Blog Archives

AFTER NIH FUNDING BAN, UNM FACES QUESTIONS OVER DOCUMENTED USE OF ABORTED BABIES IN MEDICAL RESEARCH

2/23/2026

Federal funding shift intensifies scrutiny of UNM’s December 2025 tissue oversight policy and past congressional findings involving aborted baby tissue transfers.

By Bud Shaver,

Albuquerque, New Mexico --In January 2026, the National Institutes of Health publicly announced that it will no longer fund research involving fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions. The decision affects all NIH grants and contracts and marks a significant shift in federal research funding standards for publicly funded institutions nationwide. According to NIH data, dozens of such projects were funded as recently as fiscal year 2024.

Just weeks earlier, on December 9, 2025, the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center finalized its policy outlining oversight of human tissue in research — a policy released following an IPRA request filed by Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico.

That policy now publicly confirms what federal investigators previously had to compel through subpoenas: UNM operates under a formal institutional framework governing the acquisition, transfer, and use of tissue from aborted babies in medical research within a taxpayer-funded university.

With NIH ending federal funding for such research, Abortion Free New Mexico (AFNM) is demanding immediate public disclosure regarding UNM’s compliance — including whether any federally funded projects are affected and how the university is ensuring adherence to the updated federal standard.

“This is not speculation,” said Tara Shaver, spokesperson for Abortion Free New Mexico. “It is written institutional policy.”

UNM’s 2025 Policy Formalizes Governance of Aborted Baby Tissue

UNM’s “Oversight of Human Tissue in Research” policy outlines:

Acquisition of tissue from aborted babies through external entities
Required assurances of separate abortion and donation consent
Transfer agreements
Internal oversight through the Human Tissue Oversight Committee
Institutional Review Board review
Scientific review processes

The policy does not prohibit the use of tissue from aborted babies. It regulates how that tissue is acquired, stored, and used within university research programs.

“This is not theoretical,” Shaver said. “UNM has codified how tissue from aborted babies is brought into its laboratories and used in medical research.”

A History That Required Subpoenas

UNM’s relationship with a late-term abortion provider was examined by the U.S. House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives in 2016.

That investigation documented:

Repeated transfers of organs and tissue from aborted babies;
Procurement logs detailing gestational ages and specific organs;
Research programs involving dissection of fetal brains;
Formal criminal referrals to the New Mexico Attorney General and federal authorities.

Those records surfaced only after congressional subpoenas were issued — despite earlier representations suggesting certain procurement documentation did not exist.

“At the time, I was told procurement records did not exist,” Shaver said. “It took federal subpoenas for those documents to surface.”

Shaver previously stated publicly:

“I think they lack transparency, and it’s because they have things to hide. If you don’t have anything to hide, you’re going to put it all out there and show just how ethical you are.”

No state charges followed the congressional referral.

But the documented use of aborted babies in medical research — and the history of non-disclosure — remains part of the public record.

State Law Concerns Were Referred for Investigation

Concerns regarding potential violations of New Mexico law were initially raised by Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico and later examined during the U.S. House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives inquiry.

The panel did not limit its findings to federal oversight concerns. It referred potential violations of New Mexico law to the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General.

According to publicly reported documents, potential state law concerns referenced included the Jonathan Spradling Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act and the Maternal and Fetal Experimentation Act.

The congressional panel provided evidentiary materials to the New Mexico Attorney General’s office as part of its referral.

No state charges were ultimately filed.

NIH Ends Funding — UNM Compliance Must Be Clarified

In January 2026, NIH announced that it will no longer fund research involving tissue from aborted babies obtained through elective abortions.

For a publicly funded research university, that represents a major funding shift.

Yet UNM has not publicly clarified:

Whether any NIH-funded research involving tissue from aborted babies is ongoing;
Whether such projects have been modified or terminated;
Whether alternative funding streams are being used;
How compliance with the updated federal funding restriction is being verified.

