Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Feminspire | April 21, 2014

Scroll to top



New Bill Could Send Rape Survivors to Jail for “Tampering With Evidence”

New Bill Could Send Rape Survivors to Jail for “Tampering With Evidence”

Yes, you read that correctly.

This could be the reality for rape and incest survivors in New Mexico if the newly proposed House Bill 206 is passed.

Cathrynn Brown New MexicoOn Wednesday January 23rd, Republican Representative Cathrynn Brown introduced the bill, which proposes to charge rape victims who end their pregnancies with third-degree felonies for tampering with evidence, a sentence which can carry up to three years of jail time in New Mexico.

Can you imagine? Not only have you just been violated in one of the worst ways possible, but if you choose to end a pregnancy which has resulted from this violation, you could be sent to prison, not to mention the birth abnormalities the child could suffer if a relative committed the rape.

Here’s what the bill says:

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy the crime.”

Of course, Republicans in the state are just looking out for the well-being of women, right?

Representative Brown didn’t have much to say immediately after introducing the bill, but she did say this:

“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders. By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help protect women across our state.”

Gee, thanks Cathrynn. I don’t know what the women of New Mexico would do without you looking out for them. It’s not like a law like this could ever be used against women. Oh, wait…

No less than thirty-eight states have introduced fetal homicide laws with the intention of using them against third parties such as abusive spouses. In South Carolina only one case has been brought against a man under such a law, while over 300 have been brought against women as of July 2011.

In Alabama, over forty cases have been brought to court under the “chemical endangerment” law, which was intended to protect children living in homes being used to produce methamphetamine, but has been applied to prosecute women who were suspected of “unnatural miscarriages.”

In 2011, a pregnant woman in Indianapolis who tried to kill herself with rat poison was charged with murder and attempted foeticide after she was rushed to hospital where her life was saved, but her baby born a week later died after four days.

In Mississippi, Rennie Gibbs, a young woman of 15, was charged with “depraved heart-murder” after she lost her baby in a stillbirth in 2006 and was later discovered to have a cocaine habit. Clearly she was taking cocaine to get rid of a baby, right? Right?! It’s in no way possible that she had a pre-existing condition that should have qualified her for a drug treatment program rather than a mandatory life sentence for the murder of her child.

Pat Davis ProgressNow New Mexico, a non-profit fighting against the bill, had this to say:

“The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state.”

We live in a day and age where there is enough technology and enough forensics that we don’t need an unwanted child carried to term to use as evidence against a rapist. I can’t even begin to think about the psychological damage that such a situation would cause. Rape kits, as uncomfortable as they are, exist for reason. Women who don’t get pregnant still submit evidence against their attackers. What’s more, aborted or miscarried fetuses also carry DNA samples that can be used in court.

So please Representative Brown, tell me again how it is you are protecting women?

Representative Brown issued a follow-up statement on January 24th, saying that she plans on submitting a substitute draft of the bill to ensure that the rapist rather than the victim would be faced with jail time. However, considering the rather ambiguous language littered throughout the original version of the bill (compelling, coercing, and facilitating), I think Representative Brown is going to have to make some major revisions to ensure that this bill cant be misused against women.

“House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims,” said Rep. Brown. “Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.”


What do you think of the proposed HB 206? Is it possible to reword it to help protect women, or is it a lost (and dangerous) cause? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Written by Kelsey Bain

  • Rhiannon Payne

    this is so, so gross. >_<

  • Jackie Klein

    How do these insane bills always seem to surface right when I get into an argument with someone about whether or not rape culture is a real thing? It’s uncanny. And disgusting.

  • NiNjaPree

    and we thought India had a rape problem and the worst place for women to live…

  • Julia Kelley-Vail

    This is incredibly disturbing. Also, I am having a hard time seeing how a woman terminating the unwanted fetus results in the perpetrator being charged — all I see is the damage this can do.

  • Helen

    “Additionally, Representative Cathrynn Brown (HD-55, Eddy County) introduced HB 206, which provides that a person who commits incest or criminal sexual penetration and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of his crime, shall be charged with tampering with evidence. Tampering with evidence is a felony offense.”

