California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 922 — Reproductive health and research: oocyte procurement.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 864, Statutes of 2019.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 20, 2019. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes 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 prohibits human oocytes or embryos from being acquired, sold, offered for sale, received, or otherwise transferred for valuable consideration for medical research or development of medical therapies, and prohibits payment in excess of the amount of reimbursement of direct expenses to be made to any research subject to encourage an individual to produce human oocytes for the purposes of medical research. Before obtaining informed consent from a subject for assisted oocyte production (AOP) or any alternative method of ovarian retrieval on a subject for the purpose of procuring oocytes for research or the development of medical therapies, existing law requires a physician and surgeon to provide to the subject a standardized medically accurate written summary of health and consumer issues associated with AOP, as specified. Existing law also requires all oocyte extractions for research to be approved by an institutional review board, as defined. This bill, until January 1, 2024, would require individuals who provide human oocytes for research to be compensated for their time, discomfort, and inconvenience in the same manner as other research subjects, as prescribed and determined by a human subject research panel or institutional review board. The bill would establish the Research Participants Undergoing Oocyte Retrieval for Medical Research Purposes Bill of Rights and would require the bill of rights to contain specified information relating to the rights of a research participant providing human oocytes. The bill would require a physician and surgeon to obtain written and oral informed consent prior to providing a procedure for ovarian retrieval, including a signed acknowledgment of the bill of rights. The bill would require the institutional review board to disregard the amount of compensation paid to an individual providing human oocytes for fertility if certain requirements are met, including that the individual in fertility treatment does not want or need the oocytes for their own reproductive success. The bill would require an institutional review board to require any research program or project that comes under its review that involves AOP or any alternative method of oocyte retrieval to inform the research participant that ongoing studies are necessary to assess the long-term health impacts of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. The bill would require a research program that offers compensation to research participants providing human oocytes, on or before January 16, 2023, to provide aggregated deidentified information to the Legislative Analyst regarding the research participants, including, among other things, the number of candidates and participants in the program, and basic demographic information and clinical data about the candidates and participants. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst to compile the information received by the research programs and, on or before March 17, 2023, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature containing the aggregated deidentified information. The bill would change references in existing law that refer to an individual who provides human oocytes for research as a "subject" to "research participant."

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 864, Statutes of 2019.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 3486.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 28. Noes 4. Page 2857.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 12).

  11. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  12. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  13. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 0. Page 1720.)

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  16. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 9).

  17. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  18. From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

  19. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Burke · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Burke

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

AB 922 Burke Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 74 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 50002
Democratic 22000
Republican 2003
Total 74005
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Fong — Yea
Brough — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Salas — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Ting — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Low — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Wood — Yea
Medina — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Chu — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Weber — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Kiley — Not Voting
Melendez — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB922 Burke By Portantino

Passed 28 Yea · 4 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 21303
Democratic 6004
Republican 1101
Total 28408
% of votes cast 70%10%0%20%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Bates — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Moorlach — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Wilk — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Not Voting
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5100
Democratic 1001
Republican 0001
Total 6102
% of votes cast 67%11%0%22%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

AB 922 Burke Assembly Third Reading

Passed 68 Yea · 0 Nay · 12 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 24001
Unaffiliated 41007
Republican 3004
Total 680012
% of votes cast 85%0%0%15%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Salas — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Ting — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Levine — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Low — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Wood — Yea
Medina — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Chu — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Weber — Yea
Voepel — Not Voting
Brough — Not Voting
Kiley — Not Voting
Cooley — Not Voting
Melendez — Not Voting
Waldron — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8001
Democratic 5000
Republican 1000
Total 14001
% of votes cast 93%0%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Burke — Yea
Wood — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Waldron — Not Voting
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 922 do?
Existing law prohibits human oocytes or embryos from being acquired, sold, offered for sale, received, or otherwise transferred for valuable consideration for medical research or development of medical therapies, and prohibits payment in excess of the amount of reimbursement of direct expenses to be made to any research subject to encourage an individual to produce human oocytes for the purposes of medical research. Before obtaining informed consent from a subject for assisted oocyte production (AOP) or any alternative method of ovarian retrieval on a subject for the purpose of procuring oocytes for research or the development of medical therapies, existing law requires a physician and surgeon to provide to the subject a standardized medically accurate written summary of health and consumer issues associated with AOP, as specified. Existing law also requires all oocyte extractions for research to be approved by an institutional review board, as defined. This bill, until January 1, 2024, would require individuals who provide human oocytes for research to be compensated for their time, discomfort, and inconvenience in the same manner as other research subjects, as prescribed and determined by a human subject research panel or institutional review board. The bill would establish the Research Participants Undergoing Oocyte Retrieval for Medical Research Purposes Bill of Rights and would require the bill of rights to contain specified information relating to the rights of a research participant providing human oocytes. The bill would require a physician and surgeon to obtain written and oral informed consent prior to providing a procedure for ovarian retrieval, including a signed acknowledgment of the bill of rights. The bill would require the institutional review board to disregard the amount of compensation paid to an individual providing human oocytes for fertility if certain requirements are met, including that the individual in fertility treatment does not want or need the oocytes for their own reproductive success. The bill would require an institutional review board to require any research program or project that comes under its review that involves AOP or any alternative method of oocyte retrieval to inform the research participant that ongoing studies are necessary to assess the long-term health impacts of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. The bill would require a research program that offers compensation to research participants providing human oocytes, on or before January 16, 2023, to provide aggregated deidentified information to the Legislative Analyst regarding the research participants, including, among other things, the number of candidates and participants in the program, and basic demographic information and clinical data about the candidates and participants. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst to compile the information received by the research programs and, on or before March 17, 2023, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature containing the aggregated deidentified information. The bill would change references in existing law that refer to an individual who provides human oocytes for research as a "subject" to "research participant."
Who sponsors AB 922?
AB 922 is sponsored by Burke.
What is the current status of AB 922?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 20, 2019. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 922?
Track AB 922 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 922

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 922

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →