WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 865

Relating to: the use of live animals in medical training and providing a penalty.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Dave Armstrong and 3 co-sponsors

AB 865 would regulate live-animal use in medical training and impose penalties for violations, aiming to shift institutions toward non-animal training methods.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 865

Summary of Wisconsin Assembly Bill 865 (AB 865) – 2025 Session

1) Purpose and Intent

  • AB 865 relates to the use of live animals in medical training and establishes penalties for certain practices.
  • The bill appears to address restricting or guiding how live animals may be used for medical training, with an emphasis on promoting alternatives to animal use.

2) Key Provisions and Changes

  • While the full statutory text is not provided here, the bill’s title and related materials indicate:
    • Regulation of live-animal use in medical training settings.
    • Introduction of penalties (likely fines, sanctions, or other disciplinary measures) for violations of the new standards or prohibitions.
    • Potential alignment with broader animal-welfare and medical-education standards by encouraging non-animal method alternatives (e.g., simulations, non-animal training tools).
  • The bill distinguishes between permissible uses and restricted practices, though exact prohibitions, exceptions, and enforcement mechanisms are not enumerated in the available materials.

3) Who or What Would Be Affected

  • Primary impact: medical training institutions and educators in Wisconsin that currently use live animals for medical training.
  • Other affected entities may include:
    • Hospitals, teaching hospitals, and clinical training sites in Wisconsin.
    • Medical students, residents, and other healthcare trainees who receive instruction incorporating live-animal experiences.
    • Veterinarians, researchers, and any personnel involved in scheduling, supervising, or performing live-animal training
    • Regulatory or licensing bodies responsible for enforcing training standards (implicitly through penalties).
  • Advocates and opponents of animal-welfare considerations (e.g., animal welfare groups, medical schools) have expressed positions in public materials, suggesting a potential policy milieu favorable to non-animal training alternatives.

4) Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduction and Sponsorship:
    • Introduced January 16, 2026 by Representatives Gustafson, Goeben, Dittrich, and Armstrong; cosponsored by Senator Cabral-Guevara.
    • Co-sponsors include Barbara Dittrich, Dave Armstrong, Gus Gustafson, and Joy Goeben.
  • Legislative Path:
    • Referred to the Assembly Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care on January 16, 2026.
    • The “Action History” shows an attempted pathway toward passage on March 23, 2026, via Senate Joint Resolution 1 (an unusual procedural note possibly indicating a Senate procedure or a failed motion for passage under a joint resolution, depending on Wisconsin’s legislative process for that session).
  • Status:
    • As of the latest available activity, the bill had not been enacted; the action history indicates a procedural hurdle or a failed passage event on March 23, 2026.
  • Lobbying and Stakeholder Input:
    • Animal welfare groups and advocacy organizations express support for non-animal alternatives.
    • The Medical College of Wisconsin opposed (as per the latest lobbying data).
    • No active lobbying activity reported for some periods, but several stakeholders have communicated positions.

5) Potential Impact and Policy Context

  • If enacted, AB 865 could:
    • Phase out or tightly regulate the use of live animals for certain medical training activities.
    • Create penalties for institutions or individuals that violate the new rules, thereby raising the cost of non-compliance and incentivizing a shift to alternative training modalities.
    • spur investment in and adoption of non-animal simulation technologies and other humane training methods.
  • The bill’s trajectory appears to face mixed support, with some medical-education stakeholders opposing the restrictions, citing educational value of animal-based training.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to align with a specific audience (e.g., policymakers, medical educators, animal-welfare advocates) or add a comparison with similar bills in other states.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.