AUTHORITY EXISTED. ACTION DIDN’T. By Bud Shaver, Albuquerque, N.M. — The reopening of the Zorro Ranch investigation in 2026, alongside the creation of a state “Truth Commission,” is renewing scrutiny over longstanding questions about oversight, enforcement, and accountability in New Mexico. The renewed attention comes after the original state investigation into Zorro Ranch was closed in 2019 without charges, despite the broader national context surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and documented federal investigative activity. At the same time, separate concerns have been raised regarding abortion oversight and enforcement practices in New Mexico, including questions about how referrals, regulations, and existing authorities are applied. Together, these issues prompt a fundamental question: what determines when authority is used—and when it is not? “In multiple high-profile contexts, state officials possessed clear legal authority to act. The public record indicates that in key instances, that authority was not exercised.”  2019: An Exercise of Discretion In 2019, the State of New Mexico discontinued its investigation into alleged criminal activity associated with Zorro Ranch, a property in Santa Fe County linked to financier Jeffrey Epstein, who had previously been convicted in Florida in 2008 for offenses involving a minor and was later charged at the federal level with sex trafficking offenses involving minors. Despite that prior conviction, the public record raises questions about whether that history was fully reflected in how related activity in New Mexico was evaluated or prioritized. Questions have also been raised about how sex offender registration laws were applied across jurisdictions, including whether Epstein’s presence and activities in New Mexico triggered any registration or reporting obligations under state law. Public reporting and federal investigations had identified concerns related to activity connected to the property, including potential violations involving the exploitation of minors and related criminal conduct. In 2019, the State of New Mexico discontinued its investigation under then–Attorney General Hector Balderas. Public explanations indicated that federal prosecutors requested the state defer to an ongoing federal investigation. However, under principles of concurrent jurisdiction, such requests do not limit a state’s independent authority to investigate potential violations of state law. As Attorney General, Balderas retained full discretion to continue or expand the state’s investigation. The decision to discontinue the case was his. There is no indication in the public record that a court order required the state to stand down. The outcome reflects a discretionary decision not to proceed with a state-level investigation. This raises a broader question: was the decision not to pursue a state-level investigation influenced in any way by political considerations? “The issue isn’t just what is happening—it’s whether anyone is willing to examine it. Authority means nothing if it’s not used.” If authority existed, and action did not follow, the question is not only what happened—but why. Pre-2019 ContextIf the 2019 decision reflects an exercise of discretion, it also raises a related question: what occurred in the years leading up to that decision? The 2019 discontinuation did not occur in isolation. It followed a prolonged period in which no sustained state-level investigation is reflected in the public record, despite federal authorities identifying activity connected to New Mexico as early as 2006. Federal investigative activity during that period included witness interviews, documented allegations, and the identification of locations associated with potential criminal conduct, including the Zorro Ranch property. Yet the available public record does not reflect a comprehensive or sustained state-level investigation corresponding to that timeline. This absence is notable given that state authorities maintained jurisdiction over potential violations of New Mexico law throughout that period. If authority existed over more than a decade—and no sustained action is reflected in the record—the question extends beyond a single decision in 2019. It raises a broader issue: whether enforcement authority was exercised consistently at any point during that timeframe. As Tara Shaver has stated, “The issue isn’t authority—it’s whether it’s used.” Who Held the AuthorityIf the public record reflects limited sustained enforcement over more than a decade, the next question is straightforward: who had the authority to act during that time? Reporting by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez identifies a pattern of overlapping roles, relationships, and institutional authority among key officials during the period when no meaningful state investigation moved forward. Those individuals include:
Each of these positions carried direct authority to initiate, pursue, or coordinate enforcement actions under New Mexico law. These were the officials with the authority to act. The public record reflects that such authority was not exercised. While multiple officials held authority over time, the 2019 decision to discontinue the Zorro Ranch investigation ultimately rested with then–Attorney General Hector Balderas. Federal Referral and Investigative OriginIf questions exist regarding how state authority was exercised in the context of Zorro Ranch, a related question emerges: how were similar oversight responsibilities handled in other areas where concerns were formally raised—including in the area of abortion-related practices? To fully understand the scope of oversight questions in New Mexico, it is necessary to examine how related concerns were addressed at the federal level—and what followed. Between 2015 and 2016, the U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives conducted a congressional investigation into fetal tissue procurement practices across the United States. That investigation resulted in criminal and regulatory referrals to federal and state authorities for further review. Those referrals were not developed in isolation. They were informed, in part, by investigative documentation and public records research, including work conducted by Abortion Free New Mexico. According to national reporting, including coverage by the National Catholic Register, documentation obtained through these efforts contributed to congressional review of fetal tissue procurement practices involving New Mexico institutions, including the University of New Mexico. These