Does a bill in New Mexico force a rape victim to carry the baby to term as 'evidence'?

Answer: No

Question Difficulty: Easy

Mendacity Alert?: Yes

So, there is in fact a bill in New Mexico that is about this topic -- abortion after rape. But it didn't force women not to have an abortion in its original form, and it was amended within about 48 hours to clarify its purpose.

On January 24 the blogosphere and punditry went nuts, claiming that Cathrynn Brown of New Mexico had proposed outlawing abortion in the case -- specifically in the case -- of rape. 

Some of the headlines:

"New Mexico bill would criminalize abortions after rape as 'tampering with evidence'"

"GOP Bill: Abortion after rape is 'tampering with evidence'"

Here are a couple lead sentences: 

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial." -- Laura Bassett, Huffington Post

Should a recently introduced bill in New Mexico become law, rape victims will be required to carry their pregnancies to term during their sexual assault trials or face charges of “tampering with evidence.

” -- Aviva Sheen, ThinkProgress

We were shown part B by the reporters [sic], which read in full: 

B.  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 evidence of the crime.  [emphasis added]

Of course, in normal usage,  a rape victim who aborts a resulting baby didn't have the intent to destroy evidence: she was a making a difficult reproductive choice. I found few reporters even attempting to explain how a rape victim aborting an unwanted child could be accused of trying to destroy evidence. But a friend of very good will and intellect proposed the following. A crusading, evangelical Attorney General could say "You intended to abort. Abortion destroys babies. Babies are evidence of rape. Ergo, you intended to destroy evidence." And he then proceeds to lock her up.

So, that's is a fair concern. Extremists are extreme, right? But is there anything else in the law -- as drafted the first time -- which might prevent thus misreading? Yes.

Part A, which the reporters [sic] didn't show us, says that "tampering with evidence consists of destroying ... any physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person...."

Taken together, both parts of the original bill could not have reasonably applied to the victim of a rape, unless her uncoerced intent (duress is a positive defense) was to prevent the apprehension of a rapist.

Further evidence of intent wasn't long in coming. Cathrynn Brown revised her bill so that part B, standing alone, was not susceptible of misinterpretation.  It now reads: 

“A person who commits criminal sexual penetration or incest and who procures an abortion of a fetus resulting from the crime with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime is guilty of tampering with evidence"

Quite so.

Exit question: why even pass such a law? How often do rapists hang around for a few weeks and then drive a woman to the hospital to procure an abortion? 

Not very often, but it happens, primarily in the case of incest or statutory rape. In these cases, very young women are raped by a family member or friend of the family. Such cases often are ongoing affairs, and the victims are very often too scared to report the crime. And yes, the dirty uncle or friend will certainly procure an abortion in order to conceal the criminal relationship. These are the victims Cathrynn Brown -- admittedly a pro-life legislator, and perhaps a total nutjob -- sought to protect.

UPDATE:
Latest news stories from reporters [sic] who lied or were incompetent in the first instance are now saying that "under pressure," Cathrynn Brown is revising her bill. In none of the examples I find do they admit that Ms. Brown did this in less than 48 hours, or that her stated purpose was never to do what they say, or that they failed to accurately report on the bill's original meaning.