Senate committee hears bill to pause lung‑float autopsy test pending study

Delegate Leslie Lopez urged the Senate Finance Committee to approve HB 1143 as amended, asking lawmakers to impose a two‑year moratorium on the lung float test while the Department of Health, the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner study the test’s usefulness in assessing live birth. "When criminal liability hinges on the proof of a live birth, the evidence must demonstrate sustained life, not simply the presence of air in lungs," Lopez said.

Supporters including a letter from 25 forensic pathologists and academic experts told the committee that the lung float test lacks standardization, has documented false positives and false negatives, and should not be used as a determinative tool in cases that may lead to criminal charges. Lopez said jurisdictions ranging from Los Angeles County to Alabama have moved away from the test and argued that reliance on a single, questionable test risks wrongful prosecutions.

Senators pressed Lopez on whether the moratorium would affect prior convictions and on whether the test is ever used alone. Lopez acknowledged the moratorium would be prospective and said the bill preserves other validated forensic tools while removing the lung float observation from the set of practices used pending the study. Senator Ready noted that the Chief Medical Examiner’s letter said the test is not typically used in isolation and that, of roughly 1,200 reportable fetal‑death cases since 1990, only 15 were certified as homicide and none relied solely on the lung‑float observation.

Opponents, including Laura Bogley of Maryland Right to Life, warned the moratorium could “tie the hands” of medical examiners and leave investigators without affordable tools. Bogley cited a PubMed study purporting the test’s reliability and argued prohibiting the test before modern alternatives are mandated could impede identification of living infants. Committee members asked whether limiting admissibility in court rather than removing the test entirely could be a compromise; supporters countered that even a test that cannot be relied on scientifically can still trigger investigations and prosecutorial action that cause harm.

The bill sponsor and witnesses emphasized the measure is a moratorium and study, not a permanent ban, and said the legislature could act on the study’s recommendations. The committee did not vote on the measure during this hearing; members signaled follow‑up questions and a desire to weigh the Chief Medical Examiner’s concerns against the forensic community’s critical assessments.

Ending: The committee concluded the hearing after extended questioning; no immediate vote was taken and proponents asked for a favorable report to initiate the moratorium and study.