>> Renee: GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING u OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: ABORTION RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

WHEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETS IN JANUARY, LAWMAKERS COULD KORAN COME ANY BUS ANTI-ABORTION BILL THAT INCLUDES MORE RESTRICTIONS ON abortion, INCLUDING NEW PARENTAL CONSENT KENTUCKY IS NOT ALONE IN THIS.

TEXAS RECENTLY PASSED A BILL BANNING ABORTION AFTER A HEARTBEAT IS DETECTED, WITH ESTIMATES THAT IT WOULD PREVENT 85 TO 90 PERCENT OF ALL ABORTIONS PERFORMED IN THAT STA THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT LAST WEEK.

SO WHAT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN K?

TO DISCUSS ALL OF THAT WE ARE JOINED IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE NANCY T REPRESENTATIVE NANCY TATE, A REPUBLICAN FROM BRANDENBURG.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE ATTICA SCOTT, A DEMOCRAT FROM DUVAL.

ADDIA WUCHNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE KENTUCKY RIGHT TO LIFE ASSOCIATION.

AND TAMARRA WIEDER, STATE DIRECTOR OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE ADV IN OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO WE HAV HEATHER GATNAREK, STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE ACLU OF Kentucky.

AND LIVE BY SKYPE, KATIE GLENN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COUNSEL AT AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SO SENDS A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON twitter @KYTONIGHTKET.

SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.ORG.

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- WELCOME TO ALL OF OUR GUESTS.

WHETHER THEY'RE IN THIS STUDIO OR OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO OR JOINING US BY SKYPE TONIGHT.

VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC INDEED, AND I GUESS IT WAS OCTOBER, LATE OCTOBER REPRESENTATIVE TATE, YOU AND FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE ADDIA WUCHNER.

YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HEAR ME CALL HER REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE SHE WAS THERE A LONG TIME.

YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT THIS OMNI BUST ANTI-ABORTION BILL WHICH IS HAD AN AMAL GALVANIZING BASE OF TWO BILLS, ONE ON THE HOUSE SIDE AND WONT SENATE SIDE.

IF YOU DON'T RIDDEN, REPRESENTATIVE TATE, IT HESITANT BEEN PRE-FILED BUT WHAT DOES IT PURPORT TODAY?

>> THANK YOU, RENEE.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AND TALK ABOUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT MEASURE.

YOU SAID IT WAS ACTUALLY TWO BILLS AND YOU'RE RIGHT.

THE ONE WAS MULTIPLE FROM THE HOUSE AND MULTIPLE FROM THE SENATE.

SO 2020 WAS NOT GOOD FOR US, FOR FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, BUT WHERE WE TRADITIONALLY HAVE 3,000 ABORTIONS IN COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, WE HAD OVER 4 NOW ABORTIONS.

AND A LOT OF THOSE WERE ACTUALLY ON MINORS.

-- 4,000 ABORTIONS.

WE AVERAGE 14 OR ACTUALLY 13 OF 14 ON 19 YEARS AGE CHILDREN THAT ARE HAVING ABORTIONS, 14 YEARS AND UNDER, AND THEN WE AVERAGE OVER 300 FOR CHILDREN THAT ARE 15 TO 19.

SO WHAT AWAY REALLY WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE MINORS, WHENEVER THEY HAVE ABORTIONS, THAT THEIR PARENTS CONSENT, THE PARENTS AWARE.

YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WHEN WE HAVE THE I'M OF WHERE WE CAN'T EVEN TAKE AN ASPIRIN WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT, WE ARE POTENTIALLY HAVING CHILDREN HAVE AN ABORTION IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY WITHOUT THEIR PARENTAL CONSENT.

SO ONE PORTION OF THIS BILL MAKES SURE THAT THOSE MINORS, THAT THEIR PARENTS ARE AWARE.

NOW WE ALSO KNOW THAT IN SOME CASES THAT THERE'S SITUATIONS WHERE CHILDREN, THESE CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR PARENTS.

AND SO THEREFORE THAT'S WHO WE'RE CALLING FOR THE JUDICIAL BYPASS.

>> WHAT DOES JUDICIAL BYPASS MEAN?

>> JUDICIAL BYPASS SAYS BASICALLY THE THAT COURTS,AL THERE BE A HEARING AND THEIR DETERMINATION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE CHILDREN, BEFORE THEY CAN HAVE THEIR ABORTIONS, THAT THEY ARE MENTALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING THEIR DECISIONS, THEY KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS, THE LIFELONG IMREPLY ARE OF MAKING THOSE DECISIONS, AND THIS -- IMPLICATIONS ARE OF MAKING THOUGH DECISIONS AND JUST LIKE I SAID THEY'RE MENTALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY CAPABLE.

SO THE COURTS BO ACTUALLY STEP IN, HAVE THE HEARING TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE AGAIN I'M GOING TO SAY HIGHER THAN CHILDREN, REALIZE THE LIFELONG IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

>> WE'RE GOING TO HIT MORE ON WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO.

THOSE ARE THE TWO BIG PARTS RIGHT THERE.

I WOULDN'T TO GO TO MS. WIEDERER BECAUSE YOU ALSO RECEIVED THAT THE THAT V MAP PROTECTION COMMITTEE OCTOBER 20th, I DO BELIEVE, AND YOURIT LITERATURE HAS SAID THAT ABORTION IS HEALTH CARE.

SO WHEN YOU HEARD REPRESENTATIVE TATE TALK THE PARENTAL CONTROL ON PARENTAL CONSENT I WANT TO HANDLING OUR HAT THERE.

DOES KENTUCKY NOT HAVE PARENTAL CONSENT LAWS?

PLACE?

AND HOW WOULD THIS FURTHER EMPHASIZE THAT?

TO WHO WILL IT RALLY EFFECT AND DISENFRANCHISE?

>> KENTUCKY LAW ALLOWS MINORS TO HAVE ABORTIONS WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.

THERE ARE THOSE WHO MAY GO THROUGH THE JUDICIAL PROCESS SORRY TO WHATEVER REASON THEY, A SITUATION THAT THEY CANNOT SEEK PARENTAL CONSENT SO THEY GO THROUGH A JUDICIAL BYPASS.

BUT MOST MINORS SEEKING ABORTIONS BRING IN THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.

THEY'RE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO.

SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT ABORTION REMAIN SAFE AND LEGAL AND ACCESSIBLE TO THOSE, ESPECIALLY MINORS SEEKING ABORTION IN KENTUCKY.

IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE THAT WEIR HAVING CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE IT DISPROPORTIONATELILY HADDER FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PROBABLY MARGINALIZED TO TAKES CARE.

ONE OF THE PROVISION AT LEAST HOW WE SAW FROM WHAT WAS PRESENT, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE AN AFFIDAVIT FOR -- FROM THE PARENTS WHEN THEY GO IN FOR THE PARENTAL CONSENT PIECE, AND IT'S A LEGAL HURRIEDLY FOR PARENTS SUPPORTING THEIR CHILDREN -- HURLED FOR PARENTS SUPPORTING THEIR CHILDREN GOING AN ABORTION.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS MORE HURDLES THAT ULTIMATE LAKE ACCESSING ABORTION, FULL STOP, NOT AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALS IN COMMONWEALTH.

>> SO IS THAT THE OVERALL GOAL, MS. WISHNER?

RIGHTS HARD FOR ME NOT TO SAY REPRESENTATIVE YOU.

WUCHNER.

IS THAT THE GOAL, TO REDUCE AND RESTRICT ABORTION ACCESS ALTOGETHER?

YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THIS THE HEIGHTEN HUMANITY AND HEALTH CARE ACT, AND YOU SAID IT'S REALLY ABOUT ENHANCING CARE FOR WOMEN.

EXPLAIN TO THE OTHER SIDE WHY THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> WELL, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FIRST PIECE.

THERE WOULD BE ASPECT OF THE BILL THAT REALLY IS, WE ALL THAN THE WA, AND HI THERE'S MANIERS AREAS ELSE WITH HEALTH CARE THAT WE CAN AGREE ON.

THERE MAY BE A REASON WHY WE DISAGREE WITH THE REQUEST TERMINATION OF A PREGNANCY.

WE WANT IT TO BE SAFE, MAKING SURE HEALTH PROTOCOLS ARE FOLLOWED.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE MINOR, WE'RE NOT RESTRICTING OR CHANGING JUDICIAL BYPASS, AND I ALWAYS WANT TO BE CLEAR.

THAT CAME ABOUT IN 1979, SIX YEARS AFTER ROW V. WADE WAS PASSED OR DECIDED BY THE CORDS TO ADDRESS MINORS.

IS ON THAT ASPECT IS STILL THERE, AND IT ALLOWS THE COURTS TO DECIDE WHEN THERE IS NOT PARENTAL CONSENT ON MATURITY AND BEST INTERESTS.

THAT WILL NOT CHANGE.

THAT IS NOT CHANGING IN THIS BILL.

BUT WHAT IT DOES DO, ESPECIALLY IN A TIME THAT WE SEE SEX TRAFFICKING IN KENTUCKY, YOU KNOW, SECOND BASICALLY TO DRUG TRAFFICKING, TO ASSURE THAT IT IS -- LIKE THE ASPECTS THAT THEY PUT IN HERE.

>> -- THAT IT IS TRULY THE PARENTS OF OF THAT MINOR CHILD PRESENTING AT THE COURT, THAT THERE'S AN AFFIDAVIT, AN INFORMATION AFFIRMING THAT THAT IS THE PARENT, THAT THE MATURITY, IT'S A MATURITY TEST, NOT REALLY A TEST, BUT AGAIN ASKING THE JUDGE TO JUDGE ON THE MATURITY AND THE EMOTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CHILD.

THE JUDGE WILL STILL HAVE THE PURVIEW IF THEY'RE USING JUDICIAL BYPASS IF IT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO HAVE THAT PROCEDURE.

SO THAT DOES NOT CHANGE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S PUTTING SOME MORE STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS, NOT RESTRICTING SO MUCH BUT MORE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOTE A DRUG TRAFFICKER POSING AS THE MINOR CHILD'S PARENT, BRINGING THEM INTO THE COURT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, WHAT FAULT DO YOU FIND IN JUST THESE COUPLE OF TENANTS THAT WE'VE TESTIFIED SO FAR IN THIS OMNIBUS ANTI-ABORTION MEASURE?

>> THERE ARE TWO ISSUES.

ONE IS FORCING CHILDREN TO HAVE CHILDREN.

ANOTHER IS A GROUP OF COMPLETE STRANGERS ACROSS KENTUCKY WHO ARE SAYING THIS NECESSITY WANT TO HAVE POWER, DOMINATION AND CONTROL OVER SOMEONE'S BODY.

TO ME THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD ALLOW.

PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE DECISIONS WITH, WE ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY FOR PARENTS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION MAKING OF A CHILD WHO MAY HAVE BEEN RAPED OR WHO MAY BE A VICTIM OF INCEST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN END THEIR PREGNANCY.

WE ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT OF PARENTS.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO ADD MORE MEASURES TO MAKE ABORTION ACCESS MORE COMPLICATED.

YES, HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT AND ABORTION IS HEALTH CARE.

BUT WE SHOULD BE DOING ININFESTED IS ANDREAS ISSUES RELATED TO MATERNITY AND INFANT HEALTH.

WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING THE MATERNITY CRISIS THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH.

BLACK WOMEN BEING THREE TO FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE IN CHILDBIRTH THAN WHITE WOMEN.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE CHANCE TO HAVE THAT BILL HEARD IN COMMITTEE.

THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING RATHER THAN FORCING PEOPLE TO GIVE BIRTH AGAINST THEIR WILL.

>> I WANT TO GO TO YOU, MS. KATE GLENN WHO IS JOINING US BY SKYPE TONIGHT FROM FLORIDA, I DO BELIEVE.

AND AS YOU LOOK AT THIS ISSUE ON A NATIONAL SCALE, I WANT TO PICK UP THE POINT THAT REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT JUST MADE.

IN KENTUCKY WE CERTAINLY OUTPACE THE NATION WHEN IT COMES TO MATERNAL MORTALITY AND COMPLICATIONS FROM PREGNANCY THAT CAN RESULT IN MORBIDITY AND DEATH, AND SO IF -- AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME RESEARCH TO SUGGEST THAT ABORTIONS CAN ACTUALLY -- OR RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTIONS CAN EVEN EXACERBATE THAT ISSUE.

SO WHAT CAN YOU ADD TO THAT CONVERSATION?

AND IS KENTUCKY DOING IT RIGHT?

AND HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO WHAT OTHER STATES ARE PROPOSING AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME WHEN IT COMES TO ABORTION RESTRICTION OR, AS SOME WOULD CALL IT, THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS?

>> WELL, THIS IS CERTAINLY INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE AND SOMETHING THAT LAWMAKERS IN KENTUCKY AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE THINKING ABOUT.

WE'VE SEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT ON CAPITOL HILL AS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK.

AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUAL SPEAK ABOUT.

WOMEN'S HEALTH IS SO OFTEN THROWN INTO THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT ABORTION, AND IT'S THE ONLY PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S RECENT WOMEN'S HEALTH GUIDELINES, THEY WERE TOTAL ABORTION FOCUSED.

SO I THINK THIS IS AN AREA, MATERNAL MORTALITY, WHERE WE CAN ALL COME TOGETHER, AND I THINK WE AGREE ON SO MUCH, AND ABORTION REALLY CLOUDS THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT TAKES MEDICINE FROM A HEALING PROFESSION TO A KILLING PROFESSION.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF WE CAN REALLY CHANGE THE WAY THAT WE THINK ABOUT WOMEN'S HEALTH TOWARDSELL ACTUAL HEALING, THEN WE CAN SOLVE A LOVE PROBLEMS.

>> -- WHO IS JOINING US IN YOUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US YOU.

WANT TO GET YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE FIRST COUPLE OF PROVISIONS OF THE OF THIS BILL, PARTICULARLY THE PARENTAL CONSENT AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO SHARE ABOUT THE MATERNAL MORTALITY ARGUMENT.

>> THAW SO MUCH, RENEE.

I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO HEAR FOLKS TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE TIE 67 HEALTH CARE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, ABORTION.

STUDIES HAVE SHOWN FOR DECADE THAT ABORTION IS ONE OF THE SAFEST MEDICAL PROCEDURES, AND ABORTION IN KENTUCKY, ALONG WITH OTHER STATES, IS INCREDIBLY HEAVILY REGULATED.

SO THE DOCTORS THAT ARE PROVIDING THIS CARE AT THE TWO CLINICS HERE IN LOUISVILLE ARE DOING SO BOTH WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF COMPETENCE AND EXPERTISE AND EDUCATION IN THEIR FIELD AND ALSO WHILE BEING UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK FROM THE STATE, SO THEY REALLY ARE PROVIDING THIS CARE IN AN INCREDIBLE -- INCREDIBLY TENSE TIME BUT THEY'RE DOING A WONDERFUL JOB WITH IT.

AND I THINK WHAT MY COLLEAGUE TAMARRA SAID ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF LAW IS TRUE.

IT IS ALREADY VERY DIFFICULT FOR MINORS TO ACCESS ABORTIONS IN KENTUCKY.

THE LAW THAT WE BELIEVE WILL BE INTRODUCED NEXT SESSION WILL VERY LIKELY ONLY MAKE THAT MORE DIFFICULT.

ALL OF THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE SEEN COME OUT FROM THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE HAD AN EFFECT OF MAKING ABORTION MORE DID I HAVE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS.

AND ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT SEEN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL IN PARTICULAR, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF THIS BILL AS WELL.

>> WE HAVE A QUESTION, REPRESENTATIVE TATE, FROM A LEXINGTON VIEWER THAT SAYS STATISTICS TELL US THAT 80% OF ALL ABORTIONS ARE DUE TO POVERTY OR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

WHAT DOES THE MAJORITY PARTY IN THE LEGISLATURE DOING TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES?

WERE WHY ARE WE NOT DOING MORE TO ADDRESS WHAT RESEARCH TELLS US ARE THE ROOT CAUSES?

>> AND I LOVE THAT QUESTION.

I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS ADDRESS VIOLENCE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH.

SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, VIOLENCE, THIS IS VIOLENCE IN THE WOMB.

AND SO WHERE WE'VE GOT -- AND WE TALK ABOUT WHERE WOMEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE DECISIONS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN THAT ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 19.

AND STATISTICS ALSO SHOW US AND APPROVE TO US THAT WE DON'T EVEN REACH EMOTIONAL MATURITY UNTIL WE'RE 25.

SO WE'RE ALLOWING CHILDREN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE LIFELONG DECISIONS.

SO I'M -- I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS VIOLENCE, AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THINGS THAT COME OUT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN THE 2020 SESSION WHERE WE WILL BE ADDRESSING VIOLENT.

>> DOES THIS MEASURE MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR VICTIMS OF RAPE OR INCEST?

>> OF COURSE.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT.

WE HAVE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT -- AND THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE STATUTE RIGHT NOW WHERE I FOX RAPE AND INCEST WHICH ONLY ATTRIBUTES LESS THAN 1ST% OF THE CASES.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY 1% OF THE CASES.

AND THERE'S ALSO THE MOTHER'S HEALTH IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.

SO THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT CHANGING THAT AT ALL.

>> I WANT TOBRUK THE -- A COUPLE OF OTHER PROVISIONS.

THE MEDICAL CHEMICAL ABORTIONS.

I ANTOINETTE TO DEFINE FORE US WHAT CHEMICAL ABORTIONS ARE.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT 50% OF THE ABORTIONS DONE IN KENTUCKY ARE CHEMICAL, NOT SURGICAL AND BE WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND I LIKE THE THOUGHT WHENEVER WE SAY THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE HEALTH CARE THAT IS GOOD AND THAT IS SAFE BECAUSE CHEMICAL ABORTIONS ARE NOT SAFE.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROVEN FOR FOUR TIMES MORE DANGEROUS FOR THE MEIR EVER MOTHER THAN THE SURGICAL ABORTIONS.

SO THE CHEMICAL ABORTION IS JUST WHAT IT SAYS, WHERE THE PATIENT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE MEDICINE AND THEY DO THAT AT HOME, AND THEN THE BABY IS ABORTED WHILE THE MOTHER IS AT HOME P. AND SO SOMETIMES -- WE LIKE TO SAY THIS ISN'T BEING DONE OFF THE INTERNET.

IT ACTUALLY IS BEING DONE OFF OF THE INTERNET.

IT'S BEING DONE WITHOUT PARENTAL OR -- AND PHYSICIAN CARE.

AND SO IT'S NOT SAFE.

THE MOTHER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO HOME.

THE BABY IS ABORTED.

THERE'S NO FOLLOW-UP NECESSARILY, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S NO DOCTOR INVOLVEMENT, SO THERE'S NO FOLLOW-UP.

THERE COULD BE A DANGEROUS AND ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS OF WOMEN HAVE ACTUALLY DIED FROM TAKING THESE PILLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE OVER THE INTERNET.

AND COMING IN FROM OVERSEAS.

>> SO LET'S BE VERY CLEAR WITH OUR VIEWERS.

THIS IS NOT THE MORNING-AFTER PILL.

THIS IS RU FRISK.

>> THIS IS RU FRISK.

>> MS. WIEDERER, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, IT IS.

>> SO MED CAWING FORGES IS 99% SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

WHAT WE JUST HEARD WAS A LOT OF FEAR-MONGERING AROUND THE MEDICATION ABORTION PROCEDURE.

IN KENTUCKY IT IS ILLEGAL TO HAVE MEDICATION ABORTION OUTSIDE OF A PHYSICIAN-REGULATED SITUATION, SO EMW OR PLANTED.

>> SO THE TWO ABORTION CLINICS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

>> TWO ABORTION CLINICS.

THEY HAVE TO COME IN.

THEY MEET THE PROVIDER.

THEY TAKE THE FIRST ROUND THE PILL AND GO HOME.

>> ARE THERE SUBSEQUENT ROUNDS OF PILL TO BE TAKEN?

>> THEY TAKE ANOTHER ROUND AT HOME, BUT THEY ARE MONITORED BY PHYSICIANS.

>> HOW ARE THEY MONITORED IN.

>> THEY ARE FOLLOWED UP WITH -- I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EMW SPECIFICALLY BUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES FOLLOW UP WITH THE PATIENT.

WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE PASSED ALL PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION AND THEY ARE TAKEN CARE OF THROUGHOUT THEIR PROCEDURE.

WE ARE WITH THEM THROUGH EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

AND WE DO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN THEY GO HOME AND WHEN THEY COME BACK AND WHAT TO LOOK FOR.

IN KENTUCKY I DON'T WANT THIS FEAR-MONGERING AROUND ABORTION MEDICATION WHICH IS SO SAFE, SO SAFE IN FACT THAT THE FKA FKA DA HAD LOOSENED RESTRICTIONS DURING COVID TO MAKE THE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE.

NOT IN KENTUCKY, BUT HAD MADE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

99%.

>> AND THIS IS HAPPENED UNDERNEATH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

>> THIS HAS HAPPENED UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, AND THE FDA IS LOOKING TO A PRIVATE LONG-TERM FOR THAT ACCESSIBILITY.

>> AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN KENTUCKY.

WE'RE TRYING TO ENSURE THE STANDARD THAT WERE FIRST THERE, MEANING IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU BY YOUR MEDICAL PROVIDER, WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE.

WE KNOW THE FDA WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOSEN THAT UP COMPLETELY TO WHERE THESE WOULD BE OBTAINABLE THROUGH MAIL.

IN NOVEMBER, THIS NOVEMBER IT NOW LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN EXTENDED TO PROBABLY AROUND MID-DECEMBER, THAT THOSE RESTRICTIONS AND THE WAY THAT SAFETY NET WOULD END, MEANING THAT THEY COULD OBTAIN THEM THROUGH THE MAIL, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME GUIDELINES.

THESE DRUGS ARE PRODUCED IN CHINA.

THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED BY A U.S. COMPANY.

BUT THEY ARE ALSO PRODUCTS MADE AND DISTRIBUTED IN CHINA THAT COULD BE COMING INTO THE COUNTRY.

ONCE THIS BECOMES TOTALLY MAIL ORDER ABORTION WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE YOUR PHYSICIAN, AND TAMARRA, THAT'S THE CONCERN.

>> IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN KENTUCKY WITH THE WAY YOU'VE REGULATED ABORTION.

>> IT WON'T HAPPEN.

>> IT COULD HAPPEN NOW.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> IT CAN AND IT IS HAPPENING NOW.

>> HAPPENING NOW.

BUT ACTUALLY WHEN THE FDA -- WHEN THE CHANGE COMES ABOUT IN DECEMBER, THE WHOLE CHANGE, THEY WILL NO LONGER -- A WOMAN COULD ACTUALLY ORDER THESE ONLINE.

THESE MEDICATIONS ONLINE.

AFTER THOSE REGULATIONS WITHOUT HER MEDICAL PROVIDER.

AND SO BASICALLY THIS IS GOOD WOMEN'S HEALTH.

IT'S SAME THE SAME THINGS.

SHE SEES A PHYSICIAN AHEAD OF TIME, AT THE TIME.

THE PHYSICIAN OR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER IS THE ONE THAT DISPENSES IT.

IT ALSO REQUIRES A FOLLOW-UP VISIT BECAUSE THERE ARE RISK TO IT.

THERE IS BLEEDING, INFECTION, MAKING SURE THE PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION HAVE PASSED.

IF A WOMAN ORDERS THIS OR A YOUNG GIRL THROUGH THE MAIL WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE IF A MEDICAL PROVIDER, THE ASSURANCES AND SHE TAKES IT DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER, THERE'S A 6 TO 9 PERCENT RISK OF FAILURE.

IT INCREASES LATER IN THAT PREGNANCY THAT THE MEDICATION -- THEN SHE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK FOR A SURGICAL ABORTION.

THESE ARE VERY STRONG, VERY POWERFUL MEDICATIONS.

THE FIRST MEDICATION, OF COURSE, CUTS OFF THE FLOW OF -- BLOOD FLOW AND HORMONES TO THAT CHILD WHICH CAUSES THE CHILD'S DEMISE.

THE SECOND MEDICATION THEN CAUSES THE BOMB'S BODY TO EXPEL THE -- WOMAN'S BODY TO EXPEL THE CHILD, MAKING SURE THAT THAT WOMAN KNOWS SHE MAY SEE THE PRODUCTS CONCEPTION, SHE MAY SEE THAT VERY CHILD AS IT PASSES, WHEN SHE PASSES THAT PREGNANCY.

P SO WHAT'S BEING DONE NOW HAS BEEN DONE THROUGH EMW OR PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

AS THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE LOOSENED ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND ESPECIALLY KENTUCKY, THIS IS ENSURING THAT WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING AN ABORTION, THAT IT REMAINS SAFE AND APPROPRIATE.

>> KATIE GEN IT WASN'T TO WEIGH THAT THE THIS PARTICULAR POINT.

KATIE.

>> I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER IS THAT WE DON'T NEED TO PASS THIS TO FIND OUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO WOMEN IN UNITED STATES.

WE CAN USE EXAMPLES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHOW HOW DANGEROUS THESE DRUGS ARE.

IN FINLAND AND OTHER SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY HAVE SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE AND THEY HAVE MUCH BETTER RECORDS THAN WE DO HERE IN UNITED STATES, THEY SHOW THE FAILURE RATE FOR CHEMICAL ABORTION DRUGS AS HIGH AS 20% IN THE FIRST TRY MERIT MESTER.

IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IN RESPONSE TO COVID THEY DID A PILL BYE BY MAIL SCHEME AND PARAMEDICS WROTE A LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT SAYING THE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WOMEN THAT WE'VE BEEN PICKING AND UP TAKING TO EMERGENCY ROOMS HAS JUMPED LIKE CRAZY, AND YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

SO WE NEED TO LEARN FROM THOSE MISTAKES, NOT MAKE THEM OURSELVES.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, LET ME HAVE YOU WEIGH IN ON THAT POINT.

HANK WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD FROM MS. GLENN AND MS. WISHNER ABOUT THE DANGERS THAT COULD COME FROM THIS KIND OF PILL THAT'S GOTTEN INTO THE MAIL WITHOUT SOME KIND OF PROVIDER GUIDANCE AND OVERSIGHT COULD BE DANGEROUS TO THAT WOMAN.

HOW DO YOU SEE IT?

>> I ALSO KNOW THAT WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR TO US ACKNOWLEDGE TO THE POINT OF ONLY 44%, AS IF ONLY 4% IS ACCEPTABLE OF PEOPLE BEING IMPREGNATED BECAUSE OF RAPE OR INCEST.

4% IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

THAT'S TOO MANY.

THAT'S 4% TOO MANY.

I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO YOUR VIEWER FROM LEXINGTON WHO ASKED WHAT WE'RE DOING TO ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUES LIKE POVERTY, MOST POLITICIANS DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT POVERTY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING MUCH TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

WE STILL PAY PEOPLE POVERTY WAGES.

$7.25 AN HOUR FOR THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

WE STILL HAVE HOUSELESSNESS ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.

WE STILL HAVE PEOPLE HOR BURDENED BY STUDENT LOAN DEBT AND MEDICAL DEBT, AND THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT WE TRULY ARE NOT ADDRESSING ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.

THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS RATHER THAN DEMANDING, ENFORCING THAT PEOPLE GIVE BIRTH AGAINST THEIR WILL.

>> SO THIS VIEWER FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY ASKS, IF STRICTER ABORTION RIGHTS BECOME LAW, IS THE STATE LEGISLATURE GOING TO FUND THE MEDICAL CARE OF MOTHER AND THE CHILD AS WELL WITH SCHOOLING, HOUSING, FOOD, ET CETERA?

>> AND I THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL QUESTION, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

YOU KNOW, 42%, OVER 40% OF THE STATE BUDGET RIGHT NOW IS SPENT ON HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, SO I DON'T SEE THAT BEING DIMINISHED.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS REVENUE CONTINUES.

TO INCREASE, THEN THAT MEANS THAT THAT 42% WILL INCREASE.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK AROUND AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT SAID.

WHENEVER YOU HAVE A CONCEPTION, WHEN A HUMAN IS CONCEIVED FROM RAPE AND INCEST, AND YOU TALK ABOUT -- WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHERE THERE'S TWO REPUBLICANS HERE.

YOU'VE GOT THE MOTHER AND NOW YOU'VE GOT THE BABY.

TWO VICTIMS.

SO WHAT I AM OPPOSED TO IS I'M OPPOSED TO THAT BABY BEING VICTIMIZED AGAIN AND TREATED LIKE IT'S NOT A HUMAN AND DOESN'T DESERVE THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE OR OF ANY OF US.

SO I AM ABSOLUTELY AND ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE SECOND VICTIM BEING DESTROYED BECAUSE OF A HEINOUS CRIME.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IS THE CRIMINAL THAT COMMITS THAT HEINOUS CRIME SHOULD ACTUALLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT I SEE THAT.

IF THERE ARE SO MANY RAPES AND ABORTIONS THAT ARE -- EXCUSE ME -- RAPES AND INSAYS THAT ARE KONG THESE ABORTIONS, I WANT TO KNOW WHY THESE PEOPLE AREN'T IN PRISON.

AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY'RE NO BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

SO THAT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT'S WHERE REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT AND I COULD PROBABLY BAND TOGETHER AND WORK ON MAKING SURE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE HELD YOU'LL BE AS ADDIA SAID, HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND RAPE AND INCEST WERE THE CRIMES THAT ARE OCCURRING THAT ARE CAUSING THIS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE DO WORKING WITH REPRESENTATIVE TATE ON SUCH LEGISLATION?

I WANT TO WORK ON LEGISLATION RELATED TO INFANT AND MATERNAL HEALTH.

WE HAVE TRIED FOR YEARS TO GET THAT LEGISLATION PASSED AND YET THE SUPER MAJORITY REFUSES TO HEAR THOSE BILLS.

REFUSE TO ACT ON BILLS THAT COULD KEEP PEOPLE SAVE AND HEALTHY.

>> ANDY GAMBLIN' FROM OWENSBORO, KENTUCKY ASKS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND SUNS YOU'RE THAT OF PARENT THEY THAL IDENTITY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SAYS ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S RIGHT BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UNBORN'S BABY'S RIGHTS?

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN FEET US.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN UNBORN BABY.

WHEN SOMEBODY HAS AN ABORTION, THEY ARE ABORTING A FETUS.

>> SO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS -- >> I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE DIFFER.

>> WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN, AT EXPENSING OR BIRTH.

>> >> WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN.

WE BELIEVE LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

IT'S SCIENCE.

IT'S NOT JUST A BELIEF OR FAITH BELIEF.

IT'S THE TRUE DNA OF THE MOTHER AND FATHER BECOME ONE UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL HAT THAT MOMENT OF CONCEPTION.

SO I WOULD ASK TAMARRA WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN.

THIS MAY BE WHY WE HAVE SUCH AN OPPOSING DIFFERENCE.

>> YEAH, I THINK THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THAT WE DO SEE DIFFERENTLY WHEN LIFE BEGINS, AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL FEELING AROUND THIS ISSUE, BE IT FAITH-BASED, BE IT SPIRITUAL, BE HOW THEY WERE BROUGHT UP.

WE DO KNOW THAT VIABILITY FROM THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBJECT STRICTIONS AND GYNECOLOGISTS.

THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FIND VIABILITY AT 25, 26 WEEKS, AND SO I -- FOR ME I DON'T SEE THAT WHERE I SEE LIFE AS PERTINENT TO BEYOND VIABILITY BUT I DO THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIFE -- AND I THINK IT'S INTERESTING HOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT'S BILLS AND I BELIEVE THE DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S CAUCUS HAD OVER 26 BILLS THAT THEY FILED LAST YEAR DEALING WITH MATERNAL AND INFANT HEALTH, AND I'M REALLY JUST CURIOUS TO WHY THERE WASN'T MORE WORK ACROSS THE AISLE ON THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIFE.

>> SURE.

AND I'M NOT AT ALL OPPOSED TO HAVING THAT CONVERSATION, BUT I THINK WE'RE DEVIATING FROM WHAT THE REAL CONVERSATION IS.

>> WHY CAN'T THEY HAPPEN IN TANDEM?

>> THEY CAN, SENATE OF.

THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO STICK WITH THIS TOPIC AND THEN WE CAN PURSUE THAT TOPIC.

>> LET ME BRING IN HEATHER AND ASK HER THIS QUESTION, TOO, IN THE POSITION OF ACLU ABOUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT WHEN LIFE BEGINS.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, RENEE, AGAIN I THINK TAMARRA SAID THIS BEST, THAT WE'RE ALL INFLUENCED BY OUR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS, BY OUR OWN SPIRITUALITY OR OUR FAITH BELIEFS OR APPLICABLE BELIEFS ABOUT THIS ISSUE, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T FORCE THEM TO REMAIN PREGNANT.

SO AGAIN, AS TAMARRA FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD SAID, AT THIS POINT AND FOR 50 YEARS THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT VIABILITY IS A BRIGHT LINE HERE.

BEFORE VIABILITY, WHICH AGAIN IS ABOUT 25, 26 WEEKS, STATES CANNOT BAN ABORTION.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE SEEN ATTEMPT AFTER ATTEMPT AFTER ATTEMPT FROM THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND OTHER STATE LEGISLATURES AS WELL TO BAN ABORTION AND PUT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS WHERE WE NOW FIND OURSELVES TODAY.

SO AGAIN, THAT VERY PERSONAL QUESTION ABOUT WHERE LIFE BEGINS I THINK IS ONE THAT WE COULD DISCUSS ALL DAY LONG AND TWICE ON SUNDAY, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THAT WE HAVE A STANDARD IN THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE ARE FREE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES, AND THAT RIGHT IS AT RISK.

>> SO REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING DEPOSITIONS, IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL TO BAN ABORTIONS OUTRIGHT IN KENTUCKY?

AND IF YOU COULD SPONSOR A BILL WOULD YOU SPONSOR IT?

>> I THINK THAT'S BEEN DONE.

IN 2019 WHENEVER SENATOR MATT CASTELAN PASSED THE HEARTBEAT BILL THAT WAS DONE.

WE KNOW THE HEARTBEAT CAN BE DETECTED.

AT SIX WEEKS.

>> ACTUALLY WITH AN ULTRASOUND IT CAN BE DEFECTED IN KANE CASES DAYS.

>> BEFORE A WOMAN EVEN KNOWS THAT'S PREGNANT.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE HEARTBEAT STOPS WITH THAT DEATH, THEN WHEN THE HEARTBEAT STARTS AND CAN BE DETECTED, WHY ISN'T THAT LIFE?

AND THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK AROUND AND TALK ABOUT WHEN REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT USED THE WORD "FETUS" AND SAID IT IS A FETUS.

FETUS A LATIN FOR HUMAN BABY.

AND SO WE LIKE TO CAMOUFLAGE THESE TERMS BY USING THESE FANCY TERMS THAT CONFUSE PEOPLE.

FETUS MEANS HUMAN BABY.

SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE ARE ABORTING AND KILLING A HUMAN BABY WHEN WE USE THE WORD FETUS.

>> SO THIS MESSAGE FROM DREW SHY ROCK FROM LOUISVILLE, HOW DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY JUSTIFY BEING PRO-LIFE WHEN IT COMES TO COVID VACCINES AND WEARING MASKS THEY ARE PRO-CHOICE AND SAY MY BODY, MY CHOICE.

IS THERE SOME COGNITIVE DISSIDENCE THERE ON PRESERVING LIFE REGARDLESS OF MEANS BY WHICH IT CAN BE PRESERVED?

>> SURE, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S A VAST DIFFERENCE HERE.

I CAN FLIP THAT BACK AROUND AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SAYS, MY BODY, MY CHOICE, THEN WHY CAN'T THAT BE THE SAME THING THE WITH COVID VACCINATION AND THE MASK?

SO WE CAN SAY THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY -- IF THERE'S CONTRADICTION OF TERMS AND PRACTICES, WE CAN SAY THAT ON BOTH SIDES.

SO I THINK WHAT I WANT TO DO FROM THE COVID VACCINATION, I ACTUALLY -- WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT SMALLPOX, IT TOOK 70 YEARS FOR THE SMALLPOX VACCINATION TO BE APPROVED.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT, TWO YEARS, EVEN LESS THAN THAT, FOR THE COVID VACCINATION.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ABORTION REVERSAL PILL.

THAT'S PART OF YOUR BILL AS WELL.

AND I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS, HOW THAT TWO WORK, AND THEY BE I WANT TO ASK THE OTHER SIDE IF THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE EFFICACY AND THE SAFETY OF THAT.

SO -- AND YOU CAN TAKE A CRACK AT THAT AS WELL.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

SO BASICALLY THE REVERSAL IS JUST THAT.

IF THE MOTHER HAS TAKEN THESE CHEMICAL ABORTIONS, ABORTION PILLS AND MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT SHE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT ANYMORE, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL BASICALLY SAYS THAT A PHYSICIAN, IF THIS MOTHER IS SEEING A PHYSICIAN, THAT THE PHYSICIAN WOULD ACTUALLY ADVISE THE MOTHER THAT THIS IS AN OPTION IF SHE WERE TO CHOOSE -- >> I'M SURE THERE IS A SENSITIVE TIME FRAME HERE.

>> ABSOLUTELY, YES, THERE IS.

YES.

I'M GOING TO DEFER TO ADDIA BECAUSE SHE KNOWS THAT.

>> YOU ALREADY HAVE A ABORTION REVERSAL PILL THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO.

SO THAT'S ALREADY ON THE BOOKS IN KENTUCKY, THAT WHEN THEY VISIT THE ABORTION FACILITY, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INFORMED OF THAT.

THIS JUST REITERATES ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING A CHEMICAL ABORTIONS.

>> SO THE BILL IN 2019 DIDN'T ADDRESS CHEMICAL ABORTIONS.

>> THESE ARE SETTING GUIDELINES AROUND CHEMICAL ABORTIONS BECAUSE NOW IT'S TAKING A DIFFERENT PATHWAY.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE ORDERED THROUGH THE MAIL, AND BUT NOT IN KENTUCKY.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WOMEN SEEKING TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY SHOULD THEY BE DETERMINED THAT THEY WANT OI A MEDICAL OR CHEMICAL ABORTION, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PHYSICIAN WHO IS TRAINED IN PROVIDING THIS, AND IT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY REQUIRED BY LAW WHEN SHE IS SEEN IN AN ABORTION FACILITY OR ABORTION PROVIDER.

WHAT IT'S REALLY DOING IS IT'S TAILORING THE CARE TO MAKE SURE THAT EM WITH ARE CARED FOR BY A MEDICAL PROVIDER VERSUS OBTAINING THESE VERY POWERFUL MEDICATIONS THROUGH THE MAIL FROM WHO KNOWS WHERE.

ARE THEY DIRECT FROM THE MANUFACTURER OR ARE THEY COMING FROM A TRAFFICKER OF A CHEMICAL ABORTION OUT OF CHINA OR ANOTHER COUNTRY?

>> SO I WANT TO ASK MS. WIEDERER ABOUT THIS.

YOUR POSITION ON THIS ABORTION REVERSAL PILL AND WHAT SEEKS TO STRENGTHEN IT.

>> I FIND IT REALLY INTERESTING, THE COMMENT ON THE FDA APPROVAL WAITING 70 YEARS FOR SMALLPOX WHEN THERE IS NO FDA APPROVAL FOR MEDICATION ABORTION REVERSAL.

ACTUALLY IN 2019 THERE WAS A STUDY DONE ON MEDICATION ABORTION REVERSAL AND THEY HAD TO STOP IT BASS IT WAS DANGEROUS.

THEY STOPPED THE STUDY BECAUSE IT WAS DANGEROUS.

THERE'S NO MEDICAL BODY, REPUTABLE MEDICAL BODY THAT IS SUPPORTING THIS, THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBJECT STRICTIONS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND MEDICINE, AND THE U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION HOR WHO ARE AUTHORITIES ON THIS, THEY HAVE NOT COME BEHIND MEDICATION ABORTION REVERSAL.

IT'S BEEN CALLED JUNK SCIENCE.

AND SO THE FACT THAT WE'RE ALREADY HAVING TO TELL PATIENTS THIS WHEN IT'S NOT SAFE IS PROBLEMATIC ENOUGH WHEN REPRESENTATIVE TATE JUST SAID THAT THEY NEEDED 70 YEARS FOR -- TO MAKE SURE THAT SMALLPOX WAS SAFE.

>> LET ME BRING IN MS. KATIE GLENN IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT HERE.

>> IF YOU'VE GOT -- >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST WANT TO KIND OF REALLY CLEARLY LET YOUR AUDIENCE KNOW WHAT ABORTION PILL REVERSAL IS.

SO THE FIRST DRUG IN A CHEMICAL ABORTION IS -- IT IS A PROGESTERONE BLOCKER THAT BLOCKS THE BABY FROM GETTING NUTRIENTS.

SO IF THE WOMAN CHANGES HER MIND AND IT HAS TO BE DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WHAT AN OBSTETRICIAN WILL DO IS FLOOD HER SYSTEM WITH PROGESTERONE TO BASICALLY FEEL THE EFFECTS OF THAT PROGESTERONE BLOCKER.

THIS IS A TREATMENT THAT'S BEEN USED FOR CANCER PATIENTS.

IT'S NOTE NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NEW.

A 2019 STUD I THAT WAS SHUT DOWN, IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF THE ABORTION PILL REVERSAL AND THE PROGESTERONE.

IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COMPLICATION RATE OF THE CHEMICAL ABORTION ITSELF.

SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND CLARE I. CLARIFY SOME OF THAT SO THAT YOUR AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDS THIS ISN'T YOU TAKE A PILL, YOU TAKE ANOTHER PILL TO REVERSE IT.

IT IS FLOODING THE WOMAN'S UTERUS WITH THE HORMONE PROGESTERONE.

>> AND SO TO GET TO MS. WIEDERER ON IT.

ABOUT HOW THIS IS NOT PIER APPROVE BY SOME OF THE REPUTABLE ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHE MENTIONED, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT COMBATS HER?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOM OR THE DOCTORS HERE OR THE CHILDREN THAT I HAVE MET WITH PERSONALLY WHO WERE ACTUALLY THE MOTHER DID HAVE THE REVERSAL PROCEDURE.

I SAT WITH A LITTLE BOY A DINNER.

HE WAS TRULY A MIRACLE.

>> AND THERE WERE NO RESIDUAL EFFECTS TO HIM BECAUSE OF IT.

>> I WAS A HIGH-RISK OB NURSE IN MY HISTORY, BUT OFTEN WHEN I WORKED WITH PATIENTS IN INFERTILITY WITH OFTEN WOMEN WHO ARE HAVING INFERTILITY PROBLEMS HAVE LOW PROGESTERONE.

SO WHAT DO WE DO TO HELP MAINTAIN THAT PREGNANCY?

WE FLOOD HER WITH PROGESTERONE AND BE TO BE FED UP IN THAT EARLY PART OF YOUR PREGNANCY TO HELP MAINTAIN THAT PREGNANCY.

SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'VE CUT OFF, BY THE MEDICATION GIVEN INTO A CHEMICAL ABORTION AND THERE'S A REVERSAL, YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING.

YOU'RE ENHANCEYING HER WITH PROGESTERONE TO MAINTAIN THAT EARLY PART OF HER PREGNANCY AND SUSTAIN IT.

I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CHEMICAL ABORTIONS A LITTLE BIT.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO A WOMAN WHO LAST A SPAWNS ABORTION OR A MISCARRIAGE HOME, SHE IS AT RISK FOR RETAINING PARTICLES OF THE PREGNANCY, OF CONCEPTION, OF INFECTION, AND BLEEDING AND SEEKS MEDICAL CARE.

THAT'S WHY HAVING THIS PROCEDURE DONE THROUGH A MAIL ORDER IS NOT A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE EVEN IF IT HAPPENS TO A WOMAN SALMONELLA NATURALLY, SHE'S SEEKING CARE BECAUSE THERE COULD BE COMPLICATIONS, AND SO THAT'S THE PART OF THE THOUGHT BEHIND THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

>> REPRESENTATIVE TATE DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEFORE I GET TO THINGS ABOUT HOW DOCTORS, HOSPITALS COULD BE HELD, I DON'T KNOW IF LIABLE IS THE RIGHT WORD, BUT THERE COULD BE DOCTORS WHO ARE SUBJECTED TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUITS FOR NOT PROVIDING WOMEN WITH INFORMATION.

TELL US ABOUT THIS PIECE IN YOUR LEGISLATION.

>> YEAH, SO JUST AS YOU SAID, BASICALLY, IT WOULD BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COMMUNICATE NOT ONLY THE RISKS OF THE CHEMICAL ABORTIONS BUT ALSO THE OPPORTUNITIES.

AND SO TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE PATIENTS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND WHAT THEIR OPTIONS.

>> SO THEY WOULD BE OBLIGATED, REQUIRED, MANDATED BY LAW TO TELL THE WOMAN AM SEEKING THE ABORTION ABOUT THE ABORTION REVERSAL PILLS AS AN OPTION.

>> AND HOW TO OBTAIN THAT.

>> SO HOW IS ONE TO KNOW?

IS IT HE SAID VERSUS SHE SAID?

HOW IS IT COMMUNICATED THAT THAT DOCTOR SAID THAT AND WHAT'S THE PENT FOR THEM NOT HAVING DONE THAT?

>> WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THAT.

BASICALLY THERE COULD BE NEARLY A SIGNED DOCUMENT.

THE DOCTOR COULD BASICALLY SAY, HERE'S THE INFORMATION AND SIGN THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.

TO ME THAT COULD BE THAT SIMPLE.

SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE SOME LONG, COMPLICATED PROCESS.

>> PART OF HER INFORMED CONSENT.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

>> AND WHAT'S REPORTED TO THE CABINET, THERE'S A ABORTION REPORTING FORM THAT WOULD SHOW THAT SHE'S GONE THROUGH AN INFORMED CONSENT AND ALL THOSE PROTOCOLS.

>> RIGHT.

SO LET ME JUST HAVE A SCENARIO, AND REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT CAN ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL.

SO IF A WOMAN IS TAKEN TO A HOSPITAL LIKE UK OR UofL AND A PROVIDER TELLS I WOMAN THAT SHE NEEDS AN ABORTION IN ORDER TO SAVE HER LIFE, IS THAT PHYSICIAN OR PROVIDER SUBJECT TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AS UNDERSTAND THIS LEGISLATION TO BE WRITTEN?

>> AS I UNDERSTAND THIS OMINOUS ANTI-ABORTION BILL THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN PRE-FILED AND PEOPLE ACROSS KENTUCKY HAVE NOT SEEN, SO AT THIS POINT WE CAN'T REALLY HAVE AN HONEST CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IT WILL OR WILL NOT DO BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN PROVIDED -- >> BUT BASED ON -- LET'S SUES THAT AS A SUPPOSITION.

LET'S SAY THIS IS A POSSIBILITY.

>> I'M NOT SAYING FOR YOU.

I'M JUST SIG REQUESTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO SEE THE BILL AND THOSE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED SO WE CAN'T ACTUALLY SAY WHAT'S IN IT OR NOT.

>> BUT WHAT I HEAR IS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO PENALIZE DOCTORS FOR DOING THEIR JOB.

>> IS THAT THE INTENT WITH REPRESENTATIVE TATE?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THE WHOLE POINT IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PATIENTS ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE.

>> SO TO THIS SCENARIO THAT I JUST ARTICULATED, WOULD THAT BE, AS YOU ARE WORKING ON THE BILL -- WE KNOW IT'S A DRAFT AND IT'S A GREAT BENEFIT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE THE BILL IS FINALIZED, MAYBE PERHAPS THERE CAN BE SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S INJECTED INTO IT.

IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN WHERE A WOMAN WHO IS EXPECTING, SHE IS TAKEN TO THE UK OR UofL HOSPITAL, AND THE PROVIDER SAYS, YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER AND WE NEED TO DO AN ABORTION, AND MAYBE THERE IS NOT TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE INFORMED CONSENT MEASURES THAT YOU'VE OUTLINED TONIGHT, IS YOU CAN UK AND UofL, ARE THEY SUBJECT TO SOME KIND OF PENALTY OR LIABILITY?

>> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME.

I'M NOTE SURE THIS IS A GOOD SCENARIO BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHEMICAL ABORTIONS, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ABORTION THAT, THE PILL THAT THE MOTHER WOULD GO HOME AND TAKE AND HAVE AN ABORTION.

>> SO YOU DO NOT THINK THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

BECAUSE IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER AND THE BABY HAS TO BE -- THE PREGNANCY HAS TO BE TERMINATED, THE MOTHER IS NOT GOING TO GO HOME AND TAKE A PILL FOR THAT TO BE TERMINATED.

IT WOULD BE DONE IN THE HOSPITAL, I WOULD THINK.

>> MS. WIEDERER.

>> I THINK HA WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS WHAT'S CALLED THE CHILLING EFFECT.

WE HAVE SEEN IN IT TEXAS.

WE RECENTLY SAW IN IT POLAND, THAT PROVIDERS NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT THEY REALLY CAN AND CAN'T DO AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE AFRAID TO PROVIDE CARE BASED UPON WHAT'S IN YOUR BILL, AND WE SAW ACTUALLY SOMEONE IN TEXAS AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY HOSE WA DENIED SERVICES FROM SEVERAL ERs IN TEXAS AND HAD TO LEAVE STATE TO HAVE HER ECTOPIC PREGNANCY TAKEN CARE OF.

AND WHAT WE JUST SAW, I JUST ARRIVED TODAY FROM POLAND A YOUNG WOMAN 30 YEARS OLD DIED OF SEPSIS BECAUSE PROVIDERS WERE AFRAID TO PERFORM A D&C WHILE SHE WAS MISCARRYING BECAUSE THERE WAS A HEARTBEATY.

I THINK WE'RE GOING THAT ACROSS THE BOARD WHETHER IT'S WITH MEDICATION ABORTION WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS CHEMICAL ABORTION SO LET'S CONFLATE MEDICATION ABORTION AND SURGICAL ABORTION.

>> THIS COMMENT FROM A RESTAURATEUR IN RICHMOND, THERE ARE OVER 10,000 CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE.

ONCE THEY'RE BORN THEY DESERVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF ANY OTHER.

IF ABORTION BECAME ACCEPTED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO UNWELCOME BIRTH WAS BE THE INCIDENCE OF FOSTER CHILDREN CAN BE REDUCED.

>> I THINK I'M -- I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY KIND OF -- I'M NOTE SURE WHERE THAT PERSON, WHAT THEIR LIFE IS.

BUT I THINK THAT'S REALLY SAD, THAT'S A VERY SAD QUESTION.

SO BASE DICLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF A PERSON IS SAD, THEN THEIR LIFE ISN'T VALUABLE.

SO I HAVE SAD DAYS, RIGHT?

I MEAN, I HAVE SAD MONTHS.

THERE'S NO COMPARISON TO ME.

LIFE IS FULL OF ALL KINDS OF EMOTIONS.

SO JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS SAD DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE NEED TO TERMINATE THEIR LIFE.

>> MS. GLENN, I WANT TO COME TO YOU BECAUSE OFTEN IN KENTUCKY WE HEAR THE PHRASE "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES," AND SO I'M CURIOUS DO YOU SEE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ANY KNOW YOU ARE A PROPONENT OF THIS MEASURE AND YOU WORK ON MEASURES LIKE THESE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT UNDER THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD HAPPEN, HAVE YOU EVALUATED THOSE, SUCH AS WOMEN BEING DENIED CARE OR PROVIDER BEING AFRAID TO PROVIDE CARE?

