[♪♪] GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO KENTUCKY TONIGHT.

I'M RENEE SHA THANKS FOR JOINING US.

OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: FAMILY & HEALTH ISSUES, AND WHETHER WE WILL SEE ACTION ON THEM IN THE WEEKS REMAINING IN THE 2025 KENTUCKY GENERAL AS AMONG THE ISSUES BEING TALKED ABOUT: THE NUMBER OF PARENTS BEHIND BARS, AND ALTERNATIVES T JAIL THAT WOULD ALLOW FAMILIES TO STAY TOGETHER.

SHOULD KENTUCKY ELIMINATE THE SALES TAX ON DIAPERS, MAKING THEM EASIER TO AFFORD?

WHAT ARE SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF FOSTER KIDS BEING HOUSED IN STATE BUILDINGS?

AND SOME LAWMAKERS STILL WANT EXCEPTIONS TO KENTUCKY’S NEAR-TOTAL ABORTION BAN.

WE HAVE FOUR GUESTS IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO, TO DISCUSS ALL THIS: STATE SENATOR JULIE RAQUE ADAMS A LOUISVILLE REPUBLICAN; STATE SENATOR CASSIE CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG, A LOUISVILLE DEMOCRA STATE REPRESENTATIVE KIMBERLY POORE MOSER, A REPUBLICAN FROM TAYLOR MILL, AND CHAIR OF THE HOUSE HEALTH SERVICES COMMITTEE AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE ADRIELLE CAMUEL, A LEXINGTON DE WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

YOU CAN SEND YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY X — FORMERLY TWITTE -- AT PUB AFFAIRS KET.

SEND AN EMAIL TO K-Y TONIGHT AT K-E-T DOT O-R-G. OR USE THE WEB FORM AT K-E-T DOT O-R-G SLASH K-Y TO OR YOU CAN CALL 1-800-494-7605.

WELCOME TO ALL OUR GUESTS.

POST SUPER BOWL HOPE YOU HAD A GREAT SUPER SUNDAY.

RARLTDLESS OF WHO WON.

LET'S TALK ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR ALMOST A HALF AND TOMORROW MORNING THE SENATE FAMILIES AND CHILDREN'S COMMITTEE WILL TAKE UP TESTIMONY INVOLVING THIS ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT IN 2023 AND STILL PERSISTS AND THAT'S THE UNPLACED FOSTER KIDS WHO ARE BEING HOUSED SOME OF THE TIME SLEEPING ON COTS WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GETTING FED AND ACCESS TO SHOWERS.

THE COMMONWEALTH OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE FOUND 49 CHILDREN SPENT 198 COMBINED DAYS IN THE DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD SERVICES, AVERAGE STAY WAS FOUR DAYS.

SIX CHILDREN WERE UNDER 10 AND THE YOUNGEST WAS ONE.

WHAT MORE CAN YOU ADD?

I WILL START WITH SENATOR ADAMS ABOUT WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE SITUATION, HOW LONG IT'S BEEN GOING ON AND WHAT LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES WOULD BE AVAILABLE DURING THIS SESSION TO LAWMAKERS?

>> RIGHT.

AND THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE IT'S BEEN ONGOING.

AND WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PRETTY CONSISTENTLY FOR WELL OVER A YEAR.

JUST ONE CHILD THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATELY PLACED IS TOO MANY.

AND AS YOU STATED, WE HAVE 49 THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PLACED APPROPRIATELY.

OUR SOCIAL WORKERS ARE NOT OVERNIGHT BABYSITTERS.

WE NEED TO HAVE A REALLY ROBUST PROVIDER NETWORK THAT CAN HANDLE THIS.

YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW ONE CHILD WAS LESS THAN ONE-YEAR-OLD AND MOSTLY THEY ARE 13 YEARS OLD.

WE TRADITIONAL FOUND THE HIGHER ACUITY KID IS HAVING TROUBLE BEING PLACED.

AND SO THE CABINET WENT THROUGH AN OVERHAUL TO HAVE OUR PROVIDERS ACCEPT THIS HIGHER ACUITY KID.

BUT WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS THAT THE PROVIDERS ARE NOT BEING ASSIGNED THESE KIDS THEY ARE BEING SENT OUT OF STATE.

SO THERE'S FOUR STATES THAT KIDS ARE BEING SENT TO.

WHEN YOU SEND A KID OUT OF STATE, THAT COSTS OUR MEDICAID PROGRAM THREE TIMES WHAT IT COSTS TO HOUSE THEM INSTATE.

AND SO WE'VE GOT A FUNDING ISSUE THAT IS OFF BALANCE HERE.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE A PROVIDER ISSUE.

YOU TAKE BELLWOOD AND BROOKHAVEN IN LOUISVILLE, THEY HAVE TWO COTTAGES THAT ARE SITTING EMPTY WAITING FOR THE CABINET TO ASSIGN KIDS SO THAT THEY CAN START TO TAKE CARE OF THEM.

