Rep. Candy Massaroni, a Republican from Bardstown, filed House Bill 140, which would block health care providers from transfusing blood that has tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies and "synethic mRNA," as is found in COVID-19 vaccines. It would also require hospitals allow patients to(Legislative Research Commission)GOP Rep. Candy Massaroni and two Republican cosponsors are pushing a bill that would block health care facilities or providers from transfusing blood unless it tests negative for COVID-19 antibodies and “synthetic mRNA” — the main ingredient in both federally approved COVID-19 vaccines — once an approved test is developed to find “the presence of mRNA.”Massaroni, of Bardstown, said in a statement the legislation is driven by the “concerns and needs” of her constituents who want more transparency about the blood transfusions they’re receiving. She cited a constituent who, Massaroni said, is an expert in blood donations. Massaroni said she would keep the name of that constituent private.“By including provisions for direct blood donors, we are empowering families with more options and control over their care while promoting confidence in the blood supply for all who depend on it,” Massaroni said.The Food and Drug Administration, the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers and the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies have said that such legislation and fear of blood from COVID-19 vaccine recipients “is not supported by any medical or scientific evidence.”As much as 96.4% of blood donors have COVID-19 antibodies, according to a 2022 CDC report, meaning a significant supply of the blood hospitals receive could become ineligible for transfusions under the legislation.“If you want to limit the donor pool based on vaccination status, you're going to lose all of your blood, and you will kill a lot of patients that way, and put a significant strain on the blood supply,” said Dr. Claudia Cohn, professor and director of University of Minnesota’s Blood Bank Laboratory.Massaroni said she doesn’t intend for the bill “to restrict the blood supply but to provide patients with informed choices” and would be open to “refine the wording.” Testing for synthetic mRNA would only be mandated once approved testing becomes available, which it currently isn’t.Cohn said mRNA degrades extremely quickly in the body and has no effect on a cell’s nucleus or DNA. It affects muscle cells, triggering the body’s immune response, like it would if the person got COVID, without actually contracting the disease, so the body learns quickly how to fight off the virus. She explained that there is no reason the vaccine or presence of respiratory illness antibodies should affect a blood donation.Cohn said legislation like this “scares me considerably.”“Scientific evidence has not shown that mRNA vaccines pose a risk to the donor population or to the patients who have been transfused with blood from donors who have been vaccinated,” Cohn said.Several other states have attempted similar legislation unsuccessfully. A 2023 bill in Montana would have banned blood donations from people vaccinated against COVID, and a bill to give recipients a choice “to have a blood transfusion from an unvaccinated blood donor” failed in Connecticut. A Wyoming bill would have allowed patients to refuse blood from anyone who’s had a COVID vaccine, and Iowa legislation would have ensured patients have access to directed blood donations.The Kentucky bill combines many of these components.The legislation also requires hospitals allow people to receive “directed blood donations,” if that is what they want. But both the FDA and blood donation organizations have denounced the practice, saying it shouldn’t be utilized unless medically necessary. According to the FDA, “Studies suggest that directed donations may carry greater risk of transmitting infectious diseases than the general blood supply.” Officials say such donations can also lead to potentially life-threatening delays in treatment.Directed blood donations soared in popularity during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, amid concerns over a blood supply tainted with the serious bloodborne disease. Relatives or friends who the recipient was confident did not have HIV/AIDS would donate instead of relying on anonymous donors.But Cohn said the practice has dipped in popularity and should only be done if medically necessary. Aside from eligibility concerns that usually accompany first-time donors, it’s also more costly and time-consuming for health care providers.Cohn said emphasizing direct donations based on fears over vaccinations has no basis in scientific research.“I semi-regularly deal with patients who refuse to get a blood transfusion because donors are vaccinated for COVID,” said Cohn, who is also the chief medical officer of the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies. “It kills me that I have patients that I can help make better, but they're refusing therapy because they believe misinformation. It is hurting health care.”Some hospitals have taken the added step of not allowing direct donations if it's not for a medically indicated reason – for example, because of a fear of COVID vaccines. Massaroni’s legislation would block hospitals from doing so.“By including provisions for direct blood donors, we are empowering families with more options and control over their care while promoting confidence in the blood supply for all who depend on it,” Massaroni said.The bill would also require that health care providers inform patients of the "presence of mRNA in blood" once testing is developed and provide counseling on the "risks, benefits, and alternatives." That portion of the bill does not specify the "synthetic" mRNA found in the COVID vaccines; mRNA is naturally occurring in every cell of the body and is involved in protein synthesis. Cohn said pieces of the legislation might make sense — for example, it would block anyone who’s received blood-derived medications from donating or who are being treated with a specific group of medications called monoclonal antibodies or MABs. Cohn said those individuals are likely already ruled out in the blood donation process.National blood donation organizations, including the American Red Cross, said in a joint statement that all Americans “should feel confident that receiving a blood transfusion is safe.”“All blood donations offer the same life-saving therapeutic benefits, regardless of the vaccination status of the donor,” the statement said.Blood donations tend to drop off in the winter, so the Red Cross encouraged people to donate if they are eligible, regardless of their vaccination status.State government and politics reporting is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.