WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: ABORTION LE IN FRANKFORT, LAWMAKERS ARE CONSIDERING TWO ANTI-ABORTION B LAST WEDNESDAY, THE SENATE PASSED SENATE BILL 321 WHICH WOULD BAN ABORTIONS AFTER 15 WEEKS OF PREGNANCY.

IT'S SIMILAR TO A MISSISSIPPI LAW CURRENTLY BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

SUPPORTERS SAY IF THE COURT UPHOLDS THE MISSISSIPPI BAN, TH KENTUCKY LAW COULD THEN GO INTO THE HOUSE HASN'T TAKEN ACTION O THE BILL YET.

THE HOUSE HAS ALREADY PASSED HOUSE BILL 3, A OMNIBUS BILL THAT DOES SEVERAL AMONG THEM, IT BANS THE MAILING OF ABORTION PILLS, AND IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR MINORS TO GE THAT BILL IS SLATED TO BE HEARD IN A SENATE COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY JOINING US IN OUR LEXINGTON TO TALKING ALL OF THIS is REPRESENTATIVE RACHEL ROBERTS, DEMOCRAT FROM NEWPORT.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY TATE, A REPUBLICAN FROM BRANDENBURG AND SPONSOR OF THE OMNIBUS ANTI-ABORTION BILL, HOUSE BILL 3.

JACKIE MCGRANAHAN, POLICY STRATEGIST FOR THE ACLU OF KENT ADDIA WUCHNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF KENTUCKY RIGHT TO L AND TAMARRA WIEDER, KENTUCKY STATE DIRECTOR, PLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE ADVOCATES.

AND JOINING YOU BY SKYPE, KATIE GLENN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COUNCIL FOR AMERICANS UNITED FO WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SO SEND AS A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON TWITTER AT KNTONIGHT KET.

SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/ MAKE SURE TO CHECK THE BOX THAT SAYS YOU'RE NOT A ROBOT.

OR YOU MAY GIVE US A CALL AT 1-800-494-7605 WELCOME TO ALL OUR GUESTS.

WE'VE GOT A PACKED STUDIO INNER IN LEXINGTON AND WE'RE GLAD THAT MS. KATE GLENN CAN JOIN US IN FLORIDA, I BELIEVE, BY SKYPE.

LETS GET RIGHT DOWN TO IT.

REPRESENTATIVE TATE ATTENDING DEPOSITIONS YOU KNOW HOW THIS STARTS.

THE SPONSOR WITH THE BILL GETS THE GRILLING.

YOU WERE HERE BACK IN NOVEMBER WHEN YOU WERE FORMING HOUSE BILL 3 AT THAT TIME, SO TELL US, JUST GIVE US A READER'S DIGEST VERSION OF WHAT HOUSE BILL 3 DOES.

>> YEAH, SO THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THIS BILL, I CERTAINLY FRESH THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU, RENEE, ABOUT THIS AND TO KENTUCKY, "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

SO THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS OF THIS, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THEM FROM A VERY HIGH LEV PERSPECTIVE, BUT THE ABORTIONS ARE ON MINORS, AS YOU MENTIONED, ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT THERE'S A THING CALLED JUDICIAL BYPASS, AND SO IS THAT -- SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS THAT LEGISLATION WAS ACTUALLY REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 1990, AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND SO WE ARE TAKING THAT UP.

IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THAT WAS THERE, AND SO WE KNOW THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO PROTECT OUR MINORS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OUR VITAL STATISTICS TELL US IS THAT AN ON AN UNIT BASIS WE HAVE AS MANY AS 13 OR 14 CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 14 THAT ARE ACTUALLY SEEKING ABORTIONS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.

AND AND SO AT THE TIME WHERE WE DON'T EVEN WANT OUR CHILDREN TO TAKE AN ASPIRIN AT SCHOOL WITHOUT OUR CONSENT, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PARENTS TO BE INVOLVED IN SUCH A LIFE-IMPACTING DECISION AS AN ABORTION.

SO THE JUDICIAL BYPASS ACTUALLY TOOK THAT UP AND SAID THAT THEY AGREE, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THEY AGREE, AND SO WE'RE PUTTING THAT IN LEGISLATION.

>> WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TENTH TO GIVE PEOPLE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERMS.

>> YES, MA'AM.

THE NEXT PIECE IS THE CHEMICAL ABORTION PIECE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE LARGEST PIECES, AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REALLY REALLY ACTING TIE DECISION THAT THE FDA MADE IN DECEMBER OF 2021.

RACKETING TO A DIGS ACCEPT P PRIOR THAT TO THAT THEY HAD RULES THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR TEN YEARS SO THEY MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE OF COVID, AND THEN THEY WENT AHEAD AND MADE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS PERMANENTLY IN DECEMBER OF 2021, AND WE ARE RACQUETING TO THAT.

THE OTHER -- RACKETING TO THAT.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE LARGEST PIECES.

>> AND THE BIG THING IS ABOUT THE COMPLAINT PORT, IF I CAN HAVE YOU TALK ABOUT THAT.

FOR ABORTION PROVIDERS.

SO I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW THE PLAINT PORTAL WORKS.

>> SURE.

SO THE COMPLAINT PORTAL 1 SO BASICALLY WHAT IT DOES IS IT GIVES WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD THE ABORTION, IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS, IF THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF COMPLICATIONS AFTER THEIR ABORTION, THEN BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHEMICAL ABORTIONS, AND FOR MOST PEOPLE THAT'S VERY UNUSUAL LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, EVEN THOUGH IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY WE KNOW THAT 54% OF THE ABORTIONS THAT ARE BEING CONDUCTED RIGHT NOW ARE BEING CONDUCTED WITH A CHEMICAL ABORTIONS.

BUT THAT PORTAL GIVES WOMEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE COMPLAINTS AND FOR THOSE TO BE INVESTIGATED.

>> AND IT ALSO ENDIN SHRINES THAT THERE ARE NO TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS IN KENTUCKY.

>> THAT'S IF AMENDMENT PIECE.

THIS IMPORTANT.

>> AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THEIST BIG PIECE ABOUT PREGNANCY LOSS, AND ARE THERE LANGUAGE ABOUT TERM NATION OR DISPOSITION OF REMAINS.

>> A DIGNIFIED DISPOSAL OF FETAL REMAINS, ABSOLUTELY.

THAT ONCE ONCE AGAIN THAT WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS CODIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2019 BECAUSE OF SOME LANGUAGE THAT WAS FILED IN INDIANA IN 2016.

SO THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE WANT ADOPTING IS EXACTLY WHAT IS THERE.

>> SO WE'RE GROWING TO SPEND SOME TIME TAKING THOSE PIECE BY PIECE, AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET TO SENATOR MAX WISE'S BILL ABOUT THE 15-WEEK BAN ON ABORTION.

I WANT TO GO TO YOU, RACH ROBERT, ABOUT YOUR OVERALL, AND TALK ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR PIECE AND TENET AS YOU SEE FIT, BUT WHY ARE OVERALL OBJECTION TO THIS MEASURE, HOUSE BILL 3.

>> SO I FEEL REALLY STRONGLY THIS THIS IS AN EXTREMIST BILL.

WHEN WE POLL KENTUCKIANS BROADLY AND WE ASK THEM IF THEY WANT A BAN ON ABORTION COMPLETELY, THEY OVERWHELMINGLY SAY NO.

WE ALREADY HAVE SO MANY RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE, KENTUCKY IS UNONE OF THE HARDEST PLACES IN THE COUNTRY FOR WOMEN TO SEEK FULL REPRODUCTIVE ACCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE CARE.

I SPOKE WITH REPRESENT TAYLOR ON THE HOUSE FLOOR ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE IF THIS BILL FASTS FOR A WOMAN TO OBTAIN A MEDICAL ABORTION, AND THE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE WAS ONE ON IF A WOP WAS RAPED OR THE VP OF INCEST, AND IF SHE WAS A MINOR, AND IN THAT CASE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS BILL IS THAT THAT MINOR WOULD HAVE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL BY THEIR PARENTS, SO LET'S SAY THAT THIS WAS A PARENTAL INCEST, AND THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE OR FOR ANY OTHER MYRIAD OF REASONS THIS YOUNG WOMAN COULDN'T OBTAIN THAT.

THEN SHEAFED TO GET JUDICIAL BYPASS.

ASSUMING SHE WAS ABLE TO GET THAT, WHICH IS NOT A SMALL FEAT WOULD BE FIRST DAY SHE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO LOUVRE BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE SHE CAN OBTAIN THESE SERVICES KENTUCKY.

SHE WOULD HAVE AN INTRASTRATEGY NATURAL ULTRASOUND AND BE VIOLATED AGAIN IN THAT WAY.

ON THE SECOND DAY SHE WOULD GO BACK TO THE PROVIDER FOR THE FIRST TIE OF MEDICINAL BECAUSE THE BILL WOULD NOT LONGER ALLOW THIS TO BE MAILED TO HER.

WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THE SECOND DAY AND POTENTIALLY EVEN A SECOND ULTRASOUND.

THEN AFTERWARDS SHE WOULD HAVE TO CAPTURE WHATEVER DISCHARGE WAS SO THAT THOSE REMAINS COULD BE RETURNED TO THE PHYSICIAN TO BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF.