“When federal standards change this dramatically, public institutions must respond transparently,” Shaver said. “Silence is not compliance.”

🔎 OFFICIAL POLICY CONFIRMS FRAMEWORK

UNM’s December 9, 2025 Standard Operating Procedure formalizes oversight of human fetal tissue acquisition and research — months before NIH ended federal funding for such research.

📌 TIMELINE OF FACTS

From subpoenas to federal funding bans — the record shows a pattern that now demands documented compliance.

Public Funding Requires Immediate Accountability

UNM is supported by:

State taxpayer appropriations
Federal research grants
Public institutional funding

The NIH’s January 2026 decision reflects a clear federal position: American tax dollars should not be used to fund research involving fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions.

That principle applies at every level of government.

New Mexico tax dollars should not subsidize research that relies on the bodies of aborted babies.

If federal funding has been halted for this category of research, the public deserves clear and documented confirmation that neither federal nor state taxpayer funds — directly or indirectly — are continuing to support it.

“When organs from aborted babies are transferred into UNM laboratories for medical experiments at a taxpayer-funded institution, transparency is not optional,” Shaver said. “Internal committees are not a substitute for public accountability.”

When funding standards shift this dramatically, public institutions must respond immediately and transparently.

Delay only deepens concern.

AFNM is calling on UNM leadership to:

Publicly confirm whether any NIH-funded research involving tissue from aborted babies is ongoing;
Clarify how its December 2025 protocol has been updated to reflect NIH’s 2026 funding shift;
Release aggregate, non-identifying information regarding current research involving tissue from aborted babies;
Provide assurance that no prohibited federal funds are being used.

UNM’s December 2025 policy formalizes the institutional framework governing the acquisition and use of tissue from aborted babies in medical research. With federal funding standards now changed, the responsibility to demonstrate compliance rests with the institution.

Transparency should not have to be extracted through federal investigation.

The burden is on UNM to prove compliance clearly, immediately, and publicly.

“The American people should not have to rely on congressional subpoenas to find out what their public universities are doing,” Shaver said. “If UNM is fully compliant with the NIH funding ban, it should say so clearly — and prove it. If it isn’t, the public deserves to know that immediately. Transparency delayed is transparency denied.”

0 Comments

THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION AND SELECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY

2/19/2026

1 Comment

Is New Mexico leadership ready for global scrutiny?

By Bud Shaver,

Albuquerque, New Mexico — As New Mexico proceeds with its investigation connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s former Zorro Ranch, Abortion Free New Mexico (AFNM) is raising serious concerns about institutional credibility, selective accountability, and structural conflicts of interest within the state’s long-standing political infrastructure.

For nearly a century, New Mexico has operated under sustained Democratic legislative control. During that time, the state has consistently ranked near the bottom nationally in education outcomes and has struggled with persistent crime challenges.

Now the public is being asked to trust that this same political infrastructure will conduct a fearless, independent, and transparent investigation into one of the most notorious criminal networks in modern history.

Jeffrey Epstein maintained property and operations at Zorro Ranch in New Mexico for years. Civil litigation and survivor testimony have alleged exploitation connected to that property. The national outrage surrounding Epstein was not only about criminal acts — it was about institutional failure: failure to investigate aggressively, failure to confront power, and failure to expose wrongdoing in real time.

AFNM is not alleging that state officials enabled Epstein.

But it is asking a serious question:

If transparency has been reduced in politically sensitive areas, why should unquestioned trust now be assumed in a high-profile investigation involving power and influence?

Abortion Policy, Reduced Oversight, and Moral Framing

In recent legislative sessions, pro-abortion leaders have expanded abortion policy while simultaneously diminishing oversight and narrowing public transparency safeguards.

Uniform statewide abortion reporting has been reduced.
Public statistical visibility has diminished.
Shield protections have expanded.
Oversight efforts have been reframed as hostility rather than accountability.

At the same time, moral and religious language has been publicly invoked in defense of abortion expansion policy.

During testimony on SB 30, Senator Cindy Nava (D) stated:

“As one of the only four women on this committee, as a Catholic and as an immigrant, I think it’s important to note that the majority of those speaking on this issue are men… I want to thank you, Senator Wirth, for bringing this legislation forward because our voices certainly aren’t interpreted by statements that gentlemen make.”

Click here or on the post below to watch Senator Cindy Nava (D) during SB 30 testimony. The video begins directly at her remarks.

Following that hearing, Senator Nava became a sponsor of the legislation.

AFNM emphasizes three elements that contribute to public skepticism:

The invocation of Catholic identity in support of abortion expansion policy — in clear contradiction to longstanding Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life.
The framing of male opposition as less legitimate in public debate.
The fact that SB 30 — reducing abortion reporting safeguards — was introduced and advanced by male legislative leadership.

Both the invocation of Catholic identity in contradiction to Church teaching and the selective disqualification of dissent based on gender undermine credibility.

Relying on male legislative leadership to introduce and advance abortion expansion legislation — while dismissing male opposition as illegitimate — exposes a contradiction that weakens institutional trust.

When abortion expansion, diminished oversight, and contradictory moral framing converge, skepticism is not partisan — it is the predictable result of inconsistent governance.

Catholic Doctrine and Public Accountability

The Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is longstanding and unequivocal. The Catechism affirms that human life must be respected and protected from conception and that direct abortion constitutes grave moral matter.

In 2017, the Catholic bishops of New Mexico — including Archbishop John C. Wester — publicly stated that it is not appropriate for Catholic elected officials to invoke their Catholic faith while advocating for abortion policy. The bishops clarified that support for abortion is “not morally permissible” and that presenting personal opinions contrary to Church teaching creates confusion and scandal among the faithful.

AFNM does not claim the authority to render canonical or ecclesiastical judgments; however, the doctrinal tension is publicly documented. When Catholic identity is invoked in legislative debate while advancing abortion expansion in direct conflict with longstanding Church teaching, the inconsistency is not merely political — it is theological.

Statement from Tara Shaver

“When pro-abortion leaders expand abortion policy, sponsor bills that shield accountability and reduce transparency, rebuke the faith community, lecture men for speaking on life issues — even as male leaders introduce and advance those same bills — and invoke their Catholic faith in support of abortion policy, it reveals both a structural conflict of interest and a profound conflict of integrity. When moral claims and legislative action diverge, skepticism is not extreme — it is warranted. And when moral reasoning is inconsistent, the public is justified in closely examining the integrity of the laws that result.”
— Tara Shaver, Spokesperson, Abortion Free New Mexico

A Credibility Test for Leadership — Beyond New Mexico

New Mexico’s long-standing political leadership has shaped the state’s governance structure for decades. During that time, the state has frequently ranked near the bottom nationally in key education indicators, including reading and math proficiency scores, and has consistently faced elevated violent crime rates compared to national averages.

These are documented, publicly reported statistics.

While many factors contribute to complex social outcomes, these measurable outcomes reflect institutional performance and oversight culture.

Now, that same political infrastructure is asking the public — and the nation — to trust that it will conduct a fearless, independent investigation into allegations connected to one of the most notorious criminal networks in modern history.

The implications extend far beyond New Mexico.

Epstein’s network drew national and international scrutiny. Allegations tied to Zorro Ranch are not confined to local politics. The need for accountability, prosecutorial rigor, and institutional independence carries national and global consequences.

When leadership has:

Diminished transparency safeguards in one policy arena,
Expanded politically protected sectors in another,
Struggled to improve measurable outcomes in education,
And faced persistently high crime rates,

skepticism does not arise from partisanship — it arises from performance history.

“When abortion expansion, diminished oversight, and contradictory moral framing converge, skepticism is not partisan — it is the predictable result of inconsistent governance,” Shaver stated.

