House committee advances bill allowing non‑emergency requests for 'unvaccinated' blood

The South Dakota House Health and Human Services Committee voted to send House Bill 1171 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation after a lengthy hearing in which proponents framed the measure as a patient‑choice bill and health‑care organizations warned it would strain the blood supply.

Representative Diego Garcia, the bill's prime sponsor (Representative Garcia, District 5), told the committee HB 1171 "is a bill giving choice to the people," saying patients in non‑emergency situations should be able to request donor blood that has not received mRNA vaccines. Garcia referenced what he described as a recent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) study and said the research showed messenger RNA could persist in blood and tissues for an extended period; Garcia stated that the study found mRNA lasting "15 to 23 months" and cited "706 days." He said labeling blood bags would be a transparency measure and argued the bill could be implemented by adding a question to existing donor history questionnaires.

Opponents, including hospital systems and blood‑collection organizations, urged the committee to reject the bill. "I respectfully ask that you decline to support this bill," said Dr. Alex Smith, medical director of LifeServe Blood Center, who argued there is no evidence that COVID‑19 or other mRNA vaccines can be transmitted through blood transfusion and warned that storage, labeling and segregation requirements would reduce supply and increase costs. Anjeanette Bardot, LifeServe's vice president of operations, told members that "blood products are pharmaceutical drugs and must adhere to federal labeling requirements," and said there is no validated test to determine whether a donor received an mRNA vaccine.

Legal and practical concerns were central to testimony. Attorney Justin Smith, a registered lobbyist for the Infectious Disease Prevention Network, warned the bill's wording could be open‑ended — requiring disclosure of any vaccine in a donor's lifetime — and could expose donors and medical providers to civil or criminal liability without clearly defined enforcement or remedies. Blood bankers and clinicians described cross‑state supply dynamics and low donor participation as barriers: witnesses said roughly 3–5 percent of the population donates blood and noted South Dakota routinely receives blood from other states to maintain supply during critical periods.

Members questioned both sides about evidence and implementation. Representative Emery asked what analysis shows the bill would not create shortages; sponsor Garcia pointed to materials provided to members and said some data suggested increased donations when patients have choice. Several members pressed about federal oversight and whether existing law (SDCL chapter 34‑24B‑1) — which permits directed donations from named donors — already allows patients to request specific donors; Garcia said the current statute addresses choosing a donor, not specifying vaccination status, and that HB 1171 would add that option.

The committee accepted a motion by Representative Manhart to give the bill a due‑pass recommendation; Representative Jordan seconded. Debate on the motion reflected sharp division: supporters described the bill as a medical‑freedom and informed‑consent measure, while opponents said it would be difficult to implement, invasive of donors' personal health information and likely to worsen statewide shortages. The roll call recorded 7 ayes, 5 nays and 1 excused; the committee ordered HB 1171 to move to the House floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

The committee did not adopt an implementation plan or identify statutory revisions to federal labeling requirements; witnesses repeatedly emphasized that federal rules govern blood‑product labeling and that no validated assay exists to certify a donor's mRNA vaccination status. The committee is scheduled to meet again at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, when the bill may appear on the floor calendar.

Votes at a glance

Motion: "Due pass" for HB 1171 Mover: Representative Manhart Second: Representative Jordan Roll call: 7 ayes, 5 nays, 1 excused Outcome: Committee gave HB 1171 a due‑pass recommendation to the House floor.

What to watch next

If the full House takes up HB 1171, floor debate is likely to reprise many of the scientific, practical and legal questions raised in committee: the extent of federal labeling preemption, the operational costs of separating and storing different inventory, whether donor vaccination status can be verified, and potential impacts on cross‑state blood transfers and hospital supply.