SHE'D HAVE TO FIND THE FINANCE MEANS TO PAY FOR THIS AND THE DISPOSAL OF THE REMAINS.

SHE'D HAVE TO OBTAIN A DEATH CERTIFICATE AND THEN PERHAPS HAVE HER NAME LISTED ON A STATEWIDE REGISTRY.

THIS IS AN EXTREMIST BILL.

THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS I'M AGAINST IT.

BUT THAT HYPOTHETICAL OF THIS WOMAN BECAUSE I AM A RAPE SURVIVOR MYSELF, THIS IS A COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL TO ME.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THE FRAME OF MIND THAT I YOUNG WOMAN MIGHT BE GOING THROUGH THAT ARE THAT.

>> IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS, ADDIA WUCHNER, TO MAKE IT HEARD ARE FOR WOMEN TO OBTAIN ABORTIONS?

AND WE WILL HERE FROM JACKIE AND TAMAR A A THAT ABORTION IS HEALTH CARE.

THAT WAS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF HOUSE BILLFULLY?

>> HOUSE HOUSE 3.

>> IT'S REALLY BEST PRACTICES IN WOMEN'S HEALTH SAFETY AND QUAY LEAVE THAT OUT.

BY EAT GET CAUGHT IN THIS MISSOURI ABORTION AND PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT, BUT ABORTION IS STILL A MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

THIS SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY HAS -- OR THE UNITED STATES HAS UPHELD THAT THE STATES DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN RESTRICTING OR PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR ABORTION, AND IT'S REALLY WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS DOING.

SO PROVIDING THESE GUIDELINES ON WHO MAY PERFORM, WHERE THEY MAY PERFORM, WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS HOW THESE MEDICATIONS MAY BE DISPENSED AND USED, AND WHEN WE LOOK A CHEMICAL ABORTIONS RIGHT NOW, THEY REPRESENT OVER 50%, THEY'RE REACHING UP ALMOST TO 60% ABORTIONS.

THE RISKY BUSINESS HAVING THESE MEDICATIONS MAILED TIE HOME, TO A DEEPER ROOM WITHOUT MEDICAL OVERSIGHT, WITHOUT A YOUNG WOMAN ORAR AN OLDER WOMAN, ANYONE BEING SEEN BY A PHYSICIAN FIRST, GETTING I.

A BACKGROUND MEDICAL INFORMATION AND HISTORY, KNOWING WHAT OTHER RISK FACTORS SHE MAY HAVE, JUST IS A RISKY BUSINESS ALL THE WAY AROUND.

AND AS I FORMER ELSE WITH HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AND A NURSE, THIS REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT WE WANT WOMEN'S SAFETY AND BEST PRACTICES.

>> TAMARRAWIDE ARE, I'LL ASK YOU TO CHIME IN HERE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU AND JACQUI McGANN HAN HAVE TESTIFIED ON THIS BILL WHEN IT WAS IN THE HOUSE AND MENTIONED THAT IT WON'T STOP ABORTIONS BUT IT WILL STOP THE SAFE ONES FROM HAPPENING.

EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THAT.

>> I THINK WHAT THIS BILL FAILS TO DO THE CREATE HEALTH CARE THAT'S ACCESSIBLE.

IT CREATES BURDENS.

IT FORCES PEOPLE TO THE MARGINS OR OUT OF STATE TO ACCESS HEALTH CARE.

AND I THINK WHEN WE'RE TALKING WITH TALKING ABOUT THIS, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT THE FDA DID LOOSEN RESTRICTIONS BASED UPON THE SCIENCE, GROUNDED IN THE FACT THAT MEDICAL ABORTION IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

AND WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT IN THE TERPS THAT THE ACTUAL PROVIDERS OF THIS CARE AND THE EXPERTS, THE FDA AND THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, HOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS, THE EXPERTS, THE DOCTORS AND PHYSICIANS ON THE GROUND SAY IT'S SAFE HEALTH CARE.

>> AMA IS FOR THIS?

>> THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.

>> SO WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SAY ABOUT THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF THESE?

RU 486 PEOPLE WOULD COMMONLY REFER TO IT AS.

>> MEDICATION ABORTION IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, AND IT HAS THE MOST RIGOROUS REPORTING STANDARDS AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR LATER, I'M SURE, TONIGHT THAT THERE AREN'T RIGOROUS TERPS ABOUT THE THERE ARE SO MUCH SO THAT THEY EVEN HAVE TO REPORT COMPLICATIONS IF SOMEBODY INTRODUCE BY HOMICIDE AND THEY RECENT HAD AN ABORTION.

THEY STILL HAVE TO REPORT THAT IN THE COMPLICATIONS TO THE F ADAPTIVE.

THIS IS THE MOST REPORTED ON DRUG IN THE UNITED STATES WITH 22 YEARS OF RESEARCH AND EFFICACY BEHIND IT.

SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE.

THE F ADAPTIVE IS FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE.

WE -- FDA IS FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE.

WE NEED TO NOT USE INFLATED WORDS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HEALTH CARE.

>> I WANT TO GO TO KATIE GLENN WHO IS JOINING US IN FLORIDA, AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE, AND YOU'VE BEEN IN KENTUCKY TO KENTUCKY TO TESTIFY FOR THIS BILL.

HOUSE BILLFULLY.

WHY?

AND HOW MUCH -- HOUSE BILL 3.

HOW MUCH MOVEMENT IS GAINING FORRIC BILLS LIKE THIS ACROSS THE NATION?

>> FIRST, I REY THINKY E. FEEL THEY NEED TO TAKE HEALTH AND SAFETY VERY VERY SERIOUS THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE FDA HAS SAID WE ARE GETTING OUT OF THIS BUSINESS.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE A BACKSTOP ANYMORE.

AND I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO LEARN FROM THE UNITED KING TOP.

THEY PUT THESE PILLS IN THE MAIL IN 2020 BECAUSE COVID AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY ROLLING BACK THAT POLICY BASS THEY GOT COMPLAINTS FROM EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTORS AND EMTs WHO SAID WE HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY WOMEN COMING IN WITH COMPLICATIONS, SO THEIR THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING BACK TO IN-PERSON DISPENSING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

WE NEED TO BE LEARNING FROM THEM, NOT REDOING THEIR MISTAKES.

>> I'M CURIOUS, ADDIA WUCHNER.

YOU WERE A NURSE AND A HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION.

THIS A REFLECTION ON TELEMEDICINE IN ANY WAY?

SINCE IT WAS BEING MORE DEPLOYED DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC WHEN IN-PERSON VISITS WERE LIPPED OR NOT ADVISED OR PEOPLE WERE WORRIED ABOUT DOING THAT, WHAT DOES THIS SAY WITH ABOUT TELEMEDICINE AND WHY WOULDN'T GETTING AN ABORTION PILL THROUGH THE MAIL, WHAT RISK DOES THAT POSE?

>> KENTUCKY DOES NOT HAVE TELEMED ABORTIONS.

THEY'RE RESTRICTED IN KENTUCKY SO WE DON'T PERMIT OR ALLOW THAT.

YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SEE YOUR MEDICAL PROVIDER TO OBTAIN AN ABORTION NO MATTER WHEN YOU ARE YOU ARE IN THAT STAGE OF YOUR PREGNANCY SEEKING AN ABORTION.

GOING BACK TO THAT WEN DON'T PROVIDE FOR THAT.

PUT I THINK WE'RE MISS 10 MARK AND KATE JUST SAID, IF COUNTRIES THAT ARE ALREADY AHEAD OF US THAT TOOK THIS FORWARD STEP ARE ROLLING BACK, WHAT DOES THAT TELL US?

AND WE SHOULD ALL, KERRIE ALL SITTING HERE AS WOMEN.

WE SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE OF WOMEN.

WE HAVE A PIECE IN THIS BILL ABOUT MINORS.

SO THOSE ARE MINORS THAT COULD ALSO OBTAIN THOSE VERY MEDICATIONS THROUGH THE MAIL, AND THE OTHER THING IS REPEATEDLY, YOU KNOW, WE ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE REPEATED ABORTIONS.

AND THAT WAS THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF ONE ABORTION AFTER ANOTHER 1234 OR TAKING THESE CONNECTION ONE AT ANOTHER?

AND SO HAVING A PHYSICIAN, WE DON'T WANT TO END UP WHERE WE WERE YEARS AGO TALKING ABOUT BACK ALLEY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAPPENED TO WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS WITHOUT -- THAT WAS JUST WHAT THE -- LET'S SAY THE OTHER SIDE, IF THERE'S ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS, WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENT?

THIS NEEDS TO BE A MEDICALLY PROVED PROCEDURE.

SO WE'RE COMING IN SAYING, IF IT'S MEDICALLY PROVIDED, THE STATE DOES HAVE AN INTEREST.

YES, REPORTING TO THE FDA, I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT WE'RE CONCERNED AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF KENTUCKY IS CONCERNED WITH THE WOMEN RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN STATE, LINING A THEM AND WHAT'S HAPPENING AND MAKING SURE THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A FORM THAT THESE MEDICATIONS WHICH USED IN KENTUCKY ALREADY EXIST AND WILL EXPAND TO ANYONE PROVIDED IN KENTUCKY, THAT THESE MEDICATIONS HAVE TO BE REPORTED TO VITAL STATISTICS.