materials became part of the evidentiary record reviewed at the federal level and contributed to the issuance of congressional referrals for further investigation and potential enforcement action. From Referral to Responsibility As with the earlier context, these referrals did not resolve the issues on their own—they required action at the state level. Where state jurisdiction applied, responsibility for review and enforcement rested with state authorities. Available records indicate that these referrals did not result in state enforcement action. "The central question is whether those concerns were fully examined at the state level, or whether existing policy positions—including New Mexico leadership’s support for abortion— influenced how those matters were evaluated," stated Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico. From Authority to Accountability: A Pattern Observed For Abortion Free New Mexico, these developments reflect more than isolated decisions—they point to a pattern observed over years of investigative work led by Tara Shaver. That work has included:
Through these efforts, Abortion Free New Mexico has documented recurring questions about how authority is exercised in practice, particularly in cases involving multiple institutions and overlapping jurisdictions. This body of work has contributed to broader scrutiny of New Mexico’s role in national abortion policy, research, and regulatory oversight, including activity connected to public institutions such as the University of New Mexico. “The issue is not just what is happening—it’s whether anyone is willing to examine it.”— Tara Shaver Now Apply That Same Question Elsewhere For Abortion Free New Mexico, the same oversight questions extend beyond past investigations and into current abortion policy and practice. New Mexico has become one of the most active abortion destinations in the country, with approximately 21,000 abortions in 2023, including a significant number of patients traveling from out of state. At the same time, state leadership has articulated policy priorities focused on safeguarding and expanding abortion access, particularly in response to restrictions enacted in other states. Abortion Free New Mexico has also raised concerns about oversight practices, including how reported complications are addressed and whether clinic oversight—including inspections—is consistently applied. In practical terms, these factors can limit formal oversight mechanisms and raise broader questions about how existing authority is exercised in practice. The organization’s investigative work has included examination of programs and research connected to the University of New Mexico, including questions related to compliance, documentation, and institutional oversight. “New Mexico leadership has made its priorities clear—safeguarding and expanding abortion access, particularly as other states restrict it. When reported abortion complications do not result in clear enforcement or consistent oversight, people will ask whether accountability is being applied consistently—or whether the system is effectively shielding the industry from scrutiny,” stated Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico. Then and Now: Authority and PrioritiesAs attention turns to past decisions, it is equally important to examine how authority is being exercised today. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has expressed support for the state’s current abortion framework while also reopening aspects of the Zorro Ranch investigation in 2026. That contrast raises broader questions about how enforcement priorities are determined—and whether they are applied consistently. New Mexico’s current policy direction maintains expanded abortion access with limited regulatory structure, raising questions about how those priorities intersect with oversight. “Public officials can hold policy views,” Shaver said. Same System. Same Outcome The issue is not whether the cases are identical, but whether the same pattern appears when oversight is expected—and whether authority is used when it exists. In one instance, state authority over alleged criminal activity at Zorro Ranch was clear for years, yet no sustained investigation advanced, and the case was ultimately discontinued in 2019. In another, concerns were elevated to the federal level and formally referred for review following the U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives investigation. That evidence included documentation connected to New Mexico institutions, developed in part through investigative work associated with Abortion Free New Mexico. Those referrals were intended to prompt further review. However, available records indicate no resulting state enforcement action, leaving it unclear to what extent those concerns were fully examined. Across both situations, the pattern is consistent:
Different issues. Same outcome: limited accountability.  A Broader Question About Independence and AccountabilityWhen oversight occurs within systems where leadership, institutions, and policy priorities are closely aligned, questions about independence naturally arise. In the case of Zorro Ranch, concerns centered on relationships and influence within overlapping circles of authority. Those dynamics were largely implicit. By contrast, in abortion policy, New Mexico’s leadership has openly articulated support for expanding access through legislation, funding, and integration within public institutions. These priorities are stated—not inferred. That distinction sharpens the question: If oversight appeared limited where influence was implicit, what should be expected where policy priorities are explicit? Why This Matters Now With aspects of the Zorro Ranch investigation being revisited in 2026, attention is shifting: What wasn’t done before—and why? And are similar patterns still occurring today? “Authority means nothing if it isn’t used. When leaders openly state their support for expanding abortion access—and when overlapping relationships and institutional ties exist within the same systems responsible for oversight—people will reasonably ask whether those factors influence what gets investigated, what doesn’t, and how decisions are made, including the decision to close the Zorro Ranch investigation.”— Tara Shaver, Abortion Free New Mexico About Abortion Free New Mexico Abortion Free New Mexico (AFNM) works to promote transparency and accountability regarding abortion policy and the abortion industry in New Mexico through investigative research, public records analysis, and public policy engagement.