>> WELL, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS SPECIFIC PIECE FROM POLAND.

WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT FROM THE LANGUAGE THAT I SAW THAT WAS INTRODUCED LAST YEAR, THIS WOULD NOT END IN WOMEN BEING DENIED CARE.

A D&C AS PART OF CARE MANAGEMENT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM AN ABORTION.

AS REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE TATE SAID, IF A WOMAN'S LIFE IS AT RISK THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEND HER TOME HOME TO TAKE PILLS THE NEXT 72 HOURS.

SHE'S GOING TO BE ADMITTED TO EMERGENCY ROOM.

SO I THINK A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT EMERGENCY CARE AND EVEN RAPE AND INCEST, SOME OF THESE HORRIC SITUATIONS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY TRAGIC, ARE A COVER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ELECTIVE ABORTION WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF RESTRICTION, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHAT THE INDUSTRY WANTS.

>> I WANT TO GET TO ANOTHER PROVISION ABOUT FETAL REMAINS, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION, THERE COULD BE MORE CONSENSUS, PERHAPS NOTE, MS. WEIRD BUT THE DISDEPOSITION OF FETAL REMAIN AND REPRESENTATIVE TATE YOU SHARED DURING THE VMAP COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAD A MISCARRIAGE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THREE TIMES.

>> THREE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, YES, MA'AM.

>> AND THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REMAIN.

>> THAT WAS NOT EVEN OFFERED TO ME AT ALL.

AND SO WHENEVER -- SO HERE YOU ARE.

YOU'RE GOING THROUGH.

I WANTED MY CHILDREN, NOT THAT THAT MATTERS, RIGHT?

SO WHETHER YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN OR NOT, THEY'RE CHILDREN.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I WAS IN SUCH AN EMOTIONAL STATE, I WAS SO UPSET BECAUSE I HAD LOST MY BABY, AND SO I'M TOLD THAT I NEED TO HAVE A D&C AND SO I WORK WITH MY DOCTOR AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS, BUT THE NEXT THING YOU GO, WHAT IN THE WORLD HAPPENED TO MY BABY?

AND BASED UPON THE PRACTICES -- I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THE PRACTICES -- I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT BABY WAS INCINERATED WITH ANY OTHER HUMAN OR BODY PARTS.

>> MEDICAL WASTE IS THE TERM.

>> EXACTLY.

LIKE AN APPENDIX.

AND SO THOSE ARE BABIES.

AND SO THEY SHOULD BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY.

AND BE TREATED AS HUMANS WHENEVER.

>> SO HOW WOULD YOUR MEASURE AS IT'S BEING FORMULATED ADDRESS THAT.

>> WHAT HAPPENS IS WITHIN 24 HOURS IS PROVIDER HAS TO, REGARDLESS, THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER HAS TO INFORM THE PARENTS OF WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE, AND SO WHAT MY MEASURE WOULD SAY IS THAT THAT BABY COULD BE BURIED OR THE BABY COULD BE CREMATED, AND IT WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE BABY WOULD HAVE TO BE CREMATED INDIVIDUALLY, IT COULDN'T BE CREMATED WITH MASS BABIES, SO IT HAD TO BE TREATED INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS THEN THE ASHES COULD BE GIVEN TO THE PARENT TO TAKE CARE OF ACCORDINGLY.

>> SO WHEN YOU SAY "PARENT," DOES THAT MEAN THE MOTHER AND THE FATHER AND IS THERE SOME KIND OF CONSENT THAT THE FATHER WOULD HAVE TO GET OR THE PARENTS IF IT WAS A MINOR WOULD HAVE TO GET CONSENT?

>> IT COULD BE EITHER/OR.

IF THERE'S A MOTHER AND NO FATHER, THEN IT COULD BE JUST THE MOTHER BUT IT COULD BE THE PARENTS, SINGULAR OR PLURAL, THAT'S CORRECT.

ONE OF THE OF THING, TOO, IS THAT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE COST, WHO IS GOING DO ABSORB THE COST?

THERE'S LOTS OF FUNERAL HOMES THAT ACTUALLY PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THESE BABIES FREE OF CHARGE, AND IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT, THEN IT WOULD BECOME THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR THAT.

>> SO-SO OF ALL THE TENANTS OF THIS OMNIBUS BILL AS WE ARE LEARNING ABOUT IT, MS. WIEDERER, COULD THIS BE A POINT WHERE YOU NINE SOME AGREEMENT WITH THE BUYS POSITION OF FETAL REMAIN?

ANY BAFFERT THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION THAT YOU'RE WARM TO?

>> -- ANY PART OF THAT.

>> NO, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE BILL, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

>> BUT BASED ON WHAT SHE'S JUST SAID, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS WRONG WITH THAT?

>> I THINK IS AN INDIVIDUAL ASKED FOR THE FETAL REMAINS, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR FETAL REMAINS.

HOWEVER, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN HISTORICAL WITH THESE BILLS, THEY'RE DONE TO CREATE ANOTHER IMPEDIMENT TO ABORTION CARE BY PLACING ANOTHER FINANCIAL BLOCK ON TO AN INDIVIDUAL.

IT'S REALLY GREAT THAT REPRESENTATIVE TATE KNOWS MAY BE A FEW FUNERAL HOME DIRECTORS BUT I'M SURPRISED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WOULD BE DONE FREE ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH OR WOULD BE SOMETHING ACCESSIBLE TO MANY INDIVIDUALS, AND SO THIS IS A FURTHER BLOCK.

IT'S ALSO ANOTHER WAY TO SHAME AND STIGMATIZE PEOPLE FOR SEEKING ABORTION CARE BY PUTTING ON SOME PIECES OF -- TAKING THE FETUS, THE REMAINS WITH YOU.

IT'S ANOTHER PIECE OF SHAME AND STIGMA, AND IT'S ANOTHER HURDLE THAT I BELIEVE IS A TARGETED REGULATION OF ABORTION PROVIDERS.

>> WOULD THERE BE SOME TYPE OF MANDATE FOR FUNERAL HOMES HERE, REPRESENTATIVE TATE?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THERE IS NOT ANY MANDATE.

>> AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS MEANT TO SHAME A WOMAN INTO SEEKING TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY.

THIS PROVISION OF THE BILL, AS IT IS WRITTEN, HAS ALREADY BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURTS.

IT WAS PASSED IN OTHER STATES.

IT GOES BACK TO EVEN, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, IN 2016 THERE WAS A PUBLIC OUTCRY WHEN IT WAS THOUGHT THAT ABORTED REMAINS OF CHILDREN FROM OHIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEN WAS AWARE OF IN OHIO THAT THEY WERE APPEARING IN KENTUCKY LANDFILLS.

AND UNKNOWN TO ANYONE.

AND THAT WAS AN ALERT.

SO THIS HAS BEEN WORKED ON FOR A LONG TIME.

I JUST APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT REPRESENTATIVE TATE HAS DONE ON THIS BECAUSE IT TAKES A WHILE.

WE HAVE TO TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME, WHETHER THOSE REMAINS IN THE HOSPITAL SETTING OR IN AN ABORTION FILT.

THAT CHILD'S REMAINS ARE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND HONOR NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY ARE ALONG IN THAT PREGNANCY.

>>Y REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT.

>> KENTUCKY ALREADY REGULATES THE DISPOSAL OF MEDICAL THE ISSUE, AND ONE OF YOUR VIEWERS ASKED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF POVERTY, SO IF WE'RE GOING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD, WE'RE ADDING TO KEEPING PEOPLE IN POVERTY.

WE ARE NO RELIEVING THAT POVERTY.

AND SO THIS IS SO UNNECESSARY.

IT'S, AGAIN, FEAR MONGERING.

IT REALLY IS.

>> WOULD THERE BE AN APPROPRIATION?

WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE FROM THE STATE TO HELP OFFSET THOSE COSTS, REPRESENTATIVE TATE?

>> I HAVE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THAT AT ALL BECAUSE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

>> AND ABORTION FACILITIES RIGHT NOW ARE PAYING FOR DISPOSAL OF THOSE CHILDREN, OF THOSE FETAL REMAINS, THOSE PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION, HOWEVER YOU ALL WANT TO VIEW THEM, BUT THEY DO HAVE TO PAY FOR HAVING THOSE DISPOSED OF, WHETHER THEY'RE IN VATS OF -- SO IT'S ALREADY A SERVER THAT'S PROVIDED.

THEY DON'T STORE THEM THERE.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THAT MUCH OF AN ADDITIONAL COST TO THEM.

IT'S JUST HOW THEY HANDLE THOSE.

>> REPRESENTATIVE TATE, DID WEE GOT MAIN PROVISIONS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE MOVE ON AND TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OTHER THINGS?