THE MEDICATION USED, PRESCRIBED, AND ANY COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT ALREADY EXIST IN KENTUCKY, AND WE WANT TO KEEP THAT IN PLACE, WHETHER IT'S TAKING PLACE IN AN ABORTION CLINIC OR A PROVIDER, BUT WE SURELY DON'T WANT IT -- THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO HAPPEN IF IT'S COMING IN MAIL ORDER IN A DO-IT-YOURSELF AT HOME ABORTION.

>> JACKIE MCGRANAHAN, YOUR THOUGHTS.

>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO SAY THAT ADDIA IS VERY RIGHT IN THAT YOU CURRENTLY NOW, THE LAW IN KENTUCKY, KRS 311.72 STATES, AND I QUOTE "A PHYSICIAN PERFORMING OR INDUCING AN ABORTION SHALL BE PRESENT AND IN THE THE SAME ROOM WITH THE PATIENT."

SO THERE AREN'T -- CURRENTLY YOU CANNOT GET ABORTION MEDICATION MAILED TO YOU LEGAL IN THE STATE.

YOU HAVE TO SEE A DOCTOR IN-PERSON AND -- AND THE USE OF TELEHEALTH, AS DEFINE IN A DIFFERENT 304.17, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN ABORTION.

SO IF YOU'RE WANTING TO STOP THIS IN KENTUCKY, IT'S ALREADY NOT HAPPENING.

>> SO IS THERE A NEED FOR HB 3?

>> NECESSITY, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> NO, WELL I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MINORS, KNEE THERE ARE YOUNG GIRLS AS YOUNG AS 13.

>> THERE ARE.

>> AND MANY WHO ARE BARELY ADULT AGE WHO ARE HAVING ABORTIONS.

SHOULD THEY NOT HAVE MORE PARENTAL CONSENT?

AND SHOULD THAT NOT BE A MORE INVOLVEMENT TO MAKING SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE REPERCUSSIONS POSSIBLY OF THIS DECISION THEY'RE ABOUT TO MAKE?

>> THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR JUDICIAL BYPASS IS ALREADY A VERY BURDENSOME PROCESS.

AND THIS BILL IS MAKING IT EVEN MORE ONEROUS.

AND IF -- IF THERE IS A MINOR WHO CANNOT SAFELY TELL THEIR PARENT THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE AN ABORTION, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS -- THERE'S AN AVENUE FOR THESE FOLKS BECAUSE THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING ON A -- WE DON'T KNOW.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING ON A REGULAR BASIS OR AN EVERYDAY BASIS, BUT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THIS IS A NECESSITY.

SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE -- >> SO YOU'RE SAYING IF A YOUNG GIRL IS PERHAPS A VICTIM FROM ONE OF HER MARINATES, VICTIMIZED BY HER PARENTS, SEXUAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL ABUSE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO JUDICIAL BYPASS WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR THIS YOUNG GIRL TO SEEK AN ABORTION.

>> YES.

I THINK THAT THESE -- ADDING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS MAKE IT EVEN HARDER.

>> KATIE GLENN, YES.

>> I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LEGISLATION ACTUALLY HAS AN EXPLICIT EXEMPTION, THAT IF A PARENT OR FAMILY MEMBER IS THE ABUSER WHO IS INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION, AS TRAGIC AS THAT IS, THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE THE PERSON WHO THIS GIRL WOULD BE GETTING CONSENT FROM, SO I THINK THAT THE BILL ALREADY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT, AND WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT JUDICIAL BYPASS IS THAT WHILE THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IF YOUR LAW REQUIRES PARENTAL CONSENT FROM A MINOR BECAUSE PARENTS HAVE RIGHTS TO OVERSEE THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF THEIR CHILDREN AND WHO IS MORE INVESTED IN THEIR CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND WELL-BEING THAN THEIR PARENTS, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS JUDICIAL BYPASS PROCESS.

BUT IT IS NOT A RUBBER STAMP.

THERE CANNOT BE -- YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE ONE JUDGE WHO CHECKS OFF THE BOX FOR EVERY GIRL WHO COMES IN BECAUSE THEY'RE AN ACTIVIST.

YOU CAN HAVE STANDARDS ON THIS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING TO DO.

IT'S TRYING TO SET A STANDARD THAT SAYS THERE HAS TO BE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT SHE SHOULDN'T GO TO HER PARENTS, WHICH MEANS MOST OF THE TIME HER PARENTS, THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT HER INTO THIS WORLD AND WHO LOVE HER MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE AND WHO HAVE HER WELL-BEING IN THEIR HEARTS, ARE THE PEOPLE THAT SHE SHOULD BE TALKING TO, NOT STRANGERS, NOT ABORTION, AND CERTAIN EVER CERTAINLY NOT SOME JUDGE SHE WILL NEVER SEE AGAIN.

>> CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, REPRESENTATIVE TATE.

THAT SOUNDS LOOK A PRETTY HARD BAR TO MEET.

EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY CLEAR AND CONE VINCEING AND HOW ONEROUS THAT COULD BE ON A YOUNG GIRL WHO IS SACKING A ORGANIZATION.

>> AS KATE JUST SAID, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL DOES.

THERE'S PROVISIONS IN THE EVENT THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.

WE ALL REALIZE THAT.

BUT THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING IS THAT -- I MEAN, THERE'S A PROCESS IN PLACE, AND SO IT WOULD BE UP TO THE JUDGE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT THAT IS.

AND SO THIS IS CURRENTLY A PROCESS THAT'S BEEN UTILIZED IN NUMEROUS STATES.

IT WAS PASSED IN 1990, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

WHEN I THINK ABOUT IT, I WONDER WHY IN THE WORLD WE HAVEN'T ENACTED IT BEFORE NOW.

BUT THIS WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY -- THAT THE MINOR IS NOT BEING COERCED.

RIGHT NOW WE KNOW THAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS AN ISSUE, AND SO THE STATE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES ARE THERE 400,000 MINORS IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE BEING INVOLVED IN HUMANTRACKING, AND SO THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO IN ANY WAY SUPPORT AT ALL.

SO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM COULD ACTUALLY GET INVOLVED IN THAT AND POTENTIALLY IF THERE'S A RISK, THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO UNCOVER THAT.

SO THERE'S A PATTERN.

>> SO A BASIC QUESTION MS. WEISER.

THIS BILL ASKS DO YOU HAVE ANY EXCEPTIONS FOR INCEST, HEALTH OR RAPE OF THE MOTHER.

>> THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE CURRENT LEGISLATION THAT'S IN PLACE FOR RAPE AND INCEST.

IT DOES NO CHANGE THAT AT ALL.

>> SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.

>> THERE ARE NO STATUTES PROTECTING VICTIMS TO TAKES ABORTION FOR RAPE AND INCEST, SO THERE ARE NO STATUTES THAT WILL SUPPORT SOMEBODY IF THEY ARE SUFFERING FROM RAPE OR INCEST TO TAKES AN ABORTION, SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL IN THIS BILL.

AND SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, WHEN OUR REPRESENTATIVE TATE SAYS THAT, IT'S MISLEADING.

THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS IN THIS -- IN OUR COMMONWEALTH FOR VICTIMS OF RAPE AND INCEST TO ACCESS ABORTION.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT SHOULD BE ADDED, REPRESENTATIVE TATE?

>> I WOULD CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION, ABSOLUTELY.

WE'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS, ESPECIALLY I THINK IF FIRST LEGISLATION HA WAS PASSED IN COMMONWEALTH TO PROTECT WOMEN AND TO MAKE SURE THERE WERE ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE WHEN IT COMES TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.

THESE LEGISLATION OR THESE BILLS HAVE BEEN PASSED SINCE 2017.

SO BY ALL MEANS I WOULD BE GLAD TO LOOK AT THAT FOR FUTURE.

>> REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT.

>> THAT'S DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE I PUT AN AMENDMENT UP ON THE FLOOR TO DO EXACTLY THIS, TO EXEMPT YOUNG GIRLS OR ANYONE WHO WAS A VICTIM OF RAPE AND INCEST FROM THESE BILLS.

YOU RULED THAT UNFRIENDLY AND VOTED AGAINST IT AND OVER 60 REPUBLICANS WERE WILLING TO PUT THEIR NAME ON THE BOARD AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS BILL IN THE CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ON SECRETIVE OF SOME OF THESE BILLS, I'M 48 YEARS OLD.

I WAS BORN THE SAME YEAR THAT ROW V. WADE WAS PASSED.

THERE ARE SOME LONGEVITY FOR YOU.

>> SURE.

>> AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY SAD FOR ME TO SIT HERE AND SAY THAT YOU'RE A VICTIM OF RAPE OR INCEST.

SO FOR ME TO SAY THAT YOUR LIFE ISN'T VALUABLE, AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SAYING HERE, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE ACTUALLY MET SEVERAL WOMEN THAT HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED FROM A HEINOUS CRIME, AND WHENEVER THEY WALK UP TO ME AND THEY GO, NANCY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCEIVED FROM RAPE OR INCEST?

AND MY PERSPECTIVE IS, EVERYONE'S LIFE IS ABSOLUTELY VALUABLE.

