An Alabama House committee Wednesday approved legislation that could subject medical examiners to prison time if they harvest a deceased person’s organs without first notifying and obtaining consent from the deceased’s family.

HB 71, sponsored by Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, makes it a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine, for a medical examiner to take a person’s organs without contacting their next of kin.

The law currently requires medical examiners to notify family members when organs are harvested and requires consent in all cases save for identification of the deceased, but does not provide penalties.

“The law already prohibited taking someone’s organs without permission, this adds a penalty to that because, apparently, this is a problem,” England said during a House Judiciary Committee meeting.

More from Alabama Reflector

In 2024, eight families sued the Alabama Department of Corrections, alleging that the department harvested the organs of their loved ones, who died while in prison, and sent them to the University of Alabama Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine.

According to the lawsuit, a group of medical students from the school noticed that many of the specimens they worked with in the curriculum were taken from people who died while in Alabama’s prisons.

The university and the Alabama Department of Corrections sought to have the case dismissed in February claiming that the university is immune from civil litigation filed by the plaintiffs. The Montgomery Circuit court ruled against the motion to dismiss and allowed the case to move forward.

The House Judiciary Committee approved similar legislation that England sponsored in 2024.

The bill goes to the Alabama House of Representatives.

The Alabama House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill requiring every county to audit the results of at least one race in at least one precinct after every general election.

Rep. Joe Lovvorn, R-Auburn, said the intent is to identify any potential problems, such as malfunction of the ballot-counting machines.

The audits could not result in changing the outcome of an election.

Republican lawmakers have proposed similar bills before and they have passed the House but not the Senate.

Democrats questioned the need for the legislation.

“I believe this is a frivolous bill,” Rep. Mary Moore, D-Birmingham said.

Moore said the ballot counting machines are tested before elections.

“We don’t have any data to prove that anything irregular has happened,” Moore said.

Lovvorn said the audits would identify potential problems that need to be fixed before the next election.

Lovvorn noted that the audits would cost an estimated total of $35,000 per day statewide, according to the bill’s fiscal note.

The state would reimburse counties for their costs.

Rep. Patrick Sellers, D-Birmingham, questioned the $35,000 figure, noting that would be an average of just $522 for Alabama’s 67 counties.

He said the state’s large counties would have to spend more than that to do the audits.

Lovvorn said the cost would vary by county but said it would be justified to help ensure people’s confidence in elections.

“This is a minimal cost for peace of mind for all of us and all the people we represent, that we’re doing everything we can to prove that this is working correctly,“ Lovvorn said.

Under his bill, the probate judge of every county would order an audit after every county or statewide general election.

The county canvassing board would randomly select one race for the audit and one precinct.

County canvassing boards are made up of the probate judge, the circuit clerk, and the sheriff.

The probate judge would select a date and time for the audit, which could happen no earlier than 31 days after the election or the expiration of the time period to file an election contest, whichever is less.

The probate judge would appoint an inspector and poll workers to do the audit.

Every ballot from the selected race in the selected precinct would be counted after being delivered in the sealed ballot containers.

The ballots could be counted either manually or by a ballot counter. At least 30 ballots would be manually examined to compare with the reading on the ballot counter for each ballot.

The probate judge would report the findings of each post-election audit to the secretary of state, including any problems found, the cause, and recommendations for fixing them.

The reports would be posted on the secretary of state website.

The bill passed by a vote of 72-25. It was the first bill passed by the House during this year’s annual session, which started Tuesday.

A bill that would provide free prostate cancer screenings to at-risk individuals advanced through an Alabama Senate committee on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 19, sponsored by Senator Steve Livingston, R-Scottsboro, would require that insurance companies cover all costs of prostate cancer screenings for high-risk patients. The bill defines high-risk individuals as all men over 50, Black men and men under 40 who have a father, brother or son diagnosed with prostate cancer or a related cancer.

The bill represents a bipartisan push to reduce barriers to prostate cancer screening, with Representative Jeremy Gray, D-Opelika, carrying a House version of the legislation. Screenings covered by Livingston’s legislation include prostate-specific antigen blood tests and rectal examinations.

The 2025 version of Livingston’s legislation was passed by the Senate and approved by committees in both chambers during the 2025 legislative session.

SB19 was the sole bill on the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee’s agenda for its first hearing of the legislative session. The bill was advanced unanimously following a brief discussion from the committee.

“Mr. chairman, we certainly appreciate you calling this robust calendar today for this hearing,” Livingston said. “This is a prostate cancer bill that we handled last year that went downstairs to the House and got tied up at the end of the session.”

The bill clearing its committee prompted celebration from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, which has been a vocal supporter of Livingston and Gray’s legislation.

In a statement released following the vote, ACS CAN Alabama Government Relations Director Jane Adams expressed excitement that the bill will advance to the Senate floor, as well as her thanks to lawmakers who have supported the legislation.

“As we kick off the 2026 legislative session, we are excited to see lawmakers prioritize SB19, which will eliminate cost-sharing for lifesaving prostate cancer screenings for high-risk patients covered by state-regulated health insurance plans. If passed, this law would have a huge impact on prostate cancer early detection in Alabama,” Adams wrote.

“We know lawmakers have a lot of competing priorities in the legislative session, and we are grateful to them for seeing the benefit of increasing access to prostate cancer screenings for Alabamians,” she continued.

“Thank you to sponsors Sen. Steve Livingston and Rep. Jeremy Gray as well as House Speaker Rep. Nathaniel Ledbetter and Sen. Garlan Gudger for their support in guiding this through the Senate and House,” Adams added.

In its 2025 breakdown of cancer statistics by state, ACS found that prostate cancer was the most common variety of cancer contracted in Alabama, and projected that 5,440 new patients would be diagnosed with the disease throughout the year.

The organization reported that prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths for men in the U.S., after lung cancer, and Black men and men with a family history of the disease carry a stronger risk of contraction.

However, bill sponsors and supporters such as ACS have highlighted that most men diagnosed with the disease survive with treatment, emphasizing the importance of early detection.

Alongside ACS CAN, Livingston and Gray’s legislation has been endorsed by prostate cancer screening and treatment nonprofit ZERO Prostate Cancer.

SB19 will now progress to a vote in the full Alabama Senate.