WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING u OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 1 AND VOTERS WILL DECIDE ON BOTH OF THEM NOVEMBER 8TH.

AMENDMENT 2 HAS RECEIVED THE MOST ATTENTION IT WOULD ADD LANGUAGE TO THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION SAYING THERE IS NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTIO WE WILL DISCUSS THAT IN OUR SECOND HALF HOUR.

BUT FIRST, A CONVERSATION ABOUT AMENDMENT 1, AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO CALL ITSELF INTO SPECIAL SESSION, SOMETHING ONLY THE GOVERNOR RIGHT NOW HAS THE POWER TO do.

AND IT WOULD ALLOW THE G ASSEMBLY TO VOTE TO EXTEND A SESSION PAST THE USUAL DEADLINE TO DISCUSS THIS WE ARE JOINED I OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO BY: REPRESENTATIVE DAVID OSBORNE, A REPUBLICAN FROM PROSPECT AND KENTUCKY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

SENATOR REGINALD THOMAS, A DEMOCRAT FROM LEXINGTON AND SENATE MINORITY CAUCUS CHAIR.

SENATOR DAVID GIVENS, A REPUBLICAN FROM GREENSBURG AND SENATE PRESIDENT PRO-TEM.

AND REPRESENTATIVE JEFFREY DONAHUE, A DEMOCRAT FROM FAIRDALE.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SEND US YOUR QUESTIONS BY TWITTER @KYTO SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/.

OR YOU CAN SIMPLY GIVE US A CALL A 1-800-494-7605.

WELCOME 1 GENTLEMEN.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING FOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.

SO I WANT TO START WITH THE PROPONENTS OF THIS AMOUNT OF AMENDMENT AND THAT WOULD BE THE TWO GENTLEMEN TO MY RIGHT.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 WHAT DOES IT DO?

SPEAKER, YOU ARE THE OF HOUSE BILL 4 SO GIVE AS YOU BREAKDOWN.

>> IT ACTUALLY DOES TWO BASICALLY DIFFERENTLY THINGS, RENEE.

THE FIRST THING IT DOES IS IT DEALS WITH THE CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL DEADLINES THAT ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

ODD YEARS MARCH 30th, EVEN YEARS APRIL 15th, REMOVES THOSE.

STILL GIVES US THE SAME NUMBER OF DAYS TO HAVE A REGULAR SESSION.

IT JUST REMOVES THOSE TWO DEADLINES SO WE HAVE THE REFLECT TO STRUCTURE A SESSION -- FLEXIBILITY TO SUCH A SESSION IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN THERE'S NOTHING PRESSING ON THE FRONT END OF A SESSION WHERE WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO GO IN FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

MAY GO IN AND DO A FEW THING.

RECESS, COME BACK LATER IN THE YEAR WHERE THERE MAY BE MORE PRESSING ISSUES TO -- TO TACKLE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

WOULD STILL HAVE, JUST AS WE DO NOW, WE WOULD STILL ADOPT A SESSION SCHEDULE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR JUST LIKE WE DO CURRENTLY, AND WOULD TAKE A VOTE OF 60% OF THE MEMBERS,SUMER MAJORITY TO AMEND THAT SCHEDULE.

>> IN EACH HOUSE.

>> IN EACH CHAMBER, YES, ONCE THE SOUTHERN HALF OF HEINZ PASSED.

THE SECOND THE SECOND THING IT DOES IS IT GIVES WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE PRESIDENT, ALLOWS US TO RECONVENE FOR UP TO 12 DAYS AT ANY POINT DURING THE YEAR.

SHOULD CERTAIN SITUATIONS ARISE THAT CAUSE US TO NEED TO COME BACK AFTER WE HAVE ADJOURNED A REGULAR SESSION, THEN IT DOES ALLOW US THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CALL OURSELVES BACK IN.

>> SO SENATOR GIVENS, I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

THIS COMES FROM A VIEWER DAVID W. HE SAYS, "I'M UNDECIDED.

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IF CITIZENS PASSED THIS IN 2019?

IF GRANTED, WILL YOU ENSURE NO KENTUCKY STUDENT IS MANDATED TO TAKE AN MRNA VAX TO ATTEND SCHOOLS OR ACTIVITIES?

IF NOTHING WOULD BE DIFFERENT, THEN WHY VOTE YES?"

>> IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, AND IT GOES TO THE BASIS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, REASON SAY.

FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ATTENTION BECAUSE I'M GETTING LOTS OF QUESTIONS FROM MY VOTERS IN MY DISTRICT WHAT SHOULD I DO ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1.

THIS PROVIDES US VERY LIMITED POWER, AS THE SPEAKER SAID, TO COME BACK IN ESSENTIAL SESSION.

IN THE THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WE'VE SEEN AROUND THE GOVERNOR'S EXERCISE OF EMERGENCY AUTHORITY LOTS OF QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S ABILITY TO DO THAT UNFETTERED.

WE HAVE NO ABILITY AS A LEGISLATURE TO COME BACK AND CONSTRAIN OR EXTEND POWER TO THE GOVERNOR.

A LOT OF FOLKS ARE SAYING, WELL, THIS IS POLITICAL.

IT'S NOT POLITICAL.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE USED BY DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES WITH A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR.

THAT POWER IS GOING TO BE RESIDE IN THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF, AND I ARGUE THAT THIS GOES TO THE BASIS OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT FOR EIGHT MONTHS OF THE YEAR WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO ACT, ONLY THE GOVERNOR CAN BRING US BACK, ONLY 14 STATES PROVIDE THE GOVERNOR SOLE OTHER TO BRING THE LEGISLATURE BACK, AND WE ARE ONE OF THOSE 14.

>> I WANT TO GO TO YOU, SENATOR THOMAS.

SO THE QUESTION FROM A CLARK COUNTY ON YOUR IF KENTUCKY HAD HAD A DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN CONTROL LEGISLATURE WOULD AMENDMENT 1 EVEN BE ON THE BALLOT?

>> THE ANSWER IS NO.

AND I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH MY FINE COLLEAGUE, SENATOR GIVENS.

THIS IS CLEARLY POLITICAL, RENEE.

LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING THIS.

WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1 DOES IS THAT IT DISRUPTS OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

LET'S NOT FORGET THAT OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS BASED ON THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES GOVERNMENT: THE LEGISLATIVE, THE EXECUTIVE AND THE JUDICIARY.

WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1 DOES IS JUST TOTALLY CREATES THAT IMBALANCE THERE, GIVES MORE POWER, A GREAT DEAL MORE POWER TO THE LEGISLATURE.

IT WEAKENS THE EXECUTIVE.

AND KEEP IN MIND THAT ALREADY THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE ABILITY TO UNDO ACTS THAT ARE DONE BY THE JUDICIARY.

THE JUDICIARY SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR FLAWED, THE LEGISLATURE CAN FIX THAT.

SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IN AMENDMENT 1 IS GIVING A GREAT DEAL MORE POWER TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND I'LL TELL YOU THAT WEAKENS AND LIMITS OUR EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

>> BUT IT DOES IMPACT.

GOVERNOR'S ABILITY TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION.

HE STILL COULD DO THAT, RIGHT?

>> HE COULD, BUT THE GOVERNOR, GOVERNORS USUALLY DO THAT WITH THE HELP AND CONSENSUS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THEY GENERALLY DON'T DO THAT WITHOUT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

WE HAVE SEEN THAT ONCE WITH GOVERNOR BEVIN, HOW FLAWED THAT WAS WHEN HE DID THAT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THAT SHOULD ONLY BE DONE WITH A CASE OF EMERGENCY OPERATIONS.

WHAT GOVERNOR BESHEAR DID BACK LAST YEAR WHEN HE CALLED THE JOINT SESSION IN SPECIAL SESSION IS BECAUSE THE DEVASTATING FLOODS THAT WE SAW IN EASTERN KENTUCKY AND USED THAT SPECIAL SESSION TO PROVIDE AID AND HELP SUPPORT EASTERN KENTUCKY.

THAT'S A GOOD REASON TO DO SPECIAL SESSION.

I WANT YOUR VIEWERS TO UNDERSTAND, AND I'LL BE QUIET, THAT UNDER THIS AMENDMENT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAN CALL ITSELF INTO SPECIAL SESSION FOR ANY REASON: PET PROJECTS, CATER TO SPECIAL INTERESTS.

THERE'S NO LIMIT ON RHYME OR REASON WHY WE CAN CALL OURSELVES BACK INTO SPECIAL SESSION.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DONAHUE, YOU'RE OPPOSED TO THIS.

TELL US WHY.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR HAVING ME HERE TONIGHT.