>> AND THE VICTIM OF RAPE OR INCEST WHO DOESN'T HAVE CHILDREN DOMINION OVER HER OWN BODY.

>> I'M NOT CHANGING THAT AT ALL.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT I'M CHANGING IN THE CURRENT LEGISLATION.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS, THERE'S NOTHING.

SO IF THERE'S NOTHING BEFORE I GOT HERE, THEN THERE WILL BE NOTHING AFTER THIS BILL PASSES.

SO I'M NOT CHANGING THAT AT ALL.

>> BUT REPRESENTATIVE TATE, WHY THE OBJECTION TO REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS' AMENDMENT WHEN IT WAS ON THE FLOOR THE OTHER WEEK?

>> I WOULD BE GLAD TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE I'M NOTE CHANGING ANYTHING AT YOU WILLAL ZOE IS ON I'M NOTE AT ALL OPPOSED TO THAT.

BUT I AM OPPOSED TO ACTUALLY SAYING THAT -- AND EVEN INSINUATING THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCEIVED FROM A HEENUS CRIME, THAT THEIR LIFE ISN'T VALUABLE.

THAT'S INSULTING TO PEOPLE.

>> SO AS WE MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SHOW THAT THIS BILL COMES BEFORE THE SENATE HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY, WOULD THAT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO BE FILED AT THAT TIME TO BE PRESENTED THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER AND DEEM FRIENDLY?

>> I WILL GO BACK AND I WILL LOOK AT THIS AND GIVE IT CONSIDERATION, ABSOLUTELY.

>> THIS HAS AM COULD UP OVER THE YEARS AS A FORMER LEGISLATORS FOR MANY YEARS, I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD IT AT THE LAST MINUTE IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT MAKE SENSE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> BUT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IN THE INTERIM OF WHY IT WAS LOOKED AT BEFORE, WHY IT IS IT'S NOT PART OF CURRENT LAW.

WE DO MAKE AN EXCEPTIONS, OF COURSE, FOR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER AND GO BACK OVER THOSE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THOSE AMENDMENTS BEFORE AND LOOK AT THAT.

YOU KNOW, IT IS A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF RAPE OR INCEST CASES THAT RESULT IN ACTUAL PREGNANCY OCCURRING, BUT I THINK THAT JUST TO THROW AN AMENDMENT ON HERE DE LAS MINUTE WHEN CURRENT LAW HAS STANDING IN OTHER PROVISIONS WOULD BE DISINGENUOUS TO THE BILL WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON BUT I THINK IN A VERY GENUINE WAY COME BACK IN THE INTERIM AND HAVE A CLEAR LOOK AT THAT AND TO EXAMINE IT WOULD BE -- >> WELL, A POSSIBILITY OF WHAT COULD GET ATTACHED WOULD BE MAX WISE'S SENATE BILLFULLY 21.

THAT COULD COME AS AN AMENDMENT IN THE FORM OF A COMMITTEE AMENDMENT THAT COULD BE ATTACHED TO YOUR BILL.

WOULD YOU OBJECT TO THAT?

CONSIDERING MAYBE THAT, TOO, SHOULD BE STUDIED DURING THE INTEREST I REPRESENT AFTER THE SUPREME COURT.

>> IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THAT THEY'VE TAKEN TIME TO DELIBERATE AND DEBATE IN THE SENATE AND THEN SEND IT OVER TO THE HOUSE, SO IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE AND DEBATED.

>> FOR NUMEROUS LENGTHS.

>> JUST LIKE THIS BILL, THE PROVISION IN THIS BILL HAVE BEEN OUT HERE NOT JUST THIS YEAR.

IT WAS LAST YEAR, THERE WERE PIECES OF BILLS EVEN FILED, SO WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS AND LOOKING AT IT DURING THE INTERIM.

WE WERE HERE DURING THE INTERIM.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT SOMETHING AS SERIOUS AS THIS ASPECT OF THE LIFE OF A CHILD AND WOMEN'S HEALTH AND ABORTION IN KENTUCKY, IF THERE'S A NEW PIECE THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT AND GIVE IT SOME STUDY TIME.

>> AND MS.

WISH R. WUCHNER, YOU KNOW THE CONVERSATION ABOUT CARVE-OUT FOR RAPE AND INCEST IS NOT A NEW CONVERSATION.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

WHAT HAPPENED TO IT IN THE PAST, SHOULD WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT A AGAIN AND SEE WHERE WE ARE.

>> I WANT TO COME TO THIS SIDE.

MS.WIDER.

I THINK THAT IT'S REALLY DISINGENUOUS.

WE HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION FOR A LONG TIME, AND I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY ARE -- THEY DON'T WANT WANT IT ON THE BILL.

THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE INTERIM COMMITTEE WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AND REPRESENTATIVE TATE DID STAY THAT A 13-YEAR-OLD SHOULD BE FORCED ON CARRY A PREGNANCY FROM RAPE.

SO I THINK SHE IS ON RECORD SAYING THIS MULTIPLE TIMES, AND SO WE CAN HAVE THIS CONVERSATION BACK AND FORTH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE ISN'T A DEBATE HERE FOR US TO BE HAVING.

ONE THING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE, TOO, MOST MINORS WHO ARE ACCESSING ABORTION DO SO WITH THEIR PARENTAL CONSENT, AND A BIG PIECE OF THIS BILL HAS REALLY TROUBLING IS THAT IT REQUIRES STATE ID FROM THE MINOR'S LEGAL GUARDIANS.

AND FROM BOTH LEGAL GUARDIANS.

AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ACCESS TO THIS ISSUE TO -- EVEN IF THEY ARE VICTIMS RAPE AND INCEST AND THEIR PARENTS ARE HELPING THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS, ONE WHO IS NOT THE OFFENDER, YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A STATE-ISSUED ID, AND WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THAT?

WHAT IF THEIR GRANDPARENTS HAVE AN EXPIRED ID?

WHAT IF THEY ARE UNDOCUMENTED OR BOTH PARENTS JUST DON'T HAVE IT?

YOU ARE CUTTING OFF PEOPLE FROM ACCESSING CARE, AND SO I THINK THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS, TOO, THAT WE'RE MISSING THIS FROM EVER THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL, THAT THERE ARE BARRIERS THAT ARE BEING PUT IN PLACE THAT ARE GOING TO FURTHER HINDER INDIVIDUALS SEEKING COMPARE AND THERE'S NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE REAL LIVED COST AND EXPERIENCES OF KENTUCKIANS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE TATE, I WANT YOU TO RESPOND TO THE CLAIM THAT YOU ARE FORCING 13-YEAR-OLDS -- >> I'M THOUGHT -- ONE OF THE THING THAT I HAVE SATISFIED NUMEROUSLY IS JUST WHAT I HAVE SAID.

FAR AS I'M CONCERNED WE SHOULD NOT MAKE AUTOMATIC PROVISIONS THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A RAPE SITUATION THAT -- AN ABORTION NEEDS TO OCCUR, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, SO THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT I'M SUGGESTING, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO RITTER THAT IF THERE IS -- REITERATED THAT IF THERE'S A BABY THAT'S CONCEIVED FROM RAPE OR INCEST, IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO THAT FAMILY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, AND I'M NOT CHANGING ANYTHING IN ANY OF THE CURRENT STATUTES.

>> YOU ARE, THOUGH, REPRESENTATIVE TATE.

YOU ARE NOT GIVING THAT FAMILY, THAT INDIVIDUAL THE AUTONOMY TO HAVE AGENCY OVER THAT DECISION.

YOU'VE TAKEN THAT DECISION AWAY.

>> BY INTRODUCING JUDICIAL BYPASS?

WHICH THE JUDICIAL BYPASS -- >> THE JUDICIAL BYPASS, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BARRIERS TO CARE FOR PARENTAL CONSENT AND -- >> THAT IS PART OF THE JUDICIAL BYPASS.

>> THAT IS A SEPARATE PIECE OF JUDICIAL BYPASS.

>> BUT IT IS CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT PIECE.

>> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING THIS BILL WORD PARENTAL CONSENT AND JUDICIAL BYPASS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

>> BUT THE ONLY WAY IT IS REQUIRED, IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE PARENTAL CONSENT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE JUDICIAL BYPASS.

>> NO, YOU DON'T, NOT FOR -- >> REPRESENTATIVE WUCHNER OR MS. WUCHNER.

SORRY.

OLD HABITS.

>> BUT WHAT I WANTED TO SAY BECAUSE I THINK WE GET -- THERE'S A LOT OF MINUTIA.

WE HAVE MINORS SEEKING ABORTION.

WE HAVE HAD JUDICIAL BYPASS, WHICH IS FEDERAL IMPOSED ON THE STATE.

IN THIS AREA OF MINORS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THINGS SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT UPDATING MINORS.

OF COURSE WE WOULD WANT SOMEONE TO HAVE AN IDENTIFICATION AS THE MINOR'S PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN.

IN THIS AGE WHERE HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH NEXT TO DRUG TRAFFICKING, IT'S SURPASSED GUN TRAFFICKING, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL, THAT ADULT THAT'S BRINGING THAT MINOR CHILD IN SEEKING AN ABORTION IS TRULY THE GUARDIAN OF THAT CHILD AND HAS A RIGHT TO ACCOMPANY THEM.

WE SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT IS LADEN WITH CHILD ABUSE.

ON A JUDICIAL BYPASS SECTION, THIS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, CERTAIN THING THAT WEREN'T HERE BEFORE IS WE'VE ADD THE MINOR'S AGE.

IT'S AN EMOTIONAL -- ADDED THE WORD STABILITY.

CREDIBLE AND DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESS.

THE ABILITY -- SO THE JUDGE IS GOING TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS.

AGAIN, IF THE MINOR WAS RAPED AND THE JUDGE LOOKS AT ALL THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, IT MAY BE THAT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THAT CHILD THAT WOULD BE THE DECISION OF THE COURT AT THAT TIME.

SO I JUST WANT TO NOT CLOUD THINGS AND MAKE IT THINGS CLEAR.

>> TO GET TO THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE SAYS TO GAUGE THE MINOR'S CREDIBILITY AND DEMEANOR AS A WITNESS.

IN TURN THE MINOR WOULD NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO, ASSESS BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE LIFE CONSEQUENCES AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE ABORTION AND THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN THE MEDICAL RISK OF THE ABORTION AND TO APPLY THAT UNDERSTANDING TO HER DECISION.

SOUNDS LIKE A PRETTY HIGH BAR FOR SOMEBODY HOE HAS UNDERGONE A TRAUMATIC SITUATION SUCH AS RAPE OR INCEST.

>> IT'S ALSO A VERY HIGH BAR ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMEBODY WHO IS 13 OR 14.

THESE ARE LIFE-IMPACTING DECISIONS.

IT'S NOTE JUST -- YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DON'T -- WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT MAKING A RASH DECISION BASED UPON A TRAUMATIC SITUATION.

>> MS. KATIE GLENN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THIS MINOR PIECE?

AND THEN I WANT TO MOVE ON TO SOME DOCUMENTATION THAT'S REQUIRED IN THE MEASURE.

>> WILLIAM I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE'VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON THIS SLIVER OF THE POPULATION THAT IS THE TRAGIC VICTIM OF RAPE OR INCEST.

BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE BILLS ARE GIRLS JUST DON'T WANT TO TELL THEIR PARENTS, AND DATA BEARS THIS OUT.

SO IF THE JUDGE IS MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER IT'S IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS TO INVOLVE THEIR PARENTS IN THIS DECISION OR THEM TO NOTE INVOLVE THEIR PARENTS IN THIS DECISION, THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES THIS IS AN ELECTIVE ABORTION.

THIS IS A TEENAGER WHO DOESN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT, AND THAT'S THE END OF IT.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY BE FOCUSING ON RATHER THAN KIND OF TALKING THROUGH WHAT THE JUDGE SHOULD BE THINKING BASS THEY ASSESS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.

AND IF THIS CHILD IS A V OF A CRIME, THEN WE NEED -- VICTIM OF A CRIME, THEN WE NEED THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM GETTING INVOLVED BECAUSE SHE DESERVES JUSTICE, NOT A SECOND TRAUMATIC INTERFERENCE.

>> SO THIS QUESTION, TO DEVIATE FROM WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE, THIS QUESTION FROM HANI GOLDMAN HOE I BELIEVE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, I'M A JEWISH WOMAN AND A FOURTH GENERATION KENTUCKIAN AND ALL THE ABORTION LAWS PASSED BY THE KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

SINCE THE LEGISLATORS OF CARVED OUT RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FOR VARIOUS MORE LAWS LIKE VACCINES, WHY HASN'T THERE BEEN AN EXCEPTION MADE FOR ALL THESE REPRODUCTIVE BILLS?

REPRESENTATIVE TATE.

>> SO I THINK, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO REPRESENT THE JEWISH FAITH JUST BY MYSELF, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT EVERY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT RELIGION IT IS, THERE IS SOME DISSENSION IN WHAT -- I'M A CATHOLIC, AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE LEAST PROBLEM 45 TO 50 PERCENT OF THE CATHOLIC POPULATION THINK THAT ABORTION IS FINE.

ABORTION AS PREREPRODUCTIVE AND IT'S IMPORTANT HEALTH CARE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE OTHER 50% DOES.

SO I THINK THAT BASED UPON WHAT I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY THE PRO-LIFE JEWISH COMMUNITY, IS THAT THEY -- THERE IS SOME DISSENSION WITHIN THEIR FAITH AS WELL.

>> ANY COMMENT ON THAT?

>> I'M OF JEWISH FAITH.

IMAGE TELL THAT YOU WE DO CELEBRATE REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMY AND VARIOUS RABBIS AND EVEN WITHIN THE LEXINGTON COMMUNITY HERE, WE DO SUPPORT ACCESS TO ABORTION AND WE DO SUPPORT THE INFORMED CHOICES THAT WE MAKE OVER OUR OWN BODIES, AND SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMY, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO NOT BE USING IT WITH A RELL JUST LENS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, AND THAT'S WHY THE MEDICINE IS SO IMPORTANT HERE THAT WE NEED TO BE FOLLOWING THE BEST PRACTICES OF MEDICINE WHICH DO NOT SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 3.

>> REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS.

>> MAY I ALSO ASK -- TURN THIS OVER TO ADDIA AS WELL BECAUSE SHE IS OF JEWISH FAITH AS WELL, SO I THINK THAT SHE HAS SOME IMPORTANT PIECES TO SHARE AS WELL.

>> WELL, IT'S PARTS OF MY FAMILY HERITAGES.

PEOPLE KNOW THAT I'M ROMAN CATHOLIC.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU I WANTED TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT MY FATHER'S FAITH, MY FAMILY'S FAITH GROWING UP.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT PRO-LIFE JERUSALEM AND JEWISH WOMEN OF FAITH REACHED OUT, ACTUALLY TRIED TO GET ARTICLES PUBLISH BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE NOT REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF JEWISH WOMEN AND THE FACTS THAT WERE PRESENTED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK INTO IT BECAUSE NONE OF US WANT TO GET INTO THE RABBINICAL LAW OF DIFFERENT FAITHS.

WE'VE BEEN CONTACTED FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

SO I THINK WE WILL KIND OF ED LEAVE THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE DIFFERENT FAITHS, I JUST MET WITH A GROUP THAT ARE LUTHERANS FOR LIFE.

I'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT SIDES ON THIS.

SO WE HAVE DIFFERENT FAITH -- FAITHS HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THIS ISSUE.

SO WE GO BACK TO THE STATE'S INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE LIFE OF THE CHILD AND ASSURING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE HEALTH OF WOMEN, AND BEST PRACTICES WHEN IT COMES TO LEGAL ABORTION THAT'S LEGALIZED IN KENTUCKY.

>> REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT YOU BOTH STATED THAT PEOPLE HAVE VARYING OPINIONS ON THIS.

40, 50% YOUR OWN RELIGION DOESN'T FEEL THE SWAIM YOU DO.

SO I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT WE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ARE PASSING LEGISLATION LEGISLATION FOR SPECIFIC RELIGIONS WHILE IGNORING THE BELIEF SYSTEMS OF OTHER ONES, MUCH LIKE WE ARE MASSING BILL AFTER BILL ON OL CONTROL RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE PASSING BILL TO GIVE CONTROL TO THE PARENTS.

WE'RE PASSING BILLS AIMED AT LIMITING GOVERNOR OVERREACH, AND I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE THROUGH THAT SAME LENS.

WHAT IS MORE GOVERNMENT OVERREACH THAN LAWS BANNING WOMEN'S ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, LAWS THAT MAKE IT A CRIME FOR A DOCTOR TO USE THEIR BESTING JMENT.

WHAT IS MORE LOCAL CONTROL THAN ME HAVING CONTROL OVER MY OWN BODY?

WHAT IS MORE OF A PARENT RIGHT THAN DECIDING HOW, WHEN AND IF TO BECOME A MOTHER?

OR TO START I FAMILY?

>> IT'S A HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS, AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE STATE DOES HAVE A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE LIFE OF THE CHILD.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS, IN THE SUPREME COURT'S VIEW ON THE AUTONOMY OF WOMEN THAT THIS CONTRAVENES IN, BUT IT'S A BALANCE, AND SO THERE'S THAT HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS, AND THE STATE IS ALLOWED TO PRESS FORWARD IN PROTECTING THE RIGHTS, THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THAT CHILD, AT THE SAME TIME PUTTING GUIDANCE ALONG THE ABORTION LAWS AND PROVIDING THE ABORTION IN, LET'S SAY, IN IN COMMONWEALTH OR IN ANY STATE.

>> AND I THINK THAT I JUST WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE, TOO, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEING DISINJENS JUST WHEN YOU SAID THAT THIS LEGISLATION AND THE BODY IS ACTUALLY PASSING THESE BILLS AND PASSING THIS LEGISLATION, CONSIDERING ONE RELIGION AND NOT CONSIDERING ANOTHER, I HAVEN'T EVEN BROUGHT UP RELIGION AT ALL.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, PRIOR TO THIS DISCUSSION, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED HEALTH CARE AND THE HEALTH CARE AND THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN IS ABSOLUTELY THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE.

>> YES, JACKIE MCGRANAHAN.

>> I WANTED TO SWITCH THE CONVERSATION JUST REALLY QUICKLY FROM RELIGION INTO THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE ON THE BILL, AND FOR FOLKS WHO ARE WATCHING OR ARE UNAWARE, THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE WILL REQUIRE THE BILL TO GO INTO EFFECT MARTIN LUTHER IF IT -- WHEN IT'S -- WHEN IT'S PASSED, IF IT'S PASSED.

AND AS WE ALL KNOW AND WE HEARD A LOT IN THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND HOUSE BILL 7, THE CABINET IS CURRENTLY UNDERSTAFFED AND OVERBURDENED.

HOW WOULD THESE MEDICAL FACILITIES, AND THEY WANT TO DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO COMPLY, HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY COMPLY IMMEDIATELY?

IF THE RESOURCES AREN'T AVAILABLE, THE COMPLAINT PORTAL ISN'T SET UP, THERE'S NOT THE DOCUMENTS THAT FOLKS NEED TO COMPLY?

>> AND I'M SURE THAT YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE FDA PROCESS RIGHT NOW, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE BROUGHT THIS UP BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE FDA DID IN DECEMBER WAS THEY REMOVED WHAT THEIR REALMS WERE, THEIR PROTOCOL WAS BEFORE, AND SO BASICALLY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS THEY HAVE OPENED UP TO WHERE ANY PHYSICIAN, ACTUALLY THEY CHANGE THE WORD FROM "INFORMATION" TO "PROVIDER," AND SO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BE A PROVIDER AND DISTRIBUTE THESE PILLS TO THEIR PATIENTS HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED WITH THE MANUFACTURER.

SO EVERY PROVIDER HAS TO BE CERTIFIED WITH THE MANUFACTURER, AND EVERY -- >> I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE ON THE BILL.

>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT SEE WHAT MY POINT IS -- BUT MY POINT IS -- >> LIKE A BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATE.

HOW CAN THEY FILE IT?

>> BUT MY POINT IS AND NOT ONLY THAT BUT RIGHT NOW, BUT PRIOR TO DECEMBER OR PRIOR TO COVID, PHARMACEUTICALS COULD NOT DISTRIBUTE THESE ABORTION-INDUCING PILLS, THESE KITS.

SO IF PHARMACIES WANT TO DISPENSE, THEN THEY HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED WITH THE MANUFACTURER AS WELL.

SO THERE'S ALREADY A PROCESS IN PLACE, AND THERE'S INFORMATION ON HOW TO BECOME PROVIDERS.

SO THERE'S NOT A REALM OR THERE'S NOT A PROTOCOL.

THERE'S JUST BASICALLY Q&A FROM THE FDA ON WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE.

SO MY POINT IS, IS THAT I'M ACTUALLY JUST MIMICKING IF A PROVIDER HAS BEEN CERTIFIED WITH THE MANUFACTURER, THEN BY ALL MEANS COME DIRECTLY OVER TO THE CABINET FOR THE -- >> FOE REPRESENTATIVE TATE'S POINT, THAT WAS PART OF WHAT SOME ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT WITH THE FDA, THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY DID LOOSEN UP THE ONE RULE ON THE MAILING OF THE ABORTION PILLS, THERE WERE OTHER RESTRICTIONS LEFT IN PLACE THAT SHE'S ALREADY MENTIONED.

SO HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT WITH WHAT THE FDA WAS ALREADY DOING?

>> I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE IN KENTUCKY CAN DO BASED UPON THE WAY IN WHICH OUR LAWS AROUND MEDICATION ABORTION ARE ALREADY SET UP, BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WHEN THE FDA WAS LOOSENING THE LAW IS BECAUSE IT -- BECAUSE MEDICINE MECHANICS ABORTION IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE HERE, BUT FROM HOUSE BILL 3, AND IT'S INTERESTING I'VE BEEN IN MY POSITION SEVEN YEARS NOW AND I'VE ACTUALLY NEVER HAD ANOTHER MEDICAL BODY COME OUT GEENS -- THEY WERE NEUTRAL, BUT COME OUT AND TALK ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS WITH THE BILL IN FRANKFORT, AND THE KENTUCKY BOARD OF PHARMACY DID.

THEY CAME OUT AND SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS WITHIN HOUSE BILL 3 AS -- I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY CHANGES, SO AS IT WAS PASSED FROM THE HOUSE, SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE CERTIFICATIONS AND THAT THEY WOULD BE REGULATORYING PROVIDERS, THAT THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR SCOPE.

AND WE DO KNOW FROM A SIMILAR LAWSUIT AROUND THE CERTIFICATION WITHIN THE PHARMACEUTICAL PIECES.

SO THIS ASPECT OF HOUSE BILL 3 CREATES A COMPLETE BARRIER TO CARE WHERE PROVIDERS WILL HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED FROM THE STATE, AND THE STATE IS NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT.

>> CAN WE SAY WE ALREADY CERTIFY, LIKE OUR ABORTION FACILITIES ALREADY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A CERTIFICATION PROCESS.

THERE'S ALSO A REPORTING THAT MUST BE DONE ON EVERY WOMAN WHO HAS OBTAINED, WHETHER IT'S CHEMICAL, MEDICAL OR SURGICAL, AND AN OUTCOME MEASURE THAT HAS TO BE REPORTED.

SO WE'RE BEEFING THAT UP.

SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT WERE IN THE FIRST PART OF THE BILL HAVE KIND OF ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THOSE ON WEDNESDAY.

WE'VE LISTENED TO THE PHARMACY.

WE'VE LISTENED TO THE BOARD OF PHARMACY AND THEY'RE RIGHT.

THE FDA IS FELLOW THE ONES THAT SORT OF PUT THEM -- THEY HAD TO BE CERTIFIED FOR THE MANUFACTURER, SO PUT THEM IN THE HOT SEAT.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS SAYING THAT PHARMACISTS WILL NOT DISTRIBUTE OR WILL JUST KIND TAKE THAT PIECE AWAY FROM THEM, LEAVE IT AS IT IS WITH THE PROVIDERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDING, WHICH WOULD BE OUR LICENSED ABORTION FACILITIES, AND THOSE PHYSICIANS WHO DECIDE, MEDICAL PROVIDERS, THAT THEY WANT TO GET INTO, AS NON-SURGICAL ABORTION PROVIDERS, WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW -- WILL HAVE TO FILE WITH THE CABINET, WILL HAVE TO DO WHAT THE FDA IS REQUIRING THEM TO DO, AND THAT IS TO BECOME CERTIFIED SO THAT'S THE FDA SIDE BY THE MANUFACTURER OR FILE THAT THEY ARE CERTIFIED BY THE CABINET AND THEY'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME REPORTING AND THE SAME CARE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE SETTING UP IN THE BILL, WHETHER YOU'RE SEEN IN THE ABORTION FACILITY OR WHETHER THAT'S LICENSED ALREADY IN KENTUCKY OR WHETHER YOU CHOOSE -- >> WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATIONS OR NONCOMPLIANCE?

>> I'LL HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP.

IT'S IN THE BILL.

>> FELONY?

>> IT DEPENDS, YEAH.

SO THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME PRETTY STIFF BENEFITS BECAUSE AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE KNOW IS, IS THAT THERE'S BIG PHARMA RIGHT NOW, THERE'S, AS YOU'VE SAID THAT IT'S ILLEGAL TO DISTRIBUTE THESE PILLS IN KENTUCKY WITHOUT BEING CERTIFIED.

WELL, THESE PHARMACIES MIGHT BE CERTIFIED BUT I DON'T HAVE VISIBILITY INTO THAT NOR DO ANY OF US, RIGHT?

AND SO -- BUT BUT WE DO THINK IT'S VERY FOREIGN IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY AND AS A HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION, AS A CABINET TO KNOW WHO IS CERTIFIED AND HOSE GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTING AND DISPENSING THESE ABORTION INDUCING PILLS.

>>ES WHAT WRONG WITH THAT BUSINESS MS. WIEDERER?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT.

>> I THINK THERE ARE MANY LEVEL THAT WEAK BREAK DOWN ON THIS PIECE, AND I WANT TO START BY THERE ARE OTHER DRUGS THAT THE MEDICATION ABORTION REGIMEN IS USED IN.

SO WHEN YOU START SCARING PHARMACISTS ABOUT WHETHER THEY CAN DISPENSE NEOPRISTOL WE US IT'S FOR IUD INSERTIONS, THEY USE IT FOR INDUCTION OF LABOR, THERE ARE MANY OTHER INDICATIONS THAT MEDICATION ABORTION INDUCING DRUGS ARE USED FOCH OUTSIDE OF THAT COMPONENT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PHARMACISTS WHO ARE NOT GOING TO BE DISPENSING THESE MEDICATIONS FOR FEAR OUT OF DATE, OUT OF COMPLIANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE VERY CONFLICTING MESSAGING COMING OUT OF THE CAPITOL AROUND THIS.

THE BILL KEEPS CHANGING.

THE LANGUAGE KEEPS CHANGING.

THE LANGUAGE IS INFLAMMATORY.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A BIG PART OF THIS, TOO, THAT WE NEED TO BE USING LANGUAGE THAT IS ACCURATE ASH THIS BILL AND THESE MEDICATIONS.

