Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Organ Transplant Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves bill barring transplant denials solely for COVID-19 vaccine status after emotional testimony
Summary
The committee approved LC339780 (amendment to Gracie’s Law) to prohibit transplant centers from denying organ transplants solely on the basis of a person’s COVID-19 vaccination status. The measure passed 11–6 after testimony from a woman who said she was denied evaluation for a transplant because she declined the vaccine.
A committee voted to advance LC339780, an amendment to what sponsors described as Gracie’s Law, that would prohibit a covered entity from denying an organ transplant solely because a patient has not received a COVID-19 vaccination.
Representative Gullett, the bill’s presenter, told the committee the language targets only COVID-19 vaccination as a sole determining factor and is not a broad anti-vaccine measure. “Solely based is the key here,” she said, describing the intent to prevent a single criterion from overriding an otherwise acceptable transplant candidacy.
Committee members expressed divided views. One member warned that the politicization of COVID-19 vaccines and the memory of severe illness and deaths in the pandemic argued against enacting the protection. That member recounted personal losses from COVID-19 while urging caution about signaling that vaccination is unimportant.
Teresa Patel, testifying during public comment, said she was denied a kidney transplant evaluation in 2022 because she declined the COVID-19 vaccine. She told the committee that her evaluation was terminated despite recommendations from her primary care physician, a positive antibody test and a religious exemption letter. “My vaccination status was the only reason that I was denied,” Patel said.
After discussion and testimony, a member moved the bill and the committee held a show-of-hands vote: 11 in favor and 6 opposed. The chair announced the motion passed and the bill will advance from committee.
The bill’s supporters said it protects medical and religious freedom for transplant candidates; opponents said transplant allocation involves complex clinical judgments and warned against undermining standards that protect public health and organ availability.