AFNM’s work has been cited in state-level discussions, legislative engagement, and national reporting, including issues related to fetal tissue procurement and oversight practices. The organization continues to advocate for greater transparency, consistent enforcement of existing laws, and accountability across all institutions involved in abortion-related practices. More information and investigative reports are available at: AbortionFreeNM.com
0 Comments
Undercover video raises questions about abortion referrals for minors and transparency inside school-based health clinics. Key Findings• New Mexico operates roughly 78 school-based health clinics located in or near public schools statewide • The state currently has no parental consent requirement and no parental notification law for minors seeking abortions • Some school-based clinics operate through partnerships with outside medical providers, including university-affiliated programs By Bud Shaver, Albuquerque, N.M. --- New Mexico’s lack of parental notification requirements for abortion is drawing renewed scrutiny following the release of undercover videos suggesting school-based health clinics may be discussing abortion “options” with students during the school day. The investigation has drawn attention to the statewide network of health clinics operating inside public schools, including significant concentrations within Albuquerque Public Schools. The undercover footage, recorded at Highland High School in Albuquerque, raises additional questions about how school-based health clinics may be discussing pregnancy and abortion options, as well as transgender hormone therapy, with students during the school day. The footage, reported by Townhall Media at Highland High School in Albuquerque, describes what the outlet characterized as school systems enabling discussions about abortion and gender-related medical issues through in-house health clinics, where students may be called out of class for private consultations about pregnancy “options,” including abortion. 📄 Read the Townhall report: Undercover Videos Reveal New Mexico Schools Enable Trans, Abortion Activism With In-House Health Clinics. Why This MattersNew Mexico currently has no parental notification requirement and no parental consent law for minors seeking abortions, placing the state among the least restrictive abortion policy environments in the country. “Most parents assume they would be informed if their daughter were facing a serious medical decision,” said Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico. Shaver said the issue becomes even more concerning when medical clinics operated by outside providers function inside public schools, where students may receive counseling or referrals related to abortion or transgender-related services. The policy landscape has drawn additional attention following undercover videos involving school-based health clinics in Albuquerque. Lack of Parental Notification LawsAbortion Free New Mexico notes that New Mexico has some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the country. The state has: • No parental consent requirement • No parental notification law • Few regulatory safeguards governing abortion providers compared to many other states Many states require parental notification or consent before minors obtain abortions, but New Mexico currently has neither requirement. “When a state removes parental notification safeguards while also allowing medical clinics inside schools, parents are left completely in the dark,” Shaver said. Statewide Network of School-Based Health ClinicsSchool-based health clinics (SBHC) in New Mexico are typically operated through partnerships between public schools and outside medical providers, including community health organizations and university-affiliated medical programs. Some clinics operate through partnerships connected to the University of New Mexico health system, which participates in several school-based health initiatives in Albuquerque. Abortion Free New Mexico’s investigative map highlights:
 "When medical services involving minors move inside public schools- including potential referrals for abortion- parents deserve transparency." -- Tara Shaver Largest Concentration Located in AlbuquerqueAbortion Free New Mexico notes that Albuquerque Public Schools hosts the largest (26) concentration of school-based health clinics in the state. Several of these clinics operate through partnerships with outside medical providers and university-affiliated health programs.  “Most parents assume they would be informed if their daughter were facing a serious medical decision. In New Mexico, that basic safeguard doesn’t exist.” Under current New Mexico law, minors can obtain abortions without parental consent or notification. Calls for Federal Review of Taxpayer FundingAbortion Free New Mexico also says the issue raises broader questions about how federal taxpayer funds may be flowing into programs connected to abortion-related services in New Mexico. The state is among the most federally dependent in the country, receiving billions of dollars annually through programs such as Medicaid, federal education funding, and public health grants. AFNM says that reliance on federal funding makes it important to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not indirectly supporting programs connected to abortion referrals in school-based clinics. “Given New Mexico’s reliance on federal funding, federal agencies should review whether taxpayer dollars are supporting programs connected to abortion referrals in school-based clinics,” the organization said. The group said a federal review could help determine whether existing safeguards and funding restrictions are being properly followed. Background: Abortion Free New Mexico leaders have previously documented concerns involving taxpayer funding and abortion programs connected to the University of New Mexico health system. 📄 Background reports About Abortion Free New MexicoAbortion Free New Mexico works to promote transparency and accountability regarding abortion policy and the abortion industry in New Mexico through investigative research, public records analysis, and public policy engagement.