>> I THINK WE RECOGNIZED THERE ARE OTHER USES FOR THE MEDICATIONS AND THAT'S WHY PULLING IT BACK A LITTLE BIT AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ONLY TALKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING AN ABORTION KEEP THOSE OTHER USES FOR BOTH OF THOSE MEX OUT OF THE, AND YOU WE'VE KIND OF REFINED THAT TO MAKE SURE WORKING WITH THE PHYSICIANS, WORKING WITH THE SENATE, WORKING WITH THE BOARD OF PHARMACY, THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR IN THAT DESCRIPTION.

>> YOU KNOW WHO IS LEFT OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION?

THE PROVIDERS ABORTION.

>> AND THE THING THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING AND THE THING THAT'S BEEN MOST ASTOUNDING TO ME IS THAT THIS, THE DECISION BY THE FDA ACTUALLY OCCURRED IN DECEMBER, RIGHT?

AND SO WHEN WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION, IT WAS WEEKS AGO.

AT THE TIME THAT WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION, IT WAS LIKE 12 WEEKS SINCE THEY HAD MADE THAT DECISION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS THE MOST ASTOUNDING TO ME IS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T EVEN AWARE THAT THE FDA HAD MADE THAT DECISION, THE BOARD OF PHARMACY WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, THE CABINET WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, AND SO TO ME IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT I'M ACTUALLY COMMUNICATING TO THE BOARD OF PHARMACY WHERE SOMETHING THAT WAS SO DRAMATIC, AND I'M NOTE BEING CRITICAL, I FIND IT VERY YOUR HONOR UNCOMFORTABLE FOR ME TO BE TELLING PROVIDERS -- VERY UNCOMFORTABLE FOR ME TO BE TELLING PROVIDER THAT THE FDA HAS DONE TO CHANGE THEIR PRACTICE.

>> AND I THINK THAT'S TELLING, TOO, ON ANOTHER LEVEL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A PROVIDER.

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

>> YOU'RE NOT A DOCTOR.

AND SO THE DOCTORS WHO ARE PROVIDING THESE SERVICES ARE REGULATING THESE MEDICATIONS.

THEY KNOW HOW -- THEY ARE USING IT AND AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

THEY ARE TRAINED FOR THIS.

REPRESENTATIVE TATE IS NOT.

>> SO I DO WANT TO ASK YOU, MS. WUCHNER BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE SUCH A BACKGROUND IN HEALTH CARE, WHAT DOES IT SAY TO YOU THAT THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND OTHER MEDICAL GROUPS ARE AGAINST LEGISLATION LIKE HOUSE BILL 3?

>> WHEN WE'VE SPOKEN AND DISCUSSED IT HERE IN KENTUCKY, WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT THEY WERE AGAINST IT.

YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY THE KMA AND THE BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE HAS ALWAYS JUDICIALLY REMAINED NEUTRAL ON THIS POSITION BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDERS THAT OR MEMBERS THAT ARE PRO-ABORTION AND MEMBERS THAT ARE NOT, AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT OVER THE YEARS, WHETHER I WAS CHAIR OF A COMMITTEE ON MY EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS THEY HAVE ALWAYS REMAINED OF NEUTRAL AND LEFT IT UP TO THE PARTICULAR PROVIDERS EVER PRESERVER WHO HAVE COME TO THE TACKLER AND WE HAVE PRO-ABORTION DOCTORS, PROVIDER SPEAK AT THE TABLE OVER THE YEARS.

WE'VE HAD NEONATOLOGISTS TO OB PHYSICIANS WHO WOULD SPEAK AGAINST ABORTIONS.

SO THEY'VE ALWAYS LEFT IT UP TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS AND NOTE SPOKEN TO US ABOUT IT.

I JUST NEED TO MAKE THAT POINT VERY, VERY CLEAR.

>> AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE BOARD OF PHARMACY WAS OPPOSED TO IT WAS BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THE FDA MODIFICATIONS THAT OCCURRED IN DECEMBER.

>> WE HAD ALSO CHANGED -- WE REALIZED THE KM:A WAS A POSED THE AND BOARD OF PHARMACY BECAUSE DOCTORS DO NOT REPORT TO THE BOARD OF PHARMACY, SO THOSE THINGS HAD TO BE -- YOU KNOW, ALL LEGISLATION KIND OF GOES THROUGH A PROCESS AND YOU HAVE TO WORK OUT THINGS, AND SO THEN THE CONVERSATION WENT FURTHER AND WE WERE ABLE TO CLEAR UP A LOT OF POINT THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEARED UP.

>> SO THAT RETURNS BACK TO THE POINT THAT MS. MCGRANAHAN WAS MAKING DAUSES BECAUSE I HAVE YOU HAVE DOES HAVE A EMERGENCY CLAUSE.

GETTING ALL OF THAT LOGISTICALLY TOGETHER FOR PROVIDERS TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY MIGHT IP THERE UP, IS IT FAIR TO PUT AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE AND HAVE IT GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY WHEN THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME TIME THAT THEY MAY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEFORE THEM?

>> BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S A BIT -- AN INTERESTING POINT.

PRIOR TO DECEMBER, PHARMACIES COULDN'T DISTRIBUTE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE THANK SOMETHING TO SAY WORKERS YOU HAD THIS RIGHT AND NOW WE'RE TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU OR YOU HAD THIS RIGHT, NOW WE'RE MAKING ALL THIS LANGUAGE AROUND THIS TO MAKE THIS PLAYATELY COMPLICATED FOR YOU.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

NOT AN THAT BUT EVERY DOCTOR IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY DIDN'T HAVE THAT RIGHT, EITHER.

WE HAVE EMW AND WE HAD THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD FACILITIES.

SO THERE'S VERY STRINGENT CERTIFICATION PROCESSES SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING AGAIN THE TO PROVIDERS, THE PHYSICIANS WEEK OH, YOU HAD THIS RIGHT AND NOW WE'RE MAKING ALL THIS LITIGATION, EVERYTHING -- WHERE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE ARE TO YOU PROK.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

RIGHT?

>> CONCERNING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IS THIS ASPECT OF IT BEING MAIL ORDERED, THAT IT CAN COME TO YOUR DORM ROOM.

>> YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN KENTUCKY.

>> WAIT JUST A MINUTE.

YOU CANNOT DO, AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS THAT WE DO KNOW WHO IT WORKS IN KENTUCKY.

>> WE'RE VERY AWARE.

>> WE ALSO TESTED IT.

>> YOU CAN'T DO IT LEGALLY.

>> IF YOU -- >> AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'VE -- THERE ARE -- I'VE ACTUALLY TESTED THIS, AS YOU KNOW, AND SO YOU "ACTUALLY TEST IT, AS YOU KNOW.

THERE'S AS MANY AS ALMOST 20 COMPANIES.

>> I CAN ORDER SOMETHING IN THE MAIL.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT THE COMPANIES THAT WERE DOING THIS, THEY MIGHT BE -- AGAIN, THEY MIGHT BE CERTIFIED WITH THE MANUFACTURINGER BUT I DON'T HAVE VISIBILITY INTO THAT RIGHT NOW, FOR U.

NOR DO YOU, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE LEGAL OR NOT.

>> SOMEONE GOES ONLINE AND THEY PUT THE INFORMATION IN.

IF YOU PUT A KENTUCKY ZIP CODE IN, IT WILL DIRECT YOU BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TELEE.

MED TO A SITE IN CHICAGO OR OUT OF STATE.

NOW, THAT PROVIDER THERE HAS -- HERE WE ARE WE OBVIOUS OI COULD HAVE A YOUNG GIRL OR WOLFE NO CONNECTION THAT INDIVIDUAL, THEIR MEDICAL HISTORY.

AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PATIENTS IN KENTUCKY, AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF KENTUCKY COMES INTO PLAY.

THEY HAVE A DUTY AND A RIGHT TO.

>> AND A RESPONSIBILITY.

>> -- TO CONFORM LAW THAT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS THEIR CITIZENS FOR THEIR SAFETY AND WELL-BEING.

>> SO THE OTHER PIECE, AND TIME IS GETTING AWAY FROM US PRETTY QUICKLY, SO THIS GOES BY REALLY QUICK, THE ABORTION DOCUMENTATION THAT'S REQUIRED FROM, INCLUDING THE MINOR'S PLACE OF RESIDENCE, AGE, RACE AND APPROXIMATE AGE OF FATHER ALL THE WAY TO LOGGING THE FULL NAME, ADDRESS BOTH OF PHYSICIAN WHO PERFORMED THE ABORTION AND THE REFERRING PHYSICIAN, REFERRING PHYSICIAN AS WELL AS THE ADDRESS AT WHICH THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED, THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE WOULD SAY THAT YOU'RE CREATING A HIT LIST ON THESE PROVIDERS BY ANTI-ABORTION EXTREMITYISTS.

YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT.

>> YEAH, SO AS FAR AS -- AS FAR AS THE PATIENT INFORMATION, IT ALSO SAYS IN HERE THAT NONE OF THAT INFORMATION WILL BE RELEASED.

BUT WE DO WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE AGE IS, WE DO WANT TO KNOW -- >> WHERE DOES YOU THE FIELD GOAL IT'S NOT RELEASED?

>> RIGHT NOW IT'S ACTUALLY BEING CAPTURED BY HOPEFULLY THE PHYSICIAN, RIGHT?

