New Mexico State Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked Republicans from bringing two anti-choice bills to the floor for a vote, and Republicans attempted to circumvent the committee process, before the two bills were referred to senate committees with less than two weeks left in the legislative session.

Both bills were passed by house committees, where Democrats have been able to block similar legislation in previous sessions, before being passed by the full house on Friday.

HB 390, introduced by Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-Alamogordo), would further restrict abortions past the first trimester of pregnancy. The bill amends the existing the state’s “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban” to include a ban on abortions of a viable fetus, which the bill describes as a fetus of 20 or more weeks’ gestation.

The Supreme Court has held that states can ban abortion after viability, but they cannot set a ban based on a specific point in a pregnancy. Amanda Allen, state legislative counsel of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Rewire that this is part of an effort to push back the legal definition of when a fetus is considered viable.

The legislation is similar to a bill signed into law by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) in 2014.

“This bill is a national Republican Party wedge issue, and it has nothing to do with saving children from abortion,” Minority Whip Sheryl Williams Stapleton (D-Albuquerque) said during the house floor debate, the Journal reported.

HB 390 was passed by the house in a 42-26 vote, mostly along partisan lines, with all 37 Republicans and five Democrats voting in favor of the bill.

Anti-choice activists in the state had also supported the bill, after an Albuquerque campaign was unsuccessful in imposing a city-wide 20-week abortion ban. Residents voted down the measure by an overwhelming 55-45 margin after activists secured enough petition signatures to force the city council to place the issue on the ballot.

Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo) told Rewire that the high voter turnout and the results of the Albuquerque campaign spoke volumes about New Mexico residents’ views on the issue. “That’s a strong message that government should not be involved in these decisions,” said Stewart.

Stewart says lawmakers shouldn’t attempt to legislate such a complicated and personal medical decision for women and their families.

“I don’t think that any piece of legislation can account for the numerous exceptions that come up with individual women’s health needs,” Stuart said. “These are not easy decisions, these are heart wrenching decisions, and government should not be involved in these decisions.”

HB 391, introduced by House Majority Whip Alonzo Baldonado (R-Los Lunas), would require physicians to provide notice of a planned abortion procedure of a non-emancipated minor to one parent or guardian at least 48 hours prior to the procedure.

Supporters of the legislation claim that its purpose is to restore the right of parents to be involved in their children’s health-care decisions, while opponents claim that the legislation would not protect minors who have been subject to abuse or violence from their parents.

“This bill is going to send young women to places other than medical facilities and hospitals when they need these services … and that puts young women’s lives at risk, not just their health,” said Minority Leader Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe), reported the Journal.

There is a limited amount of research on the effect of so-called parental notification laws. Some research indicates that these laws have led to an increased number of minors traveling to states with less restrictive laws or to states that do not mandate parental involvement to access abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Amendments were accepted to address some of Democratic lawmakers concerns, but Democrats said that even with the amendments the legislation was not acceptable.

HB 391 was passed by the house by a 39-28 margin.

When both bills were introduced in the senate, Sen. William Sharer (R-Farmington) attempted to bring the legislation for a vote—without the bills going through the committee process. The move was blocked by Democrats. “This particular bill is life or death,” Sharer said, reported the Journal. “Is the committee system more sacred than life itself?”

Sharer and Senate Republicans then attempted to get the bills referred to committees more favorable to possible passage, but both attempts were rejected along party lines. The bills were referred to the public affairs and the judiciary committees.

Democrats said that the committee process was critical and should be maintained. “I really think we as a body need to stick to what makes this institution special … the fact we do work together, and follow the rules,” said Sen. Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe), reported the Journal.

Stewart said that she thought it said a lot about Republican priorities that they wanted these bills to come to the floor and not other bills in committees.

“What about getting funding for early childhood education? That’s stuck in committee. Why don’t they want that to come to the floor? What about the bill to rein in these predators that are payday lenders. That’s stuck in a committee. Why don’t they want that to come to the floor?” Stewart said.

“I can give you numerous other bills that would … impact working families’ lives that we’re not going to be able to pass because they went through the committee process, but this is the ones [Republicans] picked.”