PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 13, 2000
Victims of Rape Health Protection Act - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to reduce by ten percent the funds available to a State under the drug control grant program unless such State demonstrates that in its laws or regulations with respect to a defendant against whom a rape charge is brought, such State requires that: (1) the defendant be tested for HIV if the nature of the crime would have placed the victim at risk of HIV and the victim requests such a test; (2) the defendant be so tested within 48 hours after the information or indictment is presented or 48 hours after the test request, and that the test results be made immediately available to the victim; and (3) the defendant undergo any appropriate follow-up tests and that those test results be made immediately available to the victim.Allows funds reduced for noncompliance with such requirements to be redistributed to complying States.
People & committees
Sen. Abraham, Spencer [R-MI] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10590, S10591)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3206 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3206 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3206 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3206 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.