>> THAT'S FINE.

GO AHEAD.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF VERY IMPORTANT PIECES.

ONE OF THEM IS PUBLIC FUNDING.

>> RIGHT.

>> AND THEN THE OTHER, OF COURSE, IS MEDICAL CONSCIOUS.

>> SO LET'S START THERE WITH MEDICAL CONSCIOUS BECAUSE THAT WAS A SENATE MEASURE, I BELIEVE, RIGHT, LAST YEAR.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

>> BASICALLY WHAT THIS NANCY IS THAT A MEDICAL PROVIDER -- MEANS IS THAT A MEDICAL PROVIDER OR ANY TYPE OF PRACTITIONER WOULD NOT -- THEY WOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE OR TERMINATED FROM THEIR CURRENT POSITION IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY TYPE OF ABORTION, BE IT, WHETHER YOU'RE AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, WHETHER YOU'RE A SURGICAL NURSE.

IF YOU SAY THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN ABORTIONS, THEN YOU CANNOT BE TERMINATED FROM THAT POSITION.

THERE'S ALSO CASES WHERE WE HAVE A POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS AT A EMW CLINIC, HE WAS ON HIS OWN TIME, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHE WAS BE, YET HE WAS PUT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.

HE WOULD BE ABLE TO FILE A CIVIL SUIT FORE THAT WE ALSO HAD A PERSON WHO WAS IN THE PROCESS OF STUDYING TO BECOME A DOCTOR, AND SO HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED OR PRACTICE STUDY TO DO AN ABORTION AND HE WAS REMOVED FROM THAT PROGRAM.

SO THIS BASICALLY WOULD SAY THAT THESE PEOPLE THAT CANNOT HAPPEN, AND IF IT DOES HAPPEN, THEN THEY CAN FILE CIVIL SUITS.

>> SO, HEATHER BEGUN AREEC, I WANT TO ASK YOU, ACLU AS A POSITION ON THIS, AND CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS MIGHT EFFECT OTHER MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, EQUITY EVER LGBTQ, ET CETERA, CONCERNS ABOUT THIS?

>> YES.

SO MUCH OF WHAT I'M HEARING ABOUT THIS BILL, AND AGAIN I'VE NOT READ IT MYSELF, EITHER, BUT SO MUCH OF WHAT I'M HEARING ABOUT SEEMS TO BE SEARCHING FOR A PROBLEM THAT JUST DOESN'T EXIST.

IT IS ALREADY SO VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCESS ABORTION CARE IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY.

THERE ARE ALREADY SO MANY HURDLES AND SO MANY RESTRICTIONS IN PEOPLE'S WAY THAT JUST TO GET TO ONE OF THE CLINICS HERE EMW OR PLANNED PARENTHOOD CAN BE AN INCREDIBLE UNDERTAKING FOR PEOPLE.

SO THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE MEDICAL PROVIDERS LEFT AND RIGHT WHO ARE REFUSING TO PERFORM ABORTIONS IS ALMOST LAUGHABLE BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF IS IT'S HARD TO FIND PEOPLE TO PROVIDE THIS CARE SOMETIMES.

IT IS TRUE THAT IN ORDER TO BE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ACCREDITED MEDICAL PROGRAM, MEDICAL SCHOOL PROGRAM, MEDICAL STUDENTS NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEARN ABOUT ABORTION CARE, BUT THEY CAN ALREADY OPT OUT OF THAT.

THAT IS ALREADY SOMETHING THAT IS AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS, THAT MEDICAL STUDENTS DO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HERE IN KENTUCKY AND ELSEWHERE.

AND THEN THOSE STUDENTS THAT DO WANT TO LEARN ABOUT HOW TO PROVIDE ABORTION CARE CAN DO SO.

SO THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROVIDER BEING FORCED TO PROVIDE THIS CARE IS JUST SIMPLY NOT REALITY.

AND AGAIN, THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PAYING THE PRICE FOR RESTRICTIONS LIKE THIS ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO JUST NEED TO ACCESS MEDICAL CARE BECAUSE THEY ARE PREGNANT AND THEY DON'T OR CAN'T -- THEY DON'T WANT TO BE OR THEY CAN'T REMAIN SO.

SHOWS H. TO HIS ARE THE FOLKS THAT ARE REALLY AT ISSUE HERE THAT I DON'T WANT US TO LOSE SIGHT OF WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE PROPOSED BILLS THAT AGAIN OFTEN SEEM LIKE A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.

>> MS. GLENN.

>> ONE THING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND WHY KENTUCKY LAWMAKERS AND LAWMAKERS AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE REVISITING THESE CONSCIOUS LAWS IS THAT RIGHT NOW THE FEDERAL BACKSTOP IS COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO FILE A LAWSUIT FOR YOU.

SO IF YOUR RETIRES VIOLATED, IF YOU HAVE A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO DOING ABORTION OR STERILIZATION OR A SIMILAR PROCEDURE AND YOUR EMPLOYER PUNISHES YOU OR FORCES YOU TO DO IT, YOU CAN'T FILE A LAWSUIT ON YOUR OWN BEHALF.

YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE VERY PRO-ABORTION HSS SECRETARY AND HIS APPOINTEES ARE THE ONES WHO WILL DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO INTERVENE ON YOUR BEHALF.

SO ONE OF THE OF THE THINGS I KNOW KENTUCKY LAWMAKERS LOOKED AT LAST YEAR, AND I HOPE THAT THEY'RE STILL LOOKING AT AS WE LOOK AT 2022, IS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO FILE YOUR OWN LAWSUIT ON YOUR OWN BEHALF IF YOUR RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED.

>> MS. WEIRD, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT -- WIEDER RER DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT.

>> NO.

>> I WANT TO GET TO THE DEFUNDING PIECE REALLY QUICKLY.

>> SO BASICALLY WHAT THIS IS, IT'S THE SAME THING AS THE HYDE AMENDMENT.

ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL THE HYDE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE AND BEEN A BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OVER 40 YEARS, AND SO ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL THE HYDE AMENDMENT AT RISK AND PROBABLY WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

STATISTICALLY IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, 80% OF KENTUCKIANS DO NOT WANT THEIR STATE OR FEDERAL BYPASS DOLLARS TO BE USED TO FUND ABORTIONS, AND BASICALLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS, IS THAT YOUR STATE AND FEDERAL BYPASS DOLLARS WILL NOTE BE USED TO FUND ABORTIONS IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY.

>> ANY QUICK COMMENT BEFORE I ASK REPRESENTATIVE ATTICA SCOTT ABOUT A BILL ON THEIR SIDE.

>> WHAT WE'VE SEEN HISTORICALLY WITH THIS GAG BILL AS WE'VE CALLED IT IS THAT IT DENIES PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ANY GROUP THAT REFERS -- INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTION, AND SO THIS COULD BE -- HAVE COULD FAR SWEEPING IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORKERS, EVEN FOR CLERGY, FOR NURSES, FOR SO MANY INSTITUTIONS, EVEN THE UNIVERSITIES IN THE STATE, SO I THINK IT'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT, WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO AND HOW CHILLING IT IS TO HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT KIND OF CUT OFF ON TALKING ABOUT REPRODUCT OF HEALTH CARE.

>> THE COUNTER BILL FOE WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TOWN IS ONE THAT HAS BEEN PRE-FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE MARY ALLOW MARZIAN AND LISA WILL P. AND IT PRETTY MUCH SAYS IT WOULD ENSHRINE THE LIGHT TO ABORTION AND ENSURE LEGAL RETIRES RECOGNIZED BY ROE V. WADE.

BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT IN THE SUPER DUPER MAJOR, YOUR OPTIMISM ABOUT THAT BILL OR THE DISCUSSIONS YOU EVEN HOPE TO HAVE ABOUT IT.

>> I HOPE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE FACT THAT WE JUST HEARD REPUBLICANS SAY THEY ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO BANNING ABORTION ACROSS KENTUCKY WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO BANNING THE FULL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACROSS OUR COMMONWEALTH AND ABORTION ACCESS IS HEALTH CARE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY REPS MARZIAN AND WILNER HAVE FILED THEIR BILL, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT FULL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH.

I AM HOPEFUL THAT FROM WHAT I HEARD THIS EVENING THAT THERE WILL AT LEAST BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE COMMONWEALTH.

I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE JUST VERY QUICKLY HONEST ABOUT THIS DEFUNDING CONVERSATION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEFUNDING HEALTH CARE.

PEOPLE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED.

>> WE'LL BE FOLLOWING IT TO COME AND MAYBE MORE DISCUSSIONS ON "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

THUR ALL FORE WATCHING.

NEXT WEEK WE TALK ABOUT STATE AND NATIONAL POLITICS.

SAME TIME.

SAME STATION.

SAME HOST.

SURE HOPE YOU'LL JOIN US