More information and investigative reports are available at: AbortionFreeNM.com UNDERCOVER VIDEO REPORT RAISES NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CROSS-STATE ABORTION NETWORK IN NEW MEXICO3/12/2026 
New Mexico Sentinel investigation appears to show New Mexico clinic advising Texas patients — including minors — on traveling to the state for abortions, raising new oversight questions. By Bud Shaver, Albuquerque, New Mexico — Abortion Free New Mexico is commending investigative reporting by the New Mexico Sentinel after the outlet published an undercover video report showing how a New Mexico abortion clinic allegedly assists Texas residents — including minors — in circumventing Texas abortion restrictions. The investigation raises new questions about cross-state abortion access, oversight, and the role New Mexico clinics play in serving patients from states with abortion bans.
The report documents conversations in which clinic staff appear to explain how Texas patients can travel to New Mexico to obtain abortions that would be illegal in their home state. New Mexico has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the country, allowing abortion at all stages of pregnancy and placing few statewide restrictions on the procedure. According to undercover footage published by the New Mexico Sentinel, a worker at Valley Abortion Group in Albuquerque described the clinic’s policy regarding late-term abortions: “We go up to 34 weeks… so technically there is almost no deadline.”  According to Tara Shaver, spokesperson for Abortion Free New Mexico, the Sentinel investigation reinforces years of investigative research by the organization documenting how New Mexico has increasingly become a regional hub for abortion providers expanding services to out-of-state patients. Shaver said the Sentinel’s reporting brings national attention to concerns AFNM has raised for years about cross-state abortion access and limited regulatory oversight in New Mexico. “We commend the Sentinel for bringing public attention to what our research has been documenting for years,” said Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico. “New Mexico’s lack of oversight has created a system where abortion businesses can openly market to patients from other states — including vulnerable minors — while operating with minimal regulatory scrutiny.” AFNM Research Previously Documented ExpansionIn a recent investigative report, Abortion Free New Mexico exposed the opening of a queer-led abortion facility in Albuquerque known as Valley Abortion Group. The center advertises abortions in all stages of pregnancy, including procedures late in pregnancy. The organization warned at the time that the facility represented part of a growing trend of abortion providers relocating or expanding operations into New Mexico following abortion bans in neighboring states. AFNM researchers also documented how some providers are positioning New Mexico as a destination for abortion patients traveling from states like Texas. The undercover footage published by the New Mexico Sentinel appears to confirm those concerns, documenting conversations in which clinic staff allegedly explain how patients from states like Texas can travel to New Mexico to obtain abortions that would be illegal in their home state. Evidence of a Growing “Abortion Tourism” PipelineAbortion Free New Mexico has repeatedly warned that the rapid expansion of abortion services tied to interstate travel raises serious oversight and public safety questions. A separate AFNM report highlighted what the group described as a growing “abortion tourism” infrastructure, including abortion funds, transportation networks, and clinic expansion designed to accommodate large numbers of out-of-state patients. National data has also shown a significant increase in abortions occurring in states where the procedure remains broadly legal after the Dobbs decision, with patients traveling from states that enacted restrictions. “The Sentinel investigation reinforces what we have been warning about,” Shaver said. The findings raise urgent questions about regulatory oversight, patient safety, and the role New Mexico now plays in the rapidly expanding interstate abortion network. Calls for Transparency and OversightAbortion Free New Mexico is calling for state officials and regulators to answer several urgent questions raised by the Sentinel’s report: • Are New Mexico clinics advising minors from other states on how to bypass parental involvement laws? • What regulatory oversight exists for clinics marketing services to out-of-state patients? • Are state agencies tracking complications or medical emergencies associated with this influx of patients? • What role do abortion funds and interstate networks play in transporting patients into New Mexico? AFNM says these questions deserve immediate investigation by state officials. “If abortion is being promoted as healthcare, then it should be held to the same transparency and accountability standards as every other medical industry,” said Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico. “When New Mexico is becoming a national destination for abortion providers and patients, the public has a right to know how this system is operating.”  About Abortion Free New Mexico Abortion Free New Mexico is dedicated to exposing the abortion industry in New Mexico through investigative research, public records, and policy analysis. The organization also operates a sidewalk outreach team in Albuquerque that regularly and compassionately reaches out to women outside abortion facilities, including the Valley Abortion Group late-term abortion facility, offering support, resources, and alternatives.
More information and reports are available at: AbortionFreeNM.com |
Bud & Tara ShaverWe are working toward an Abortion Free New Mexico where every pre-born child is valued and protected. Archives
March 2026
TAKE ACTION CLICK HERE
Click here for DECISIVE STRATEGIES to End Pre-born Child killing |
RSS Feed