“If this investigation is to restore confidence — not just in New Mexico, but nationally and internationally — leaders must demonstrate transparency that exceeds the minimum standard. When credibility is on the line, independence should be invited, not feared.”

Ultimately, the question is simple:

Will New Mexico demonstrate the level of independence required when power, influence, and global scrutiny converge — or will it repeat the institutional hesitations the Epstein case has already exposed?

Credibility will not be measured by statements.

It will be measured by evidence.

Final Conclusion

New Mexico’s leadership is now asking the public — and the world — to trust that it will conduct a fearless, independent investigation into allegations tied to one of the most notorious criminal networks in modern history.

But context matters.

In the most recent legislative session, transparency was not expanded — it was narrowed. Reporting safeguards were reduced. Oversight mechanisms were weakened. Public visibility was diminished.

When transparency contracts in one arena while leaders ask for unquestioned trust in another, skepticism is not partisan — it is rational.

Credibility cannot be declared — it must be proven. It is proven through independent investigators free from political conflicts, full subpoena authority with documented evidence, public hearings and sworn testimony, written prosecutorial findings, disclosed conflicts of interest, and a final report grounded in verifiable documentation — not narrative summaries.

Transparency must be proactive. Oversight must be visible. Accountability must be measurable. Anything less invites doubt.

And when the stakes extend beyond state borders — when national and international confidence are on the line — anything less is unacceptable.

1 Comment

THE 2026 LEGISLATIVE STACK: REDUCED EXPOSURE. REDUCED TRANSPARENCY. EXPANDED ABORTION ACCESS.

2/18/2026

0 Comments

Is This the Legacy the Governor Wants to Solidify?

By Bud Shaver,

Santa Fe, New Mexico --The 2026 legislative session is being promoted as a year of healthcare reform.

But when the full legislative stack is examined, one sector appears to benefit more than any other:

The abortion industry.

This session delivered:

Interstate licensure expansion (SB 1 and related compacts)
Malpractice liability refinements under HB 99
Elimination of uniform statewide abortion reporting under SB 30
Existing shield law protections left intact

Individually, these bills are framed as reform.

Collectively, they expand access, stabilize liability, preserve insulation, and remove transparency — within one specific sector.

No other healthcare industry received that combination.

HB 99: Liability Carefully Protected

House Judiciary, under Chair Rep. Christine Chandler (D), spent hours refining malpractice language in HB 99.

Eleven amendments were considered.
Definitions were debated line by line.
Exposure standards were meticulously examined.

Liability protections were treated as serious business.

They were refined.
They were structured.
They were protected.

SB 30: Transparency Eliminated After Being Fast-Tracked

In contrast, SB 30 — eliminating uniform statewide abortion reporting beginning in 2026 — was fast-tracked through the Senate and given only a single hearing in House Judiciary before advancing.

Testimony was limited.
Survivors were cut off mid-statement.
No serious transparency amendments were adopted.
The bill advanced swiftly.

While liability exposure was refined for hours, abortion transparency was removed in minutes.

That contrast defines the session.

Where Were the Amendments?

During HB 99, amendments flowed.

During SB 30, they did not.

AFNM asks:

Why were eleven amendments debated on liability but none seriously pursued to preserve abortion transparency?
Why did Republicans not attempt to amend SB 30 to retain reporting safeguards?
Why eliminate reporting instead of enforcing it?

“When liability protections were at stake, lawmakers refined and amended,” Shaver said. “When transparency protections were at stake, they were removed.”

The Data Question

According to the Guttmacher Institute’s 2023 provider survey estimate:

Approximately 21,000 abortions occurred in New Mexico
Roughly 71% of patients traveled from out of state

Abortion providers were capable of submitting that data to a private organization.

But SB 30 eliminates mandatory reporting to the State of New Mexico.

The issue is not burden.
The issue is who receives the data.

When reporting becomes voluntary, verification disappears.

Abortion Clinics and Regulatory Gaps

Hospitals are inspected.
Nursing homes are inspected.
Ambulatory surgical centers are inspected.