THE THING IS ANYTHING IN LIFE THERE HAS TO BE A BALANCE THAT YOU FACE.

IT GOES WITH YOUR FAMILY, YOUR FAITH AND YOUR BUSINESS AS WELL.

AND I FEEL AS A REPRESENTATIVE WHAT WE HAVE TO DO WHILE WE'RE IN SESSION, WE HAVE TO EVALUATE WHAT HAS HAPPENED PRIOR THE TO SESSION ITSELF, AND COME IN AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AND GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

YOU KNOW, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MUST HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY AND THE NEEDS TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION, AND WE AS LEGISLATORS NEED TO EXHIBIT THE STRENGTH AND THE VISION AND FLEXIBILITY LIKE & LET THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEAL WITH WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SCENARIO WHERE WE ARE LOOKING A SIMPLY A CONTROL MOVE AND WHAT IT IS.

THE WHEN THE GOVERNOR CALLS US IN, IT'S VERY NARROW IN SCOPE, AND WHAT I'VE OFTEN SAID TO THE SPEAKER AS WELL AND HE KNOWS AS WELL THAT WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER, AND WHERE THAT STARTS IS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE BODY AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND THERE SHOULD BE SCOTLAND CONSTANT COMMUNICATION AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON TO OFFSET ANY ISSUES IN -- THAT WE MAY FACE IN THE FUTURE.

AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS, WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE REFLECT, YOU MUST PROVIDE THE FUNDING AND THE THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED AND WE CAN ALSO ON COME BACK IN, EXTEND HIS ABILITY.

WE ARE DOWN TO MONTHS, WE HAVE TIED HIS HANDS IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE BECAUSE HE HAS NO WAY -- IT FORCES US TO COME BACK INTO SESSION TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE SHOULD DO THE OPPOSITE BEEP SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT, MAKE SURE WE PUT IN THE SAFE GORD OR WHAT I SAY ARE THE FOUNDATION OR THE STEPS TO MEET THESE TRIPPING POINT.

THEN WHAT WE CAN DO IS COME BACK IN AND MAKE AN ADJUSTMENTS.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO.

I THINK THE LEGISLATION COMES IN -- I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DO IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY BUT WE THINK IT'S SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF OUR STATE WORKS AND IT'S BROKEN BRING IT TO KENTUCKY AND HEAL IT AND WE CAN FIX IT.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

THIS IS NOT POLITICAL IN ANY MEANS.

IT'S NOT POLITICAL WITH ME, EITHER.

IT'S ABOUT SAVING AND SPENDING THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY CORRECTLY, AND BY DOING THAT I THINK IT'S A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS FUNDS.

>> SO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE DID SEND A VERY STATEMENT EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, AND HERE'S WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAS TO SAY ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 1.

>> WHAT THAT AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW IS THE LEGISLATURE TO CALL ITSELF INTO SPECIAL SESSION AT ANY TIME IT WANTS FOR ANY REASON.

AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUSPEND STATUTES THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE, THEY COULD DO IT FOR AS MANY DAYS AS THEY'D LIKE.

LISTEN, FOR 130 YEARS OUR CURRENTLY CONSTITUTION HAS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED THAT.

AND IT'S DONE SO BECAUSE THE PEOPLE AN ACTING IN OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION WANTED A PART-TIME LEGISLATURE.

THEY WANTED THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE TO HAVE JOBS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND NOT TO MAKE ALL THEIR MONEY BEING A LEGISLATOR.

WELL, THAT LEGISLATURE, FIRST OF ALL, GAVE ITSELF A I HAVE PAY RAISE THIS LAST SESSION.

THEY NOW MAKE MORE IN THEIR PART-TIME ROLE AS A LEGISLATURE THAN THE AVERAGE KENTUCKIAN DOES MAKING A FULL-TIME JOB, AND THAT IS WRONG.

AND NOW IF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSES, THEY WILL MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT, CALLING THEMSELVES IN VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE DAY AND GETTING PAID FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE.

LISTEN, YOU AND I, THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY, DON'T GET TO DETERMINE OUR OWN SALARY AND NEITHER SHOULD THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

SO FIRST, THIS IS A MONEY GRAB.

SECOND, IT'S A POWER GRAB BECAUSE THIS IS THE SEPARATION OF HOURS THAT WE DECIDED ON AS A STATE.

PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF US AS A COUNTRY AS WELL THAT NO BRANCH SHOULD BE TOO STRONG, YET THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO GIVE ITSELF MORE POWER SO THAT IT COULD CALL ITSELF INTO SESSION TO CHANGE AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECISION OVER THE MOST MINUTE THING.

RIGHT NOW A SPECIAL SESSION HAS TO BE SPECIAL.

THE GOVERNOR HAS TO CALL IT, AND IT REALLY TAKES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR THE AND LEGISLATURE TO MAKE IT WORK.

AND IT IS WORKING.

>> SPEAKER OSBORNE, I WANT COME TO YOU FIRST TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAID, THERE'S A VIEWER, CALLER WHO ASKS, HOW CAN YOU RUN ON THE CONCEPT OF SMALL GOVERNMENT WITH LESS INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT AND ASK TEAM PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT?

WE CAN START BY WHAT YOU HEARD THE GOVERNOR SAY.

>> I WANT TO ADDRESS SOME ABSURD INACCURACIES FIRST OF ALL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO SENATOR THOMAS, I UNDERSTAND HE DOESN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO WHAT WE DO IN THE HOUSE.

I WISH THE SENATE IN GENERAL WOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO WHAT WE DO IN THE HOUSE.

BUT I ACTUALLY PROPOSED THIS AMENDMENT IN 2018 WHEN WE HAD A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR.

GOVERNOR BEVIN WAS THE GOVERNOR THEN, SO THE IDEA THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IF WE HAD A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IS JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

THE SECOND ABSURDITY OR INACCURACY IS WHAT THE GOVERNOR JUST SAID, THAT WE CAN CALL OURSELVES IN AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF DAYS.

I UNDERSTAND HE PROBABLY HASN'T READ THE DOCUMENTS SINCE HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO VETO IT, BUT BECAUSE IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS THAT WE CAN ADD IS 12.

THERE'S ABSOLUTELY THE POSSIBILITY WE WON'T USE ANY OF THOSE DAYS.

THERE'S A POSSIBILITY WE WON'T USE OUR NORMALLY ALLOTTED 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS.

BUT IF WE DID USE EVERY SINGLE DAY AVAILABLE TO US, IT WOULD BE A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 12 DAYS WHICH, BASED ON THE $168 THAT WE MAKE A DAY AMOUNTS TO 2,000 AIDS YEAR FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.

CERTAINLY AN INCREASE BUT NOT THE KIND OF INCREASE THAT CREATES BAD GOVERNMENT.

AS FAR AS THE POLITICS OF IT, I THINK THAT ANOTHER KIND OF MISUNDERSTOOD PART OF THIS PROCESS IS THAT THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE, JONI JENKINS, THE MINORITY LEADER SENATE, MORGAN McGARVEY, BOTH VOTED FOR THIS BILL.

BOTH WERE INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BILL.

BOTH WERE INVOLVED IN A WORK GROUP THAT SENATOR GIVENS AND I PUT TOGETHER ALONG WITH REPRESENTATIVE BUDDY WHEATLEY FROM NORTHERN KENTUCKY TO HELP CRAFT THIS BILL AND PROUDLY VOTED FOR THE BILL.

SO THE IDEA THAT -- I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THOSE TWO MINORITY LEADERS WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR A PARTISAN POWER GRAB AS IT'S BEEN TERMED.

>> I WANT TO GO TO YOU, SENATOR GIVENS, AND FOR TO YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE BELIEF THAT REPUBLICANS RUN ON SMALL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

IS THIS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF THAT IN SOME WAY?

>>S THIS IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.

THIS IS ACTUALLY -- THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I FIRMLY BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUES BELIEVE FROM THE POWER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE LEGISLATURE.

WE KNOW OUR ROLE.

OUR ROLE IS TO BE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

WE'RE THE IN GROCERY STORES EVERY DAY WITH PEOPLE THAT COME UP TO US AND ASK US QUESTIONS ABOUT BILLS OR ISSUES OR HOW CAN THEY REACH SOME PART OF GOVERNMENT.

WE ARE THE CLOSEST BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TO THE PEOPLE.

THERE'S NO ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT IN ANYONE'S MIND.

SO WHEN PEOPLE HAVE ISSUES AND THEY COME TO US AND SAY, CAN YOU ADDRESS THIS?

AND WE HAVE TO SAY, MARCOS WE CAN'T BECAUSE WE CAN'T BE IN SESSION, THAT'S REALLY, REALLY FRUSTRATING.

NOW, THE SPEAKER SPOKE TO IT ELOQUENTLY, AND I WAS SO EXCITED BY THE WORK WE DID TOGETHER IN THAT BIPARTISAN WORK GROUP.

SADLY ENOUGH, THE GOVERNOR EITHER UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF KENTUCKY, WHICH I PRESUME HE DOES OR HE HASN'T READ IT.

THIS IS GOING TO BE WRITTEN MOO THE CONSTITUTION.

THIS IS NOT STATUTE.

WE CANNOT COME IN AND CHANGE THE NUMBERS OF DAYS.

THIS IS WRIT IN STONE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

NO ARGUMENT WE GO CHANGE IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T.

12 IS THE MAX.

NOW, 31-4 WAS THE VOTE IN THE SENATE.

31-4 WAS THE VOTE IN THE SENATE.

SENATOR THOMAS WAS ONE OF THE NO VOTES BUT I HAD THE OCCASION RECENTLY TO GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THAT DEBATE AND DISCUSSION.

SENATOR THOMAS IS ALWAYS ELOQUENT.

AS HERE HERE, HE IS ON THE FLOOR.

HIS ELOQUENCE THAT DAY WAS CLEAR AND VERY CONCISE.

HE FELT LIKE THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH POWER HERE.

HE WANTED MORE THAN 12 DAYS.

HE SAID IT CLEARLY IN HIS FLOOR SPEECH.

HE WANTED SUMMER SESSIONS POTENTIALLY AND/OR FALL SESSIONS WHEN THE NEED AROSE.

SO HIS PASSION THEN WAS THAT IT DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, AND THAT WAS THE GROUNDS FOR HIS NO VOTE.

NOW, SPECIFIC TO HIS CONCERN ABOUT NO LIMITS, AND I DISAGREE WITH BOTH HE AND THE GOVERNOR, AND ANYONE THAT SAYS THERE'S NO LIMITS.

WE STAND BEFORE THE VOTERS EVERY TWO YEARS OR FOUR YEARS.

THOSE ARE OUR LIMITS.

IF WE START CALLOUSLY CALLING OURSELVES BACK FOR PET PROJECTS OR TO SPEND MONEY FREELY, WE'LL KNOW WILL IT ABOUT IT REALLY QUICKLY.

>> SENATOR THOMAS, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THE SENATE PRESIDENT'S REFLECTIONS ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS ON THE FLOOR.

DID YOU WANT MORE SESSIONS, SUMMER SESSIONS, MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO CONVENE?

>> RENEE, I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO COME BACK AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR, LIMITED TIMES OF THE YEAR, COME BACK FOR TWO WEEKS, MAYBE IN AUGUST.

DID I SAY THAT.

COME BACK FOR A WEEK IN NOVEMBER.

I DID INDEED SAY THAT.

BUT LET'S LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH TODAY WITH THIS BILL.

THE SPEAKER'S FIRST WORDS, SPEAKER, OSBORNE EAST FIRST WORDS TONIGHT TO ALL YOUR VIEWERS WAS WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ELONGATE THIS SESSION OVER THE ENTIRE YEAR.

THAT'S KIND OF SCARY, TO THINK THAT HE WOULD WANT US IN SESSION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

WE CAN MAKE 32 DAYS, 42 DAYS, BUT WE CAN EXTEND THAT OUT SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS.

RENEE, NOT ONLY IS THAT IM IMPRACTICAL IN MY OPINION BUT THE DISTANCE OVER 42 DAYS IS NOT WORKABLE, BUT YOU GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE YOU LACK VALIDITY, YOU LACK COHESIVENESS, THAT IDEA OF EXTENDING US OVER SIX TO EIGHT MONTH PERIOD OR LONGER IS JUST UNWORKABLE.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, RENEE.

IT'S COSTLY.

THE GOVERNOR DOES MAKE A GOOD POINT ABOUT COST BECAUSE WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE SPEAKER, BEE GET PAID MORE THAN ISN'T $65 A DAY, AND PEOPLE IN LEADERSHIP BIKE THE SPEAKER, DAVID, LIKE MYSELF, THE VIEWERS SHOULD KNOW WE GET PAID EVEN MORE THAN THE REGULAR LEGISLATORS.

SO THERE'S A COST FARK TO THAT AS WELL, RENEE.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DONAHUE, I WANT TO COME TO YOU BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY THAT PERHAPS THERE TO BE MORE SECRECY IN THE LEGISLATURE DOINGS FOR CERTAIN MATTER THAT DON'T COME TO LIGHT THAT MAY NOT BE VETTED THE IN PUBLIC SPACES, THE HEARINGS NOW ALLOW.

ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE TYPES THINGS?

>> THERE'S ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT AS WELL.

BUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING BACK TO BALANCE YOU TALKED ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE THE JUDICIARY BRANCH, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE THIRD ONE -- WHAT'S THE THIRD ONE?

>> EXECUTIVE.

>> I WAS CLOSE.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THERE HAS TO BE A BALANCE THERE.

I THINK IF YOU TIP THE SCALES EITHER WAY IT CREATES A PROBLEM FOURS AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY.

AND SO I THINK WE'RE A PEOPLE'S LEGISLATIVE BODY, AND IF WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND EXTEND THE TIME, IT'S GOT IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR FOLKS THAT HAVE FULL-TIME JOBS TO BE ABLE TO LEGISLATE TO DO THIS.

AND THE THING ABOUT IT IS IS THIS, IS THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH CONVERSATION.

I'M NOT PARTY OR PRIVY TO IT.

I THINK ANY TIME WE'RE NOT IN SESSION, WE SHOULD HAVE A SESSION AMONGST WHEN WE HAVE OUR INTERIM DAYS AND DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE, AND WE DON'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF THAT, AND I'M INCLUDED IN THAT BECAUSE WE COME DOWN TO THESE MEETINGS AND STUFF, BUT WE HAVE A WHOLE DAY DOWN THERE.

WHAT WE CAN DO IS SIT DOWN AND SAY HERE'S A POSSIBILITY OR FEASIBILITY OF WHAT'S GOING TO COME UP AND WHAT WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS AND WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THOSE INITIALS IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION I.

WE CAN HAVE GOOD POINTS AND BAD IDEAS BUT PERSONALLY MYSELF I THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA BECAUSE TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE GOVERNOR DOES BECAUSE HE SHOULD BE IN CONSULTATION WITH BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE HAS TO WHAT THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE IF WE COME IN AND WE OPEN IT UP LIKE THAT, THERE'S REALLY NO REASON NOT TO HAVE A FULL-TIME LEGISLATIVE BODY.

>> SO LET'S GET TO THAT POINT ABOUT OPERATIONS.

THERE'S A CONCERN IT WOULD NO LONGER BE A CITIZEN LEGISLATURE.

IT WOULD BE FULL-TIME.

THE INTERIM IS FAIRLY ROBUST.

IT'S MORE ROBUST THAN I REMEMBER IT BEING MANY YEARS AGO.

BUT TO THE POINT ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, SO WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR DUTIES, I MEAN, A BILL THAT COULD MAYBE LAPSE OVER WITHOUT HAVING READINGS, THAT COULD BE A FRESH BILL OR FRESH LANGUAGE THAT HADN'T BEEN VETTED AND IS NEW IN ITS ITERATION, DOES LEADERSHIP VOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE HEARINGS ARE OPEN AND PUBLIC AND THAT THOSE MEASURES ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PEOPLE TO VET?

>> CERTAINLY THERE'S THAT PLEDGE, BUT ALSO THE PROCESS OF THE LEGISLATURE OR PASSING LEGISLATION IS NOT CHANGING.

THE BILL STILL HAS TO HAVE ITS READING, IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH COMMITTEE IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER AS IT DOES NOW.

AGAIN, I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT I THINK HAS BEEN INACCURATE THAT SENATOR THOMAS SAID, THAT WE WOULD EXTEND THE SESSION OVER THE ENTIRE YEAR.

ACTUALLY, WE'RE NOT.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT NOW, SENATOR THOMAS, THAN WHEN WE COME IN FOR A 30-DAY SESSION AND TAKE 90 DAYS TO TAKE -- TO UTILIZE THAT SESSION.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO BREAK.

WE WILL NO LONGER BE IN SESSION, BUT WE WILL BE ABLE TO RECONVENE OURSELVES DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

IT JUST -- INSTEAD OF BEING, AS IT IS NOW, WHERE WE OCCUPY 30 DAYS OVER A 90-DAY PERIOD, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME EXACT 30 DAYS, WHICH WE COULD MEET.

THAT PART IS NOT CHANGING.

IN THE EVEN YEARS WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME EXACT 60 DAYS TO MEET WHEN WE ARE IN SESSION.

>> BUT WOULD YOU SET THE CALENDAR BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED -- SO YOU WOULD SET THE CALENDAR.

>> JAWS JUST AS WE DO NOW.

THERE ARE 16 MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION WHICH SENATOR THOMAS AND SENATOR GIVENS ARE PART OF, EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

WE'LL DO IT AT THE NEXT LRC MEETING WHICH IS NOVEMBER THE 9th, I BELIEVE.

WE ADOPT A CALENDAR THAT SPECIFIES WHAT DAYS WE WILL ACTUALLY BE IN.

AND WE WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING WHERE WE ADOPT A CALENDAR TO BEGIN WITH AND CONDUCT THE SESSION THAT WAY.

ACTUALLY I THINK THAT REPRESENTATIVE DONAHUE MAKES A VALID POINT.

I DISAGREE WITH IT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A BALANCE WHERE YOU LOSE THE ABILITY OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE A CITIZEN LEGISLATURE.

I WOULD CONTEND THAT WE KIND OF HAVE ALREADY REACHED THAT, THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK ANOTHER FROM THE TIME WE WENT TO BIENNIAL SESSIONS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FACT THAT SOMEONE HAS TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR JOB, WHICH MOST EVERYBODY ELSE HAS ANOTHER JOB, HAS TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FOR 90 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR IN LONG SESSIONS 105 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MOST PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT TIME AWAY FROM THEIR JOBS.

IF WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO TAILOR THOSE SCHEDULES SO WE'RE NOT FORCED TO BE IN FOR THAT ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT THE WEIGHS IS NOW, I CAN ASSURE YOU -- SITUATION IS NOW, I CAN ASSURE YOU THERE'S NEVER BEEN A LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT I'VE KNOWN THAT HAS ADJOURNED BEFORE IT HAD TO, AND THAT IS USUALLY EITHER APRIL 13th, 14th OR 15th WITH DEPENDING UPON -- >> WHEN IT FALLS.

>> -- WHERE THE HOLIDAYS AND THE WEEKENDS FALL, OR ON MARCH 30th BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TOO TAKE ANY ACTION BEYOND THOSE DAYS.

SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY IS A GREAT BENEFIT.

>> SO YOU COULD COMPLETELY REORGANIZE THE '23 SESSION WHERE YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE -- YOU HAD THE ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION OF FOUR DAYS, AND THEN THERE'S THAT THREE WEEK INTERIM.

YOU COULD SCRATCH THAT ALL DETECT AND SKILL KEEP WORKING?

>> WE COULD.

WE WOULD BE LIMITED STILL TO THE 30 DAYS.

AND THERE'S SOME CONCERNS FROM MR. THOMAS IN HIS NON-VERBAL WAS INDICATING THERE'S A CONCERN THAT THERE ARE NO DATES WRITTEN THE IN CONSTITUTION FOR THE END.

WE HAVE, AND HE'S SEEN IT TWICE AND VOTED ON IT AND THE HOUSE HAS SEEN IT AS WELL WE HAVE STATUTORY COMPANION LANGUAGE THAT WRITES THOSE VERY SAME END DATES OF MARCH 30 AND APRIL 15th INTO STATUTE, AND THEN THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES THAT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN CHANGE THAT IS WITH THE TWO-THIRDS VOTE.

SO ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO BE WELL CORRALLED AND MAINTAINED, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, AND AS THE SPEAKER SAID WE'VE ALREADY PREVIEWED THE CALENDAR.

IT'S GOING TO BE THE VERY SAME SORT OF LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR.

THE KEY POINT 1-800-THAT I WHISH TO MAKE AGAIN IS WHAT IF WE TEED TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH WISH CAN'T MEET FOR EIGHT MONTHS OF THE YEAR.

YOU CAN'T MEET FOR EIGHT MONTHS OF THE YEAR.

SUPREME COURT, YOU CAN'T CAN'T MEET.

THAT'S EFFECTIVE WHAT WAS DONE TO US, AND IT WAS DONE YEARS AGO BECAUSE YEARS AGO WHEN TRAVEL WAS HARD AND WE HAD AVENUE AN EXECUTIVE-CENTERED FORM OF GOVERNOR WITH A LOT OF POWER VESTED IN THE GOVERNOR SIMPLY BECAUSE OF NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE A INABILITY TO GET LEGISLATOR TO TOWN OR COMMUNICATE WITH THEM.

TIMES HAVE CHANGED IN THE LAST 200-PLUS YEARS.

SO I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS LIMITED ABILITY TO COME BACK FOR 12 DAYS WOULD NEVER BE ABUSED BECAUSE WE HAVE LOTS OF CONFLICT JUST WORKING THROUGH THE CALENDAR ALONE THERE'S ENOUGH INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT IN OUR CAUCUSES AND AMONG OUR MEMBERS.

THERE WILL BE NO ABUSE OF THIS, AND IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO MEET THE CITIZENS' NEEDS.

>> SO LIKELY WRINKLE, BUT ROSS BROWN FROM KENTON COUNTY ASKS IN AN EDITOR BY SENATOR GIVENS THEY ASSERT THAT THE AMENDMENT A THREE OF HAD FOURTHS OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ACCIDENT BEYOND MARCH 30TH.

DOES SENATOR GIVENS BELIEVE THE REPEAL OF SECTION 42 WAS WHICH IS PART THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT ITSELF ABOLISH THOSE END DATES?

WHAT WE CHOSE TO DO TO KEEP IT CLEAN BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN WORDIER HAD -- >> IT'S 744 WORDS NOW.

>> IT'S A LONG AMENDMENT ALREADY BUT THE COURT SAID WE HAD TO PUTTED IT OWL ALL OUT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS.

IF WE TRIED TO AMEND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVENING LONGER.

WEIR SIMPLY CONSOLIDATING THREE SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTO TWO AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE CHANGES.

>> SENATOR THOMAS.

>> SENATOR GIVENS IS RIGHT THAT I DO WANT TO GO BACK AND READ WHAT YOUR VOTERS -- WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE VOTING ON BECAUSE YOUR LISTENS NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON.

SECTION 2 SAYS YOU'RE GIVEN 30 DAYS DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR.

SO LIMITS ON THAT, WHEN THAT 30 DAYS IS.

THERE'S NO FIRM END DATE.

NOW.

SECTION 4 SAYS THAT YOU ARE GIVEN 60 DAYS IN AN EVEN-NUMBERED YEAR.

SO END DATE LIKE APRIL 15th LIKE WE HAVE NOW.

SO WHEN WE HEAR THAT THIS CAN BE CONTROLLED BY STATUTE, YOUR VIEWERS NO, RENEE, AND YOU KNOW THAT THIS LEGISLATURE CAN PASS ONE STATUTE ONE DAY AND THEN CHANGE IT ANOTHER.

AND IT IS NOT INCONCEIVABLE AT ALL THAT YOU COULD SCHEDULE 72 DAYS ON THE COURSE OF SIX MOWS, SEVEN MONTHS EASILY, WHICH NOT ONLY GOES BACK TOO MY FIRST POINT, DISRUPTS THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT, YOU THE ABOUT AGAIN TO THE GOVERNOR'S POINT, IT'S VERY COSTLY TO THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY.

TO OUR TAXPAYERS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DONAHUE?

IN CLOSING WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I THINK WHAT'S BEING ACCOMPLISHED ACCOMPLISHED BY BRINGING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN WHEN THEY NEED TO CAN BE CUN NOW.

IF WE PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER, WE CAN HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND REEVALUATE ANYTHING I HAVE DONE IN MY LIFE, IF SOMETHING DIDN'T WORK, I REEVALUATED WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DIDN'T WORK.

I THINK IF WE COLLECTIVELY ALL SIT DOWN AND HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND NOT GOING TO A SPECIAL SESSION OR CALLING OURSELVES IN.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MORE THOUGHT TO THIS.

I.

REALLY DO THIS.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE CAN CALL IN AND VOICE THEIR OPINIONS AND IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN POSSIBLY REVISIT IN THE FUTURE.

BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD BUSINESS FOR STATE OF KENTUCKY.

>> I'LL LET THIS SIDE GET A LAST WORD IN OVER HERE.

>> I DO THINK IT'S GOOD GOVERNMENT, RENEE.

I THINK THAT ALMOST ALL OF US COULD AGREE THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE GOVERNMENT, BUT I THINK MOST OF US CAN ALSO AGREE THAT WE NEED BETTER GOVERNMENT, AND I THINK THIS AMENDMENT ALLOWS US TO BE A BETTER, MORE RESPONSIVE, MORE EFFECTIVE LEGISLATURE.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT -- EVERYBODY POINTS TO THE PANDEMIC PANDEMIC OF 2020, AND USE THE EMERGENCY POWERS.

I POINT TO THE BUDGET AND THE FACT THAT WE WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO PASS THAT BUDGET BEFORE WE LEFT.

AND WE HAD NO INFORMATION.

WE HAD NO ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT EFFECTS IT WAS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR ECONOMY, WHAT WAS COMING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE HIT THE PAUSE BUTTON, COME BACK IN JUNE AND PASSED THE BUDGET TWO OR THREE MODS LATER WHEN WE HAD BETTER INFORMATION.

>> WOULD THIS ADDITIONAL POWER PRECLUDE YOU FROM HAVING A DESIRE TO WORK WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOT A D OR AN R?

>> NOT ANOTHER PULL.

WE'VE SEEN THAT A NUMBERCATION WHERE WE HAVE WORKED WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION TO PASS A LOT OF INITIATIVES.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL LEAVE IT THERE.

IT'S BEEN A GOOD CONVERSATION AND WE HOPE EVERYBODY HAS LEARNED A LOT ABOUT WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT, AND WE'LL DO THE SAME IN JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUN NUMBER 2 REGARDING ABORTION.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A REAL QUICK BREAK.

>> Renee: THANK YOU FOR JOINING US STILL ON KENTUCKY TONIGHT.

I'M RENEE SHAW.

AND NOW A CONVERSATION ABOUT CONSTITUTIONL AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 THAT SAYS THIS.

IT'S TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE.

NOTHING IN IN CONSTITUTION SHALL BE CON VIEWED TO SECURE OR PROTECT A RIGHT TO ABORTION OR REQUIRE THE FUND OF COURSE ABORTION.

IF THAT IS PASSED IT WOULD ADD LANGUAGE TO THE 63 CONSTITUTION TO DO JUST THAT.

AND WE'RE JOINED IN OUR STUDIO NOW BY TWO GUESTS: ADDIA WUCHNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE KENTUCKY RIGHT TO LIFE.

AND TAMARRA WIEDER, KENTUCKY STATE DIRECTOR OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE ADVOCATES.

WE STILL WANT YOU TO SEND US YOUR QUESTIONS BY twitter SEND US YOUR QUESTIONS BY TWITTER @K SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/.

OR YOU MAY GIVE US A CALL.

1-800-494-7605.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING.

THESE ARE IMPORTANT MEASURES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU ALL COULD MAKE TIME TO DISCUSS THEM.

LET'S TALK FIRST FROM THE PRO-LIFE SIDE ABOUT THIS.

MS. WUCHNER, PLEASE TELL US YES TO RIGHT TO LIFE, YOUR VOTING SUPPORT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 2.

>> ITALY IT'S THE LAWMAKERS THAT PUT FORTH THE BILL THAT PUT THIS CAUGHT ON CAMERA AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT WERE THINKING ESPECIALLY IN THE DAYS OF THE OVERTURNING OF ROE WOULD BE IMPORTANT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE 49 YEARS OF A ROE EVENT IN OUR OWN STATE, AND IT WOULD SHORE UP OUR CONSTITUTION AND MAKE IT CLEAR IN OUR CONSTITUTION THANK THERE IS NOTHING THAT SUPPORTS ABORTION OR THE FUNDING THEREOF OF ABORTION SO YOU THE KEEPS THAT RIGHT ABORTION OUTED OF THE CONSTITUTION, MAKES IT CLEAR SO THAT IT ALLOWS THE LAWMAKERS OF KENTUCKY WHO ARE DULY ELECTED TO MAKE THE LAWS AROUND ABORTION AND THOSE SERVICES AND THOSE RESTRICTIONS THAT ACCOMPANY ABORTION LAWS ARE THE LAWMAKERS THAT ARE -- THEY ARE MAKING THOSE LAWS AND POLICIES AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T DRUG INTO YEARS COURT BATTLES UNNECESSARILY WHERE JUDGES ARE TRYING TO AMEND A RIGHT TO ABORTION WHICH IS HAPPEN SINCE ROE OVERTURNED AND EVEN WITH THE TURNER LAW.

WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THAT EXPERIENCE RIGHT AWAY AFTER THE JUNE 24th DECISION.

>> SO THIS QUESTION FROM HANNI GOLDMAN IT.

SAYS THE FIRST AMOUNTED IS OVER 755 WORDS.

WHY IS THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT SO SHORT?

THAT MAKES THIS AMENDMENT SO CLEAR ON WHAT EXACTLY IT WOULD DO TO WOMEN AND GIRLS.

YOUR RESPONSE.

>> WELL, IT'S SHORT, IT'S CLEAR AND IT'S CONCISE.

IT ONLY KEEPS ABORTION, THE RIGHT TO ABORTION OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND PREVENTS THE FUNDING OF ABORTION, SO IT SETTLES THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY.

IT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING TO WOMEN AND GIRLS.

THE POLICIES AGAIN SURROUNDING ABORTION AND ABORTION CARE AND ABORTION SERVICES AND POLICIES ARE MADE BY THE LAWMAKERS, BUT WE DO NOT WANT TO -- WE HAVE WATCHED WHAT THIS COUNTRY HAS JUST GONE THROUGH AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH 49 YEARS BACK AND FORTH UNTIL FINALLY THE WISDOM OF THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT REALIZED THERE WAS NEVER A RIGHT TO ABORTION IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

WE HAVE SEEN RADICAL DOLLARS BEING POURED INTO THE STATE TO CONFUSE THAT MESSAGE SO THAT WE'RE MIXING POLICY WITH THE POLICYMAKERS WITH THIS VERY SIMPLE THAN 30 YEARS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

>> MS. WIEDER, I WANT TO COME TO YOU.

THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR STATES THAT HAVE PASSED THIS TYPE OF ELECTRONIC WANT TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, FLORIDA.

EXTENT KANSAS VOTERS STRUCK DOWN A COMPARABLE MEASURE.

TELL US WHAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM VOTERS, WHETHER THEY'RE MALE OR FEMALE, ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT AND THEIR INTENTIONS TO VOTE.

>> IF AMENDMENT IS WIDELY UNPOPULAR, AND WHEN WE ARE OUT IN THE COMMUNITIES, BE IT ON THE PHONE, ON THE DOORS, IN OUR POLLING, THE VOTERS OF KERRY FED UP WITH THE OBSESSION ON ABORTION AND HOW MUCH IT IMPACTS THEM NOW.

YOU KNOW, PRE-ROE FALLING PEOPLE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE LOOK LIKE, HOW THIS THEY WERE PERSONALLY GOING TO BE AFFECTED, AND REAL KENTUCKIANS ARE BEING HIT HARDEST WITH TRYING TO ACCESS REPRODUCT OF HEALTH CARE IN VARIOUS FORMS AND THEY'RE TIRED THE POLITICS COMING FROM FRANKFORT.

THEY WANT TO HAVE REAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR PROVIDERS AND NOT WITH THE LEGISLATOR'S INTRUSION.

>> SO TODAY THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL CAMERON RELEASED AN ADVISORY REGARDING BOTH AMENDMENT.

WE JUST TALKED ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 BUT HIGH SAID ET RAE LATES TOCA 2.

HE EXPLAINS THIS DOES NOT BAN ABORTION IN KENTUCKY.

INSTEAD IT REGARDS DECISIONS REGARDING REGULATING ABORTIONS LIKE OTHER PUBLIC POLICY MATTERS.

WHY NOT THAT ROUTE?

WHY IS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE EMPOWERED BY THE STATES AND THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DO?

>> THERE ARE VERY FEW MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THEY HAVE TALKED LONG AND HARD.

A MANDATE THAT THEY HAVE TO DO ABORTION REGULATIONS, BUT WHAT WE KNOW, THE MA IMPAIRMENT GEORGE OF KENTUCKIANS DO NOT WANT TO LOSE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE INCLUDING ABORTION.

ABORTION IS POPULAR.

AND AS I HAVE BEEN TRAVELING ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH THIS SUMMER AND ACTUALLY FOR THE LAST 18 MONTHS SINCE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS BE I FOUND ABORTION A VERY UNITING ISSUE.

ADDIA AND I HAVE SAT HERE BEFORE AND IT SEEMS MOLARRIZING WHEN YOU HAD DID YOU TALK TO KENTUCKIANS THEY HAVE HAD PERSON IS WITH COMPLICATED PREGNANCIES AND ABORTION AND THIS IS BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER IN MORE WAYS THAN I EVER THOUGHT WAS POSSIBLE.

>> SO THERE I WAS SEPTEMBER POLL, MS. WUCHNER BY THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT SHED CU OF 62 THE SCOTUS DECISION -- ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT POLLING DATA LIKE THAT THAT SUGGESTS THAT KENTUCKY'S LANGUAGE AS IT WILL BE PRESENTED BALLOT IS TO RESTRICT IT DID AND DOESN'T HAVE EXEMPTION FOR RAPE OR INCEST AS OTHER STATES HAVE ENTERTAINED?

>> AGAIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN THAT LANGUAGE.

THERE SHOULDN'T BE THOSE EXEMPTIONS MADE THERE OR THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

THAT'S THE POLICYMAKERS SIDE.

WHAT'S WHAT LAWMAKERS DO.

THE LAW IS FLUID.

LAW CHANGES WITH THE LAWMAKERS BE THAT ARE MAKING THE LAWS, REFLECTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED THE LAWMAKERS WHEN THEY MADE THIS DECISION OF RETURNING THAT TRUST TO THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY TO VOTE YES ON THIS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT.

SO I'M NOT AS CONCERNED.

WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS PRESENTING OUR CONSTITUTION, AND EVERY KENTUCKIAN SHOULD BE CONCERNED THAT THEY WANT TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION.

LET'S KEEP THAT BATTLE OUT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FIGHT AND OUT OF A RESTRICTIVE COURT FIGHT.

LET'S ALSO -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT POLLS ACROSS THE AISLE ON BOTH SIDES IS THAT TAXPAYERS DO NOT WANT THEIR TAX MONEY BEING SPENT ON ABORTION, SO THAT'S -- IN THIS PROVISION WITH AGAIN, GOING BACK IT THEN LETS THE ISSUES THAT WE TALK ABOUT, RAPE, INCEST, LIFE OF THE MOTHER BE WITH MEDICAL AN OPEN LIST WITH FEET ALAN OMLIES, THOSE ARE POLICY DECISIONS IS THAT RIGHT MADE BY THE LAWMAKERS REFLECTING THE VALUES ARE OF THEIR COMMUNITY AND INCLUDING BOTH THE WOMEN AND MEN IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY.

>> BUT THE MEASURES THAT THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT IS SLATED TO TAKE UP ORAL ARGUMENTS ON NOVEMBER 15th, WHICH IS A WEEK AFTER IF GENERAL ELECTION, THEY DO MAKE SOME PROVISIONS TO LIFE OF THE MOTHER BUT RAPEIN AND SAYS NOT INCLUDED IN THOSE LAWS.

>> IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT PARTICULAR POLICY.

THE TRIGGER LAW THAT WAS ENACTED SHOULD ROE BE OVERTURNED REFLECTED OVER 100 YEARS OF KENTUCKY PRO-FAMILY, PRO-LIFE POLICIES.

IN 1910 KENTUCKY PASSED THEIR FIRST PRO-LIFE PIECE OF LEGALS, LEGISLATION PROTECTING THE LIFE OF THE CHILD EXCEPT THE WITH EXEMPTION FOR LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

AND OVER THE YEARS AFTER THE ROE DECISION THAT HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED.

WE HAVE ABORTION LAWS ALL OVER THE PLACE.

WE HAVE LAWS RESTRICTING -- THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE RESTRICTING ONE OF THE MOST GRIEVOUS TYPES OF AND GRUESOME FORMS OF ABORTION, AND THAT'S LIVE DISMEMBERMENT, BUT WHERE WE HAVE BEEN, THAT WAS PASSED IN 2018, WE'VE BEEN IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FIGHTING THAT FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

IT WAS ONLY RELEASED BECAUSE OF THE OVERTURNING OF ROE.

SO AGAIN IT RETURNS BACK TO THE STATES.

SO THOSE POLICY ISSUES ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN UP IN THE COURTS ONE BY ONE.

I'M SURE IN THE DAYS AHEAD.

BUT THIS ONLY PROTECTS OUR CONSTITUTION FROM NOT HAVING AN INTERPRETED RIGHT TO ABORTION OR THE FUNDING OF ABORTION.

>> SO THE POINT THAT WE'VE HEARD, MS. WUCHNER AND ALSO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS MAKE IN OP-EDS IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL "A" DOES NOT PREVENT THE LEGISLATURE FROM DRAFTING AND PASSING ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING ABORTION LAWS IN THE COMMONWEALTH.

ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC THAT THERE WOULD BE THESE TYPES OF EXCEPTIONS CODIFIED BY THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SUCH AS RAPE OR INCEST?

>> NO, BECAUSE THE PAST -- SINCE 20 VEIN WHEN WE SAW THE ONSLAUGHT OF ANTI-ABORTION BILLS START THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN ABORTION EXEMPTIONS FILED AND THEY HAVE PREEDLY SAID NO TO THESE EXEMPTIONS, AND WE HADIT WITH THE OMNIBUS ABORTION BILL HOUSE BILL 3 IN BOTH THE SENATE AND HOUSE AND 68 MEMBERS IN THE IN THE HOUSE SAID NO.

THEY WERE WILLING TO PUT THEIR NAME AGAINST THE EXEMPTIONS FOR RAPE AND INCEST.

IS WE HAVE A HISTORY IN KENTUCKY HAVE NOT SUPPORTING OUR FAMILIES IN REALLY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES AND THOSE THAT ARE MOST VICTIMIZED BY THESE LAWS.

I DON'T EXPECT TO SEE THAT UNLESS THEY'RE STARTING TO SEE THE POINT THAT WE ARE, THAT THEY'RE IN TROUBLE BECAUSE THIS IS UNPOPULAR AND THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR IS.

>> THE ULTIMATE POLL IS THE ONE THAT'S DONE THE IN VOTING BOOTH, RIGHT?

MANY WOULD SAY IF WE'RE ALL ABOUT POLLS, THAT THIS EXERCISE OF DEMOCRACY IS THE ULTIMATE POLL FOR VOTERS TO DECIDE THE DIRECTION THE VOTERS SHOULD TAKE SO THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT, BUT YOU'RE EVEN AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BEING ON BALLOT.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T LIKE THESE ISSUES GOING TO THE BALLOT, BUT I'M REALLY REALLY EXCITED ARE THE TO RESULTS ON THIS BECAUSE IF THEY ARE REFLECTIVE OF ALL OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS IN THE FOGLE WE HAVE SEEN WE'RE GOING HAVE DO A HUGE MANDATE TO REPEAL A LOT OF THE DAMAGE THAT THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS DONE TO REDEDUCTIVE CARE.

>> MS. WUCHNER, YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT.

>> WHEN WE CALL IT DAMAGE TO REPRODUCTIVE CARE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND I THINK OVER 49 YEARS AND WE SAY THE BORD ABORTION, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS.

THE IT IS THE SUSPENSIONAL A TERMINATION OF A HUMAN LIFE WITHIN THE WOMB OF MOTHER.

THAT'S THE PROCEDURE.

AND SO WHEN WE GO BACK TO THAT, WE ARE WATCHING A FLOOD OF MONEY, NOT KENTUCKY MONEY, NOT KENTUCKY VOTERS, BUT MONEY COMING IN FROM NEW YORK, MASSACHUSETTS, FLOODS MONEY COMING IN TO AFFECT THIS POLICY ON THE BALLOT.

WHEN LAWMAKERS ARE MAKING THOSE DECISIONS, THEY'RE HEARING FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS WHEN THEY MAKE LAWS, NOT OUTSIDE MONEY INFLUENCING THE VOTES, SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF INFORMATION AND THOSE OUTSIDE DOLLARS HAVE PAID FOR MISINFORMATION WHICH WE SEE ADS THAT SAY, THIS IS BANNING ALL ABORTIONS, AND THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

OUR FEAR-MONGERING TELLING WOMEN THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A COMPARE FOR MISCARRIAGE, ECTOPIC PROCEEDINGS ARE INFERTILITY.

THAT'S NOT TRUE AND IT IS DOES IT INJENN JUST TO BLEED THAT WITH RADICAL DOLLARS BORG INTO OUR STATE FOR FOR A CAMPAIGN THAT IS SO MUCH MISINFORMATION.

>> BUT THERE ARE PRO-LIFE AD THAT HAVE MISINFORMATION AS WELL SAYING THAT KENTUCKY IS CONDUCTING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS ORE INTIMATING THERE IS A CONNECTION TO LATED-TERM ABORTIONS IN KENTUCKY.

>> IT TALKS ABOUT LATE-TERM ABORTIONS.

SO WHAT'S AT RISK?

