California 20252026 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

AB 725 — Source plasma donation.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill is in committee in the Assembly. Introduced February 18, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee vote, then a floor vote in the Assembly.

Prognosis

Advancing 36% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • In Committee

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 1 recorded vote so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law requires a person engaged in the production of human whole blood or human whole blood derivatives to be licensed by the state, and requires licensed blood banks and blood transfusion services to meet specified standards. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to establish and require compliance with additional requirements, as specified. This bill, the California Source Plasma Donation Centers Act, would authorize a person to operate a source plasma donation center for the purpose of collecting source plasma, as defined. The bill would, among other things, authorize a source plasma donation center to offer payment to a donor of money or other valuable consideration. The bill would require the operator of a source plasma donation center to obtain a license from the State Department of Public Health, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to regulate source plasma donation centers, including to inspect the property or records of the center and to suspend or revoke a license for violation of specified law or regulation. The bill would authorize the department to promulgate any regulations it deems necessary to implement the bill's provisions. The bill would make a violation of the bill's provisions a misdemeanor, and would authorize a district or city attorney to prosecute a violation of the bill's provisions. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require a local health officer, if they obtained records from a source plasma donation center of a plasma donor who had a reactive result to HIV antibody testing, upon completion of the officer's efforts to locate and notify the plasma donor, to expunge all of the individual's records. By imposing additional duties on local health officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law establishes the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Fund and requires specified fees collected from the licensing and regulation of blood banks and blood transfusion services to be deposited in the fund, available upon appropriation, for the purpose of regulating blood banks and blood transfusion services. This bill would additionally require fees collected from the licensing and regulation of source plasma donation centers to be deposited in the fund for the purpose of regulating source plasma donation centers, upon appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law requires specified establishments that receive specified human whole blood and derivatives to be considered blood bank depositories and require specified procedures on blood for transfusion to be the sole responsibility of the blood bank depository. This bill would exempt source plasma donation centers from these provisions. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

  4. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 1627.)

  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  6. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  8. Read second time and amended.

  9. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (April 29).

  10. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  11. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  12. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 4000
Democratic 12000
Total 16000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety healthcare labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 725 do?
Existing law requires a person engaged in the production of human whole blood or human whole blood derivatives to be licensed by the state, and requires licensed blood banks and blood transfusion services to meet specified standards. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to establish and require compliance with additional requirements, as specified. This bill, the California Source Plasma Donation Centers Act, would authorize a person to operate a source plasma donation center for the purpose of collecting source plasma, as defined. The bill would, among other things, authorize a source plasma donation center to offer payment to a donor of money or other valuable consideration. The bill would require the operator of a source plasma donation center to obtain a license from the State Department of Public Health, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to regulate source plasma donation centers, including to inspect the property or records of the center and to suspend or revoke a license for violation of specified law or regulation. The bill would authorize the department to promulgate any regulations it deems necessary to implement the bill's provisions. The bill would make a violation of the bill's provisions a misdemeanor, and would authorize a district or city attorney to prosecute a violation of the bill's provisions. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require a local health officer, if they obtained records from a source plasma donation center of a plasma donor who had a reactive result to HIV antibody testing, upon completion of the officer's efforts to locate and notify the plasma donor, to expunge all of the individual's records. By imposing additional duties on local health officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law establishes the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Fund and requires specified fees collected from the licensing and regulation of blood banks and blood transfusion services to be deposited in the fund, available upon appropriation, for the purpose of regulating blood banks and blood transfusion services. This bill would additionally require fees collected from the licensing and regulation of source plasma donation centers to be deposited in the fund for the purpose of regulating source plasma donation centers, upon appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law requires specified establishments that receive specified human whole blood and derivatives to be considered blood bank depositories and require specified procedures on blood for transfusion to be the sole responsibility of the blood bank depository. This bill would exempt source plasma donation centers from these provisions. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 725?
AB 725 is sponsored by Solache, Jr., José Luis (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 725?
This bill is in committee in the Assembly. Introduced February 18, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 725?
Track AB 725 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 725

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 725

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →