SANTA FE — A Texas pro-life leader says advocates seeking to change New Mexico’s abortion policies should focus first on building public support, engaging students and advancing incremental policy proposals rather than expecting sweeping legislative changes.
During a recent Chile Wire interview, Texas Right to Life President Dr. John Seago reflected on Texas’ shift from abortion regulations to one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws, while offering his perspective on how pro-life advocates could approach the issue in New Mexico, where abortion remains broadly legal and subject to few statutory restrictions.
Seago said political realities differ significantly between Texas and New Mexico, making a gradual approach more practical.
“Political prudence means being realistic about your resources, your opportunities and the constraints of public opinion,” Seago said, adding that organizations should first identify the issues and misconceptions that most influence voters before pursuing legislative changes.
Among the priorities he suggested were expanding public discussion about parental involvement, increasing transparency around abortion reporting and investing in pro-life student organizations on college campuses.
Seago said Texas Right to Life launched a scholarship and leadership program for college students in 2008 to help establish pro-life groups at universities, arguing that campus organizations play an important role in shaping future civic leaders regardless of whether participants pursue careers in advocacy.
The interview also examined differences between Texas and New Mexico abortion policies.
Texas prohibits most abortions except under limited circumstances, while New Mexico law contains no gestational limits in state statute and repealed its pre-Roe abortion ban in 2021. During the discussion, interviewer Megan Hinojos characterized New Mexico as having “extremely permissive” abortion laws and questioned Seago about possible areas of bipartisan agreement.
Seago responded that legislative victories are not the only measure of success, arguing that policy debates themselves can influence public opinion.
He pointed to proposals involving fetal pain, disability discrimination and parental rights as examples of issues that can generate broader public discussion even when legislation does not advance.
The interview also addressed an undercover video that Hinojos said was recorded at a University of New Mexico Health clinic. The video showed a clinic employee describing abortion services available to a hypothetical 14-year-old from Texas without parental notification. Seago said the video reflected broader concerns about interstate abortion travel involving minors and argued that additional safeguards should be considered for young patients.
The discussion later turned to medication abortions, which Seago identified as one of the principal policy challenges facing states that prohibit most abortions. He cited estimates regarding abortion pill shipments into Texas and raised concerns about medical complications and enforcement across state lines, while acknowledging that policymakers have not identified a single solution to the issue.
Seago also discussed what he considers one of the strongest arguments made by abortion-rights supporters — that access to abortion affects women’s educational and career opportunities. He said policymakers should explore family-oriented policies that reduce barriers for pregnant women in higher education and the workforce while rejecting the idea that motherhood and professional advancement must be mutually exclusive.
Throughout the interview, Seago emphasized that changing public attitudes is as important as changing laws, arguing that long-term cultural engagement is necessary regardless of the political environment in a particular state.