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LIVE DISMEMBERMENT IN ABORTIONS, NEXT TO PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION AND LIVE DISMEMBERMENT ABORTIONS CAN GO AFTER 13 WEEKS.

THEY COULD GO UP TO 28 WEEKS.

WE HAVE LAWS RIGHT NOW THAT RESTRICT 20 WEEKS ABORTIONS.

LIVE DISMEMBERMENT WAS STILL BEING FOUGHT IN THE COURTS.

SO WHAT THIS IS SAYING, THAT IS A TRUE ADVERTISEMENT IN THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD PREVENT THAT FROM AM HAPPENING.

LET THE LAWMAKERS BE THE LAWMAKERS.

>> IS THAT HAPPENING, MS. -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

OH, IT'S NOT.

THAT IS HYPER INFLATED LANGUAGE WHICH IS NOT EVEN MEDICAL LANGUAGE, WHAT ADDIA YOU HAVE WITHNER WAS SAYING IS NOT WHAT DOCTORS USE TO DESCRIBE THREES THESE PRACTICES FOR ABORTION PAST 15 WEEKS.

IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE THIS IS THERE IS NO PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ABORTION.

THERE IS THE HYDE AMOUNT OF PRESIDENTS A ADDIA HAS SET FORWARD KENTUCKY IS ONE OF THE MOST REGULAR STATED LATED STATES ON ABORTION SO THIS IS NOT HAPPENING.

IT'S NOT GROUND IN ANY MEDICAL OR FINANCIAL RELATE REALITY OF THIS STATE AND IT WON'T BE.

WHAT IS ALSO UNFORTUNATE IS THAT WE HAVE, JUST AS YOU, OUTSIDE DOLLARS COMING IN, HOWEVER, WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF KENTUCKIANS SUPPORTING FINANCIALLY THROUGH THIS, OVER 100 DOCTORS IN THIS STATE HAVE DONATED TO PROTECTED KENTUCKY ACCESS BECAUSE THEIR COMMAND WITNESSING HOW HARD IT IS FOR THEM TO GIVE CARE EVEN FOR ECTOPIC PREGNANCY, EVEN FOR MISCARRIAGES.

THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, THE KENTUCKY CHAPTER DID A REALLY I THINK ILLUMINATING OP ED EVEN FOR MISCARRIAGE CARE THEY'RE HAVING PROBLEMS GETTING ACCESS TO MEDICATION AND ADVOCATING FOR THE CARE THEIR PATIENTS NEED.

WE HAVE TALKED TO MANY PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE WHO CAN'T EVEN ACCESS WHEN THEY'RE AN ACTIVE MISCARRIAGE BECAUSE THIS HAVE TO APPROVE IT'S NOT AN ABORTION.

I'VE TALKED TO 74 EM WITH WHO ARE BEING DENIED THE RUME TO IT ARTHRITIS MEDICATION BECAUSE IT'S IN AN -- ABORTION MEDICATION REGIMEN.

SO THE CONSEQUENCES OF THESE BILLS THAT ADDIA I GUESS DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WOULD PROFOUNDLY AFFECT KENTUCKIANS IS PLAIN OUTRIGHT NOW, AND DOCTORS ARE STANDING UP AND SAYING NO TO THIS AND THEY ARE VOLING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AND THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR MONEY INTO THIS CAMPAIGN, NOT YOURS.

>> YOU KNOW, I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE CHALLENGED SOME OF THOSE ACCUSATIONS.

WHY WOULD A WOMAN NOT GET -- WHEN THEY WROTE HOUSE BILL 3 AND THE MEDICAL OR CHEMICAL ABORTION, IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE WHEN THAT NEXT IS USED TO INDUCE AN ABORTION.

BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE OTHER MEANS THAT IT WOULD BE -- COULD BE USED.

WAS IT WAS MADE CLEAR THE WITH BOARD OF PHARMACY AND MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION THAT I WENT ON.

WHEN IT CAMES UP THAT PERHAPS A WOMAN IS EXPERIENCING A MISCARRIAGE AND NEED THESE MEDICATIONS WAS DENIED BY A PHARMACIES, KNOWN WHO WOULD WELL ME WHO WAS FA THE PHARMACIES WHO DENIED YOU THE BUT WHEN I TALKED TO THE BOARD OF PHARMACIES, IF IT'S WRITTEN ON THE PRESCRIPTION FOR A MISCARRIAGE THERE'S NO REASON THAT I PHARMACY WOULD NOT FILL THAT PRESCRIPTION ORE NOT PROVIDE IT BECAUSE YOU WANTED CLARIFY IT WHEN I READ THE ARTICLE IN THE PAPER TO MAKE SURE.

I'M A NURSE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WOMEN GETTING THE CARE THAT'S APPROPRIATE AT THAT TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE HAVING -- WHEN YOU ARE EXPERIENCING A PREGNANCY LOSS.

>> SO A FEW QUESTIONS HAVE COME IN FROM VIEWERS, AND WE THANK THEM FOR ENGAGE MANAGING THIS DISCUSSION.

THIS FROM GEORGE SKEETERS III.

DOESN'T THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFY WHAT IS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD CONSIDERING THE INTENT OF COURAGE LANGUAGE, ALLOWING THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY'S VOICE TO BE HEARD ONCE AND FOR ALL?

AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BUT A ADVANCE.

, MS. WIEDER.

>> YES, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OUR VOICE HEARD ON.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL AS WE CAN LOOK TO OTHER STATES THAT HAVE AMENDMENT LIKE THIS OR BALLOT INITIATIVES.

EVEN WHEN LIKE RIGHT TO LIFE LOSES ON THESE ISSUES, THEY CONTINUE TO POP UP AND THEY CONTINUE TO GO TO EXTREME MEASURES TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO ABORTION AND OTHER FORMS OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.

>> SO WHAT IS THE RECOURSE FOR ABORTION PRICE ADVOCATES IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES?

>> WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED LEGAL PATHWAY.

A LOT IS STILL BEING DECIDED.

I AM VERY HOPEFUL, THOUGH, THAT THROUGH THE LAST 18 MONTHS AND WHAT WE FOUND THROUGH RESEARCH THAT WE ARE GOING TO WIN.

WE ARE GOING TO DEFEAT THIS INITIATIVE.

>> THIS QUESTION IN A VIEWER, WHAT WILL THE LAW BE IF THIS POSSESS PASSES AND IT COMES DOWN TO A MEDICAL DECISION IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN JEOPARDY OR THE BABY'S LIFE IS IN JEOPARDY?

>> THE STANDING LAW THAT WAS REFLECT IN THE TRIGGER LAW THAT PASSED WOULD ALLOW OR PERMIT AN ABORTION TO BE PERSONAL TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER AND BODILY HARM TO THE MOTHER.

NOW, THAT PIECE, THAT LAW IS IN THE COURTS RIGHT UP PENDING, OF COURSE, THIS AMENDMENT.

BUT I THINK IT HAS TO BE CLEAR THAT WE KEEP MIXING MEDICAL CARE CARE, HIGH-RISK PREGNANCIES, INFERTILITY, CARRIAGES, BLEEDING THAT OVER INTO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE.

THE AMENDMENT IS VERY CLEAR.

IT KEEPS THIS ISSUE, THE RIGHT TO ABORTION OR A MISINTERPRETATION OF A RIGHT TO BOOKS OUT OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE FUNDING OF ABORTION, AND WE MAY THERE'S THE HYDE AMENDMENT.

THE HYDE AMENDMENT WAS CHALLENGED JUST THIS YEAR.

>> REMIND US WHAT.

>> AS THE HYDE AMOUNT OF SAID THERE WOULD KNOB ANY FEDERAL MEDICAID DOLLARS MEANT ON ABORTION BUTTED EVERY YEAR THAT HAS TO BE REAFFIRMED WHEN THEY RESOLIDIFY AND PASS THE BUDGET.

WE SAW IT CHALLENGED THIS YEAR THE ON FEDERAL SIDE.

WE KNOW IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE ALLOW FOR FUNDING OF ABORTION.

THERE ARE 16 STATES RIGHT NOW THAT USE THEIR OWN MONEY.

THE HYDE AMENDMENT DISCUSS NOT PERMIT -- PREVENT STATES FROM USING THEIR OWN RESOURCES OR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

SO THIS CLARIFIES ONE THING THAT KENTUCKIANS AGREE ON ON BOTH SIDES, THEY REALLY DON'T WANT THEIR TAXPAYER DOLLARS FAGE PAYING FOR ABORTIONS, AND IT MAKES IT CLEAR AND LACES PLACES THAT INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.

>> THERE ARE ALREADY REGULATIONS IN PLACE IN KENTUCKY THAT RESTRICT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTION, AND WE SEE THAT PLAY OUT.

IT'S PLAYED OUT FOR YEARS.

SO THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT AND IT'S REALLY MISLEADING LANGUAGE ON WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE, AND WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE INCLUDES ALL ABORTION, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ENCOMPASSING OF ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES, MISGAMES,, SEPTIC UTERUS.

THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES THAT WE ARE FINDING RIGHT NOW AND THE CHILLING EFFECT IS PROFOUND IN KENTUCKY.

THIS MANDATE FROM FRANKFORT TO END ABORTION ACCESS HAS HAD PROFOUND IMPACT ON KENTUCKY AND THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE IF THESE BANS ARE LOUD TO SAW IN PLACE.

>> SO WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED FOR A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE MADE EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS YOU HAVE JUST MENTION ODD RAPE AND INCEST?

WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING YOU COULD GET BEHINDSOME.

>> NO, BECAUSE ABORTION CARE IS STILL HEALTH CARE.

THOSE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THE WANT TO END A PREGNANCY SHOULD HAVE THAT ALLOWED TO THEM.

WE ARE NOT HERE TO INFLICT OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ON ABORTION.

WE NEE TO FOLLOW PROVIDERS IN HELICOPTER WHO SUPPORT COMPREHENSIVE CARE, INCLUDING ABORTION.

THERE'S NO MAJOR MEDICAL BODY THAT IS AGAINST ABORTION CARE.

>> ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT IF THE AMENDMENT PASSES, BAGS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMOUNTED, ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THEN THERE COULD BE FURTHER STEPS TO COST PROSECUTE PEOPLE WOMEN WHO GO OUT OF STATE TO SEEK ABORTIONS PROVIDERS WHO STILL MANAGE TO FIND WAYS TO PROVIDE ABORTION SERVICES?

>> YES, OF COURSE.

AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH RIGHT NOW IS THE CHILLING EFFECT.

PHARMACIES ARE AFRAID TO PRESCRIBE THE MEDICATION.

DOCTORS ARE UNSURE ON THE LINES IN WHICH THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEIR PATIENTS.

THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE PLAN Bs FOR THEM OUT OF STATE.

THAT'S WHY PROVIDERS ARE CALLING US NONSTOP TO MAKE SURE THAT THEYMORE AVENUE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEIR PATIENTS.

SO WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF COMPONENTS OF THAT PLAY OUT IN REALTIME IN KENTUCKY SINCE THIS WENT INTO FULL EFFECT IN AUGUST, AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE WITH THE LEGISLATURE WANTING TO DO MORE AND THEY'RE NOT STOPPING AT ABORTION.

>> I DO WANT TO GO RIGHT THERE BECAUSE MS. WUCHNER IS A FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND SHE KNOWS HOW FRANKFORT WORKS AND HOW THE PROCESS OF MAKING LEGISLATION WORKS.

WERE YOU IN CONVERSATION WITH OTHER REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE LOOKING A EXCEPTIONS, RATE, INCEST AND FOR THE SOME OF CONDITIONS THAT MS. WIEDER JUST SAID?

IS THERE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THIS CAN BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND WHEN IT COMES TO ABORTION RIGHTS?

>> LET ME JUST SAY THERE REALLY IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.

CAN THERE BE A COMPROMISE WITH THE OTHER SIDE?

WE WATCHED THAT POLITE IN INDIANA MOST RECENTLY THAT HAD A SENATE THAT INCLUDED THE LIGHT OF MOTHER, RAPE, INCEST AND FETAL ANOMALIES.

THAT PASSED AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE SAID THEY WERE BROKENHEARTED BUT WE COMPROMISED.

THEY DEFENDER OF LIFE WITH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.

AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT COMPROMISE BILL WHEN IT WAS ABOUT TO TAKE AFFECT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND ACLU SUED TO PUT AN INJUNCTION ON IT AND I THINK THERE IS NO COMPROMISE.

THEY WANT ABORTION ON DEMAND UP UNTIL WHATEVER -- WE SEE IT PLANNED IN OTHER STATES, AND THAT IS A RISK THAT WILL BE UP UNTIL THE TIME OF DELIVERY.

WE'VE BEEN OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM WHEN I WAS STANDING IN THE STREETS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, OUTSIDE JUDGE PERRY'S COURTROOM.

THERE WAS A SIGN RIGHT THERE.

ABORTION ON DEMAND AND PAID FOR AND AFFORDABLE.

SO WHEN YOU SEE SIGNS LIKE THAT, THAT THAMES YOU WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS PUSHING FOR.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INDUSTRY.

WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT DOCTORS AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.

WE'VE TALKING ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS AN INDUSTRY THAT IS OVER $500 MILLION A YEAR NATIONWIDE.

IT'S MORE THAN THAT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THEY RECEIVE THAT.

IT COMES INTO THEIR COFFERS.

IT'S AN INDUSTRY THAT WE'RE UP AGAINST THAT WANT TO STAY IN BUSINESS THAT PROVIDERS ABORTIONS, THE TERMINATING OF THE LIFE OF A CHILD.

WHEN A MOTHER NEEDS SPECIALIZED COMPARE FOR A MISCARRIAGE, ECTOPIC PREGNANCY OR INFERTILITY, THOSE ARE PROVIDED IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND THAN THE SHOE BE PERFORMED IN AN INDUSTRY THAT'S SET IN PLACE FOR TERMINATING LIVES OF CHILDREN.

>> I DO WANT TO ASK IMMEDIATE WIEDER SO LET'S GET TO THE POINT ABOUT WHERE IS THERE PRO COMPROMISE.

ARE YOU A PROPONENT FOR ABORTIONS UP UNTIL THE TIME OF DELIVERY.

>> >> IT'S NOT A THING THAT EXISTS.

IT'S CALLED DELIVERY AND THERE IS NO DOCTOR WHO WOULD BE DOING THAT.

THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING.

THIS DIALOGUE WITH A MEDICAL SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MEDICAL SYSTEM BOUGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN OTHER STATES.

IT'S OUT THERE.

>> NO, NO, THERE IS NO -- LET'S BE VERY CLEAR.

>> A CONSTITUTION AMOUNTED DOES, IT KEEPS IT OUT OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

>> THERE IS NO ABORTION UNTIL THE MOMENT BIRTH, AND THAT IS A HYPER INFLATED LANGUAGE THAT'S USED TO FEAR-MONGER AND PLAY TO PEOPLE'S EMOTIONS.

ABORTION IS ONE OF THE MOST REGULATED PROCEDURES THE IN UNITED STATES.

BEFORE ROE FELL IT WAS ABOUT 24 TO 25 WEEKS WHEN YOU WOULD HAVE A CUTOFF FOR ACCESS TO ABORTION, NOT THE MOMENT OF DELIVERY, AND I THINK THIS THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT, AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ABORTION, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT ACCURATELY AND IN MEDICAL LANGUAGE THAT PROVIDERS ACTUALLY USE, AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS AN EXPERT IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.

WE HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR OVER 100 YEARS AND WE ARE IN COMMUNITIES AND THEY TRUST US.

WE ARE SOMETIMES THE ONLY HEALTH CENTER THAT PEOPLE GET TO, SO WE ARE A FRONTLINE HEALTH CENTER THAT PROVIDES MEDICAL SERVICES TO COMMUNITIES IN NEED, AND, YES, WE ADVOCATE FOR ABORTION BECAUSE COMMUNITIES NEED ACCESS TO SAFE AND LEGAL HEALTH CARE.

>> I'LL ALLOW YOU, MS. WUCHNER FOR THE LAST YARD WORD.

>> I WOULD SAY THOSE COMMUNITIES SPECIAL AT SAYING OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES AND I THINK BY GOOD FRIEND ANGELA WOULD TALK ABOUT THAT POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN TARGETED FOR ABORTION AND A HIGH PERCENTAGE RATE OF ABORTIONS THAT ACTUALLY ARE FOR BLACK WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN.

AND THAT'S VERY CONCERNING.

ALSO, ADVOCATING IN SOCIOECONOMIC DEPRESSED COMMUNITIES WHERE WOMEN THERE ARE BROUGHT TO ABORTION FACILITIES OUTSIDE OF THEIR COMMUNITY.

AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROCEDURE THAT TERMINATES A LIFE OF THE CHILD.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND RADICAL DOLLARS COMING IN SPENT ON THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAIN THAT DOES NOT BAN ALL ABORTIONS, LET'S BE CLEAR, KEEPS THE RIGHT TO ABORTION OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FUNDING THEREOF.

>> WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

IT'S BEEN A GOOD DISCUSSION ON BOTH AMENDMENTS.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

I'M RENEE SHAW.

I'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.