PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 20, 2015
Everson Walls and Ron Springs Gift for Life Act of 2015
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Health Resources and Services Administration to establish a National Organ and Tissue Donor Registry Resource Center.
The Center must: (1) advance the development, expansion, and evaluation of state organ donor registries; (2) facilitate timely exchange of donor information between state registries; and (3) maintain a clearinghouse for information on registry best practices.
The Department of Health and Human Services must award grants to states in order to develop, expand, or maintain state organ donor registries and establish benchmarks for improvement in organ donation. A state registry that receives a grant must be accessible to individual donors and the Center.
A person taking an individual's organs is not civilly liable as long as the person verified the individual's consent with a state organ donor registry.
The Government Accountability Office must study the feasibility of establishing a database to track the health effects of living organ donation.
People & committees
Rep. Clay, Wm. Lacy [D-MO-1] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2472 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2472 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2472 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2472 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.