to register immediately before and vote upon release from incarceration. A voter convicted of a felony remains ineligible to vote while in a correctional facility.”

Another conspiratorial assertion is that mail-in voting is unsafe and the expansion of access for mail-in ballots will result in false results and stolen elections. According to USA Today’s Fact-Check report: “There are multiple security measures in place to ensure that no one can view that ballot or know any of the ballot counts, according to David Becker, director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research…The Postal Service can only see the outer envelope in which a ballot is sent, Steven Bellovin, a security expert at Columbia University [said].” Depending on the state, the envelope may or may not contain identifying information that is checked on receipt, but this information does not include who a person voted for.”

The Truth About HB-7 Reproductive & Gender-Affirming Health Care

As for HB-7 which prohibits discrimination based on reproductive or gender-affirming care, that includes STI testing, menopause relief, birth control, puberty blockers, and psychosocial support for transgender people, the Referendum Project has a wild list of accusations. 

To begin: HB-7 is more concerned with discrimination than children or even medical interventions, aside from that no physician is required to perform a non-necessary (life-threatening) procedure that would not increase the well-being of the patient.

Much of the basis for the slippery slope argument is that if definitions for children, public entities, and procedures are not defined, children will get sex changes and abortions funded by the state without parental consent. 

HB-7 defines public bodies as state and federal institutions as well as institutions that receive federal funding. While it is true that public bodies that discriminate against individuals for gender-affirming or reproductive care could be fined up to $5000, this is only in the instance of discrimination from the public body, not for hiding information from parents nor for refusing to perform surgery on children.

The New Mexico Human Services Department “notes the very high proportion of LGBTQ persons having dysphoric and suicidal thoughts – 54 percent within the past year, according to one study. HSD also mentions that, like many insurances sold in New Mexico, Medicaid covers gender-affirming care, including surgery. HSD goes on to say “Studies show that gender-affirming care decreases depression, self-harm, and anxiety. In a blinded study, participants were more likely to identify transgender women post facial feminization surgery as women, increasing their likelihood of “passing” as their gender. Passing as a woman could potentially increase their safety, as transgender people are over four times more likely to be victims of violent crime than cisgendered people.”

One of the key points in this conspiratorial crusade is that because a person is not explicitly defined as an adult, that children WILL be getting abortions and sex changes. It also asserts that because explicit definitions for the parameters of care were not established, children will be forced to get abortions and sex changes. 

This is, of course, government overreach and interference in a person’s medical care. The standard of treatment for gender-affirming care in minors is social and sometimes puberty blockers; puberty blocker medication does not affect a person’s ability to undergo puberty at a later age, fertility, or mental health. Puberty blockers are also used to treat endocrinological issues in children and if the bill specifies that only adults can receive this treatment, children with endocrinological issues and other illnesses that can benefit from this time of medical treatment would invariably suffer. The language is vague because legislating healthcare interventions is government overreach and harmful to patients, physicians, and governing bodies.

Another key point the Referendum Project relies upon is the idea that individual workers for a public body will be required to affirm reproductive and gender-affirming care and that HIPAA laws and release of information forms leave parents in the dark. Individuals acting within a public body are required not to discriminate; they are free to have their own beliefs, but they cannot be bigoted towards people who use or don’t use reproductive or gender-affirming care. 

Furthermore, HIPAA laws (short for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) do not prohibit parental consent. Parental consent for medical interventions still exists. Generally, a parent has access to their child’s medical records per 45 CFR 164.502(g) of HIPAA. 

There is a related assertion that children cannot give informed consent. This is untrue. In New Mexico, children 14 years and older can give informed consent for necessary and relevant medical interventions. However, parents have access to medical records and for most medically relevant interventions are notified. This information is informed by a presentation by Liz McGrath of Pegasus Legal Services for Children.

Ultimately, the Referendum Project does little good for the vast majority of people in New Mexico and instead provides a hateful platform for a vocal but small minority of people. The organizers for the Referendum Project are anti-transgender, anti-abortion, and anti-reproductive care. They have couched their assumptions and bigotry in legalese and circular logic without considering the effect on pregnant and transgender people. It also ignores those people who have other medical requirements for birth control, puberty blockers, and even abortions. 

While no one wants to think of their children as sexual beings or even as different from what they had hoped they would be, it would be a grievous overreach for the government to define health care between physicians and patients. It is morally wrong and irrational to campaign towards a future where discrimination towards people who are transgender and receive gender-affirming care and pregnant people and people who’ve had abortions is considered right and justified. 

Democrats everywhere must unite on the side of women and transgender people and that is no different here in Valencia County.

There are a few more House and Senate bills that the Referendum Project takes issue with. The Democratic Party of Valencia County will be publishing another article on those accusations and providing refutations in it so join our email list to keep up to date.