Abortion facilities in New Mexico do not operate under a distinct abortion-clinic licensing and inspection structure requiring routine state inspections comparable to hospitals.

With SB 30:

Uniform statewide abortion reporting disappears
Verification becomes harder
Public access to official data vanishes

“Healthcare transparency and inspection standards should be consistent,” said Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico. “If abortion is healthcare, then it should meet the same reporting and inspection expectations as other regulated medical sectors.”

Abortion Providers Stand to Gain the Most

Combine the full 2026 policy structure:

Expanded interstate workforce access
Maintained shield law protections
Refined malpractice exposure
Eliminated mandatory abortion reporting
No distinct abortion-clinic inspection framework

The result:

Access expands.
Liability stabilizes.
Transparency shrinks.
Inspection remains limited.

That structural convergence disproportionately benefits abortion providers.

Independent physicians may benefit from malpractice reform.

Abortion providers benefit from malpractice reform, shield protections, expanded entry pathways, and reduced oversight — simultaneously.

No other healthcare sector receives that convergence.

“When those shifts happen together in one sector,” Shaver said, “the public has every right to ask who really benefits.”

The Legacy Question

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has framed medical malpractice reform as a defining part of her legacy.

But reform is judged by outcomes.

“If this session’s healthcare reform becomes the Governor’s legacy,” said Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico, “then that legacy will include expanded access for abortion providers, refined liability protections for abortion providers, preserved shield protections for abortion providers — and the elimination of abortion reporting to the public.”

She continued:

“Is insulating the abortion industry while eliminating transparency what the Governor wants solidified as her legacy? Because that is what this legislative stack accomplishes.”

Why This Matters

This is not about partisan rhetoric.

It is about how oversight is structured.

When high-volume abortion services operate in a state that:

Expands interstate access
Limits out-of-state consequences
Refines liability exposure
Eliminates mandatory reporting
Lacks a distinct inspection framework

Oversight contracts while protection expands.

That is measurable.
That is policy.
That is legacy.

Questions That Demand Answers

Why eliminate mandatory abortion reporting instead of enforcing compliance?
Why refine liability exposure while reducing transparency?
Why does abortion operate without a distinct inspection structure?
Why did amendments flow on liability but not on transparency?
Is this combination of protections and reduced oversight intentional?

“Reduced exposure. Reduced transparency. Expanded abortion access,” Tara Shaver said. “If that is the structure being constructed, then the abortion industry is the clear beneficiary — and the public deserves honesty about it.”

0 Comments

<<Previous

NEWS

AFTER NIH FUNDING BAN, UNM FACES QUESTIONS OVER DOCUMENTED USE OF ABORTED BABIES IN MEDICAL RESEARCH

UNM’s 2025 Policy Formalizes Governance of Aborted Baby Tissue

A History That Required Subpoenas

State Law Concerns Were Referred for Investigation

NIH Ends Funding — UNM Compliance Must Be Clarified

🔎 OFFICIAL POLICY CONFIRMS FRAMEWORK

📌 TIMELINE OF FACTS

Public Funding Requires Immediate Accountability

THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION AND SELECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY

Abortion Policy, Reduced Oversight, and Moral Framing

Catholic Doctrine and Public Accountability

Statement from Tara Shaver

A Credibility Test for Leadership — Beyond New Mexico

Final Conclusion

THE 2026 LEGISLATIVE STACK: REDUCED EXPOSURE. REDUCED TRANSPARENCY. EXPANDED ABORTION ACCESS.

HB 99: Liability Carefully Protected

SB 30: Transparency Eliminated After Being Fast-Tracked

Where Were the Amendments?

The Data Question

Abortion Clinics and Regulatory Gaps

Abortion Providers Stand to Gain the Most

The Legacy Question

Why This Matters

Questions That Demand Answers

Bud & Tara Shaver

Sign up for updates

Archives

Click here for DECISIVE STRATEGIES to End Pre-born Child killing