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)


2019 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 2019-03-17)



Our recommendation: Vote No. This will lead to unnecessary testing.



Our recommendation: Vote Yes. 


Our recommendation: Vote No.



Our recommendation: Vote No. 



Our recommendation: Vote No. 


SF20 andHF138

Our recommendation: No specific recommendation

New Hampshire


Our recommendation: Vote No. 


Our recommendation: Vote No. 

New Jersey

S326 and A678– Mandates insurance companies to pay for chronic Lyme quackery.

Our recommendation: Vote No. This bill endangers patients by facilitating harmful and unnecessary treatments. It also wastefully drains money from insurance pools and feeds it to incompetent practitioners.

S1747– Fines health care professionals $10-100 if they do not report a case of Lyme disease within 24 hours of confirmed diagnosis.

Our recommendation: Vote No. While we are generally supportive of surveillance efforts, we believe that this mandate is overly burdensome and unnecessary.

S3022 and A4459– Adds tick control to duties of State and county mosquito control commissions.

Our recommendation: No specific recommendation

New York


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.


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.


Our recommendation: No specific recommendation


Our recommendation: Vote No. 

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

Our recommendation: undecided


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


Our recommendation: undecided

S04186 and A02767

Our recommendation: Vote No


HB96 andSB181

Our recommendation: Vote No. 


Our recommendation: Vote No. 

HB94 and SB182

Our recommendation: Vote No. 


Our recommendation: Vote No.



Our recommendation: Vote No. 


Our recommendation: Vote No.