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, IS MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION CONTINUES TO SEE THESE INDIVIDUALS, TO SEE THE WOMEN AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT ANY UNDERLYING ISSUES AND TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT ANY COMPLICATIONS, SO THE PHYSICIANS HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW AND IT IS AVAILABLE THROUGH VITAL STATISTICS.

>> SIT FORWARDED TO THE STATE HEALTH CABINET.

>> >> I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.

>> THE AGE OF MINORS IS GETTING REPORTED, AND IT'S STATISTICALLY REPORTED SO WE CAN LOOK A WHAT ARE THOSE TRENDS, WHAT'S HAPPENING?

ARE WE SEEING 13-YEAR-OLDS?

WHY ARE WE SEEING SOME WOMEN -- WE ALSO LOOK AT -- THEY ALSO REPORT REPEATED ABORTIONS.

I'D BE VERY CONCERNED IF YOU SEE A PATTERN OF REPEATED ABORTIONS.

WE KNOW SOME WOMEN ARE HAVING THEIR FOURTH, FIFTH.

SUDDENLY ABORTION BECOMES A FORM OF CONCEPTION.

>> SORRY IT COULD BE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY A PART OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR SOMETHING PANDEMICS WE ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE THOSE TRENDS.

AND I THINK I WANT TO GO BACK TO IN 2019 AND 2020 THERE WERE AS MANY AS 4,000 ABORTIONS IN COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OF WHICH ONE WAS FOR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, AND SO THOSE -- THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR US TO KNOW AS WELL AS WHAT ARE THE STATISTICS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS.

>> SO THE FIRST TIME I WAS EVER ASKED TO SPEAK ON REPRODUCTIVE PANEL I.

WAS WHEN I WAS 22 YEARS OLD AND I WAS TERRIFIED.

RIGHT BEFORE I WENT ON THE MINISTER TOLD ME, REMEMBER YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND BECAUSE WE'RE ALL ENTRENCHED ON THIS.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S $9.00 IN THESE TABLE TONIGHT.

WE CAN AGREE AND WHO HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION WOMEN THAT WANT TO BE MOTHERS AND LIVE IN KENTUCKY WHERE IT'S A REALLY HARD PLACE TO BE A PARENT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE BORN INTO POVERTY.

A LEADING CO-MONITORED FOR PREGNANCY IS POVERTY.

WE LEAD IN SOME OF THE WORST WAYS IN HEALTH OUT-COMMENTS FOR THE STATE.

WE HAVE HORRIBLE MATERNAL OUTCOMES IN THE STATE.

EVEN WORSE IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE A WOMAN OF COLOR.

WE ARE SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE TO KENTUCKIANS IN MY OPINION BY SLASHING BENEFITS AS WE'VE BEEN DOING THERE TO THAT SESSION.

WE JUST SLASHED BENEFITS FOR SNAP AND MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ACCESS.

WE'VE PASSED BILLS TO CUT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WHICH MAKE IT EVEN SCARIER FOR PEOPLE TO START FAMILIES.

BUT MY CAUCUS AB THE HOUSE WOMEN'S DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS IN A HOLISTIC WAY TO SAY WHAT CAN WE DO TO SUPPORT MA INES AND BABIES IN THE STATE.

WE'VE BUT TOGETHER A SLATE OF 22 PILLS EVERYTHING FROM EXPANDING ACCESS TO LACK NATION AND DIAPERS, HAVING MEDICARE PAY FOR DULAHS ESPECIALLY IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES.

HAVING PREGNANCY COUNT AS A SPECIAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD SO PEOPLE CAN ACCESS INSURANCE.

I'VE YOU THE.

TOGETHER A SERIES OF POSE PARTEDDUM DEPRESSION BILLS, AND THESE BILLS WERE STALLED.

ONE OF THEM WAS HEARD BASS LAST YEAR AND ONE OF THEM IS HEARD THIS YEAR.

IF WE WERE REALLY ARE TRYING TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS, WHICH WE ALL ARE.

NO ONE LIKES ABORTION.

ITS A NECESSARY MEDICAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM FOR SOME WOMEN.

BUT IF WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS ENCOURAGE FAMILIES AND WOMEN TO HAVE HEALTHY PREGNANCIES AND HEALTHY BABIES, THEN I WOULD URGE EVERYONE WHO IS HWANG TOELLE RA LOOK HAD TO THOSE MATERNAL HEALTH CARE BILLS WE HAVE FILED AND URGE YOUR REPRESENTS AND SENATORS TO STARTED LETTING THOSE BE HEARD BECAUSE THOSE WILL START LEADING TO THE KIND OF HEALTHY BABY OUTCOMES I THINK WE ALL WANT.

>> I RECOMMEND TO THE STATE, THE STATE HAS DONE SO MUCH WORK OVER THE YEARS, ESPECIALLY IN CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT AND PREFERENCE.

WE'VE GOT SENATE BILL 8 THIS YEAR DEALING WITH CHILD ABUSE COMING FORWARD.

BUT ALSO, MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH BENEFITS THROUGH THE CABINET ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERY PREGNANT WOMAN THAT DOES NOT HAVE INSURANCE, AND THAT'S AVAILABLE IN KENTUCKY.

I THINK, AND I COMMEND BIPARTISAN VOTE THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE ON US HOUSE BILL 174, I BELIEVE, THAT IT WOULD EXTEND TO THAT WOMAN POSTPARTUM HEALTH CARE MEDICAID BENEFITS.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY STEPPING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE.

>> AND I ALSO WANT TO ADD WHEN WE GO BACK AND WE LOOK AT THE PRO-LIFE, THE PRO-FAMILY LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR, WE PASSED OVER 40 BILLS THAT COULD BE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS PRO-LIFE/PRO-FAMILY.

FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REPRESENTATIVE HEAVRIN FROM GRAYSON, SHE ACTUALLY CHANGED AND INTRODUCED A BILL THAT WOULD PROVIDE MORE STATISTICS FOR THE MORTALITY, MOTHER MORTALITY, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT INFORMATION.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING OBJECT OH, WE DON'T CARE.

WE WANT TO KNOW WHERE THAT -- THE STATISTICS OF WHERE THOSE INCIDENTS ARE OCCURRING, AND IF THERE'S AREAS THAT WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON.

>> SO REAL QUICKLY WITH TWO MINUTES LESS REMAINING, THE 15-WEEK ABORTION BAN, WE TALKED ABOUT IT JUST BRIEFLY EARLIER.

WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF THAT BEING ATTACHED TO YOUR MEASURE, HOUSE BILL 3, AS IT COULD BE COMING UP IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE THIS WEDNESDAY?

>> SO I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I OBVIOUSLY WANT TO DO IS WORK WITH THE SENATE.

WE ASK THAT THE SENATE WORKS WITH US.

WE THAN THE WA TO WORK WITH THE SENATE.

SO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THAT COULD OCCUR.

>> AND YOU SUPPORT THAT MEASURE?

>> THE SENATE BILL 321?

YES, I DO SUPPORT THAT MEASURE, ABSOLUTELY.

>> I'LL GIVE YOU MAYBE A MINUTE TO RESPOND.

>> WELL, I FIND SENATE BILL 321 IS A DUPLICATE BILL.

ACTUALLY IT'S ALMOST FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME AS FORMER HOUSE REP ADDIA WUCHNER'S 2018.

SO WE ALREADY HAVE THIS BILL THAT'S IN LITIGATION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RECEIVED A I BELIEVE AN 8 TO 1 RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO OH REOPEN THAT CASE AND REHEAR IT.

SO YOUR YOU'RE FUNCTIONALLY PASSING AN IDENTICAL BILL.

IT'S POLITICAL THEATER IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

>> SO KAREN SCOTT FROM FLOYD COUNTY ASKED, HOW MUCH MONEY WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY SPEND TO FIGHT BILLS THAT ARE ANTI-ABORTION WHEN THE ACLU SUES THE COMMONWEALTH BECAUSE THESE NEW ANTI-ABORTION PILLS ARE ILLEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR JACKIE.

>> WE -- LAWSUITS DO COST MONEY.

THEY DO.

>> AND SO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT AS SOON AS THIS BILL IS FILED, THAT ACLU L WILL BE ON THE CASE?

>> WE'LL SEE.

>> I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO RITTER THAT THIS IS A DUPLICATION OF THE BILL THAT'S ALSO IN THE MRS. MISSISSIPPI BILL THAT'S BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW.

>> AND WAIT UNTIL THE UK RULING BEFORE YOU ACTS AND IT'S PREMATURE.

>> YOU HAVE A TRIGGER BAN.

>> IT WAS DOLLAR.

A NEW YEAR'S AGO AND THERE WILL BE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE BEFORE VOTERS IN 1st NOVEMBER.

LOTS TO DISCUSS THAT WE DIDN'T EVEN GET TO.

WE'LL TO HAVE LEAVE THAT.

THAT'S ALWAYS OUR MISSION, IS TO BRING ABOUT SOME UNDERSTANDING.

WE HOPE WE DID THAT FOR YOU THIS EVENING.

NEXT WEEK WE'LL TALK ABOUT PUBLIC BENEFITS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND CHANGES TO THOSE RULES AS WELL, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS MONDAY NIGHT AT 8:00 EASTERN, 7:00 CENTRAL RIGHT HERE ON KET.

I'M RENEE SHAW.