    ?? please explain again how this can mean a rape victim can be charged with tampering with evidence unless they have also raped someone else?

    • Hilary

      I notice that you have added the words ‘his’ crime to your version… the bill doesnt stipulate ‘his’ crime at all. “Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an
      abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a
      fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with
      the intent to destroy the crime.” This statement means that whoever obtains the abortion of a fetus that is a result of rape can be prosecuted, not just the person who did the raping.

      • Read it again Hillary

        You are a poor lawyer. You are completely, absolutely, embarrassingly wrong. The woman is not the felon in this scenario. The woman CANNOT be the felon in this scenario. Read what you wrote a second time: “compelling or coercing ANOTHER to obtain an abortion”. The word another means “not the mother”.

        What you fail to grasp, in your ignorant rage, is that this law actually helps rape victims by placing another charge on the rapist if they force the victim to get an abortion. The most likely use for this law is in cases of incest, where a family member would force the victim to abort to hide his crime.

        This law was written by a woman. Read and Think. I know this is the internet and that’s generally not “done” here, but give it a try.

        • Ariela

          Except that you also ignored a portion of the bill, the part that says “Tampering with evidence shall include PROCURING or FACILITATING an abortion”, which does in fact, suggest the rape victim.

          There are plenty of women who do not support abortions, so the concept of a woman who would want to prevent abortions from happening isn’t entirely out of the realm of plausible thought. In addition, regardless of the intent behind the bill (which is basically to limit forced abortions in the case of incest) the wording is problematic enough that it leaves loopholes that can be exploited.

        • nolafeminizer

          Follow up: Rep. Brown did redraft the bill. As it is read now it will not charge women who terminate a pregnancy caused by rape, but will charge state abortion providers with “tampering with evidence”. So abortion after a rape would still be a felony in New Mexico, I don’t see how this is any better. It putting government in a place it does not belong, women’s bodies. And, it is entirely unnecessary. An unwanted child is not needed to obtain DNA evidence against a rapist.

      • Helen

        Hilary, thank you for replying. I didn’t add anything, I copied and pasted from this link:
        Do you have a link to the actualy bill or something I could read instead maybe?

  • Rai Chill

    …and my lovely darling boyfriend thinks rape culture doesn’t exist. how can it not when rape victims are constantly being blamed for what has happened to them? if this bill gets through america is a lot sicker than i thought.

  • Jessica

    Ugh, this woman is from my hometown in NM. Even though she’s reworded the bill to where the rapist who facilitates the abortion gets prosecuted and not the woman, this is still incredibly harmful to the reproductive rights of NM women. This manipulates women into choosing not to have an abortion (when they might otherwise get one) because it places importance on the unborn child as evidence. There are other ways to obtain evidence of rape and assist rape victims, and this bill only hinders it.

  • Pingback: antirattler blaffert biomicroscopy

  • Pingback: Jim

  • Pingback: car insurance florida

  • Pingback: Urban

  • Pingback: capital spread

  • Pingback: spread betting

  • Pingback: Corporate Videos Sydney

  • Pingback: locksmith houston

  • Pingback: Gateway Laptop Repair

  • Pingback: Pay Day Loans

  • Pingback: les soldes d hiver

  • Pingback: dui Orlando lawyers

  • Pingback: View

  • Pingback: chloe moretz

  • Pingback: orlando pest control jobs

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: destockage marques paris

  • Pingback: les marques de vêtements

  • Pingback:

  • Pingback: Forever Famlies

  • Pingback: Impact

  • Pingback: Jeep Rental Costa Rica

  • Pingback: michelin pilot exalto

  • Pingback: personal injury attorney austin

  • Pingback:

  • Pingback: pain shoulder blade

  • Pingback: a replacement

  • Pingback: childhood learning

  • Pingback: car donation new york

  • Pingback: small refrigerator

  • Pingback: Booker Bechard

  • Pingback: how to stop cough

  • Pingback: tesc 789