[DOWNLOAD] "New Mexico Right to Choose v. Johnson" by New Mexico Supreme Court ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: New Mexico Right to Choose v. Johnson
- Author : New Mexico Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 25, 1998
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 82 KB
Description
CERTIFICATION FROM THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS Steve Herrera, District Judge OPINION {1} This case concerns the authority of the Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department to restrict funding for medically necessary abortions under the State's Medicaid program. The Secretary appeals the district court's order permanently enjoining the Department from enforcing a rule that prohibits the use of state funds to pay for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women except when necessary to save the life of the mother, to end an ectopic pregnancy, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Under the district court's order, the Department must allow the use of state funds to pay for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women when they are medically necessary. Under the court's order, an abortion is ""medically necessary"" when a pregnancy aggravates a pre-existing condition, makes treatment of a condition impossible, interferes with or hampers a diagnosis, or has a profound negative impact upon the physical or mental health of an individual. {2} The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this Court because it presented a significant question of law under the New Mexico Constitution. Based on the independent grounds provided by the Equal Rights Amendment to Article II, Section 18 of our state constitution, we affirm the district court's order. New Mexico's Equal Rights Amendment requires a searching judicial inquiry to determine whether the Department's rule prohibiting state funding for certain medically necessary abortions denies Medicaid-eligible women equality of rights under law. We conclude from this inquiry that the Department's rule violates New Mexico's Equal Rights Amendment because it results in a program that does not apply the same standard of medical necessity to both men and women, and there is no compelling justification for treating men and women differently with respect to their medical needs in this instance. The district court did not exceed its authority in providing a remedy for this constitutional violation by enjoining the Department from enforcing its rule and requiring the Department to apply the standard of medical necessity in a nondiscriminatory manner in this case.