There is no science to support “chronic Lyme disease” diagnosis or treatments, so advocates have lobbied politicians in organized efforts to legitimize destructive practices.

This page includes resources to learn more, plus a listing of pending legislation.

Lawmakers may have good intentions, but they don’t possess the expertise to decide whether it’s beneficial, cost-efficient, or safe, to keep using strong medicines to treat a condition the medical establishment doubts is real. […] Patients whose lives have been upended by Lyme disease need more answers, but they should come out of a medical lab, not a legislature.

— Boston Globe Editorial Board (Lyme bill a prescription for trouble)

We sympathize with patients who suffer from the wide array of symptoms that have been attributed by some to be due to so-called “chronic” Lyme disease, but we are concerned that most of these patients have been improperly diagnosed and may be receiving a treatment, i.e., long-term antibiotic therapy, that will do them more harm than good.

— Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA Letter to Congress, 2009)

Exempting dangerous therapy from regulatory oversight, as LLMD-protection laws do, is a blunt, inflexible, and alarmingly irresponsible response to the demands of a fringe group of physicians and their patients. […] Enactment of LLMD-protection statutes by several states endangers the very patients those states aim to serve.

— Joseph B. Franklin, PhD, JD (Antibiotic Maximalism: Legislative Assaults on the Evidence-Based Treatment of Lyme Disease)

As long as advocacy groups can, by dint of their vocal and vote volume, retain the notice of elected officials, there will continue to be more attention paid to their information than the results of scientific studies and logic.

— Dr. Leonard H. Sigal, MD (JAMA, 1997)

Resources

2020 Legislative Sessions- In plain English

All bills of importance to this page and still pending should be listed here.  Please contact us if you have anything to add. Click the bill number for status.

(work in progress- updated 2020-01-25)

Arizona

SB1057, HB2254, and HB2071

Our recommendation: Vote No. These bills will endanger patients by shielding dangerous doctors from regulation. Victims may be left with no recourse.

Alyssa Goodale is an Arizona victim of chronic Lyme quackery.


Illinois

HB0225

Our recommendation: Vote Yes. 


Indiana

SB0422

Our recommendation: Vote No. 


Kentucky

SB61

Our recommendation: Vote No. 


Michigan

HCR0007

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB4603

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB4604

Our recommendation: Neutral

HB4605

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB4606

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB4607

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB4608

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB4609

Our recommendation: Neutral 

HB4659

Our recommendation: Vote No. 


Minnesota

SF20 and HF138

Our recommendation: No specific recommendation


New Hampshire

HB1287

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB490

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB200

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB461

Our recommendation: Vote no.


New Jersey

S214 and A897


New York

S01306

Our recommendation: Vote No, because the bill facilitates unnecessary testing. The American College of Rheumatology recommendsDon’t test for Lyme disease as a cause of musculoskeletal symptoms without an exposure history and appropriate exam findings.

S01295

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

A01345 – Establishes a special fund to examine and evaluate current research and progress in the development of a Lyme disease vaccine.

Our recommendation: No specific recommendation

S00426 and A00178

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

S01303– Establishes that the council on human blood and transfusion services shall review all current medical research and guidance regarding the donation of blood by patients with a history of Lyme or tick-borne illnesses.

Our recommendation: Vote No. We believe this bill is unnecessary because it duplicates existing public health efforts.

S01307

Our recommendation: No specific recommendation

S01345

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

S01297– Directs promulgation of rules and regulations concerning removal of ticks from pupils and notification to parents.

Our recommendation: undecided

A02469

Our recommendation: No specific recommendation

S01247 – Authorizes the commissioner of health to award grants for graduate medical education in Lyme and tick-borne disease and to designate organizations as centers for Lyme and tick-borne disease excellence.

Our recommendation: Vote No, because the bill is unnecessary. There are already well-established scientific organizations in Lyme and tick-borne disease. This bill seems designed to legitimize anti-science Lyme organizations and potentially funnel money to them.

S04571 and A06146 

Our recommendation: Vote No

Status: Vetoed by governor

A02968

Our recommendation: Vote No

A06280

Our recommendation: undecided

S04186 and A02767

Our recommendation: Vote No

S05873– Directs the commissioner of agriculture and markets to develop and conduct a public awareness campaign regarding Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.


Pennsylvania

HB96 and SB181

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

SB100

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB94 and SB182

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB629

Our recommendation: Vote No.

Status: Passed House and was sent to the Senate


Washington State

HB2332– Shields dangerous health professionals from regulation

See also:


Washington, DC

B23-0534– Requires an unnecessary notification about testing

Our recommendation: Vote No. 

Wisconsin

AB313 and SB300– Establishing a tick-borne disease study committee

Our recommendation: Vote No.