AND THE CABINET WILL NOT ASSIGN KIDS THERE.

AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY.

SO WE HAVE COTTAGES IN LOUISVILLE THAT ARE READY TO TAKE KIDS AND INSTEAD WE'RE PUTTING THEM IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

WE'RE PUTTING THEM IN HOTELS.

SOMETIMES AT STATE PARKS.

SO SOMETHING IS NOT GETTING DONE.

THERE IS A PROBLEM, AND WE SEEM TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE NO SOLUTION.

SO I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION IN SENATE FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S.

BECAUSE AT SOME POINT, A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE.

AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE KIDS ARE IN APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT.

AND AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY'S GOT TO START PUTTING THESE KIDS WHERE WE HAVE, WHERE WE HAVE RESOURCES AND WRAP AROUND SERVICES FOR THEM.

>> Renee: SECRETARY FREE LANDER IS SET TO TESTIFY AND I WANT TO GO TO YOU SENATOR CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG ABOUT THE BESHEAR ADMINISTRATION PUT FORTH $40 SOMETHING MILLION AT ONE TIME TO HELP AND WE'RE NOT SURE IF THAT WAS TO HELP WITH THIS ISSUE.

WHY IS IT THAT YOU HAVE FACILITIES THAT HAVE SPACE AND CHILDREN WHO ARE SLEEPING ON COTTINGS IN STATE OFFICE BUILDINGS.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS?

>> I KNOW THIS IS A HEARTBREAKING ISSUE.

I BELIEVE ONE OF THE KIDS THEY DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT WAS THREE.

MY YOUNGEST CHILD JUST TURNED FOUR MY HEARTBREAKS THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE FOR THAT CHILD AND HOW SCARY IT WOULD BE.

I'M GLAD WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ISSUE AND GLAD WHAT I'M HEARING NO ONE IS TRYING TO PLAY PARTISAN POLITICS.

PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO THE TABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET THE RESOURCES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE THIS ENOUGH TO PUT THE MONEY AND THE PEOPLE INTO SOLVING THIS.

I BELIEVE WE CAN SOLVE THIS.

I WORK WITH SMART PEOPLE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REALLY TALENTED FOLKS WORKING ON THIS.

I HOPE TOMORROW IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SUPPORTING THESE KIDS.

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE FUTURE AND WE THE EARLIER WE INVEST IN THEM THE MORE RESOURCES IT PAYS FOR US IN THE FUTURE.

>> Renee: PERHAPS REPRESENTATIVE THERE IS A REASON WHY THE KIDS ARE THERE AND PERHAPS IT'S SAFER.

DO YOU SEE LOGIC IN THAT?

>> THAT IS THE CASE IN SOME CASES.

AND YOU KNOW WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS ARE SAFE.

IF THEY ARE IN A VIOLENT SITUATION, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO REMOVE THEM.

BUT AS SENATOR ADAMS AND SENATOR ARMSTRONG SAID, WE DO HAVE SOME -- WE HAVE RESOURCES THAT ARE BEING UNDERUTILIZED.

YOU KNOW, WE ALSO HAVE THE FAMILY FIRST ACT, THE FAMILY FIRST PROTECTION THERE IS A LONGER NAME.

BUT IT REALLY IT GETS TO THE CRUX OF WHY KIDS ARE THERE AND IT TRIES TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO EARLY INTERVENTION WITH CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IS ANOTHER WAY ANOTHER AREA THAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE INVESTING IN AND PUTTING SOME OF OUR RESOURCES.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME WAIVERS THAT ARE UNDER APPLICATION AT THIS POINT.

THERE IS A SPECIFIC WAIVER THAT THE CABINET IS LOOKING AT FOR THIS PARTICULAR REASON, TO HELP SOLVE AND PUT MORE RESOURCES BEHIND PLACING CHILDREN.

BUT THE WHOLE OUT OF HOME SITUATION IS A BIG PROBLEM.

IT'S BEEN A BIG PROBLEM FOR A LONGTIME.

THIS IS NOT A NEW SITUATION.

AND WE'RE JUST NOT FOR SOME REASON WE ARE NOT PUTTING THOSE RESOURCES BEHIND THIS.

I WOULD AGREE WE NEED BETTER FUNDING.

WE DO HAVE LIKE I SAID THESE WAIVERS THAT HOPEFULLY THE WAIVER WILL BE APPROVED.

AND WE CAN LOOK AT HOUSING FOR SOME OF THE KIDS WHO ARE JUST FAMILIES ARE AT A LOSS AS TO HOW TO HANDLE SOME OF THESE KIDS.

THEY ARE HIGHER ACUITY.

AND I KNOW THAT I STOOD ON THE BOARD OF DCCA UP IN NORTHERN KENTUCKY AND THAT IS A FOSTER CARE HOME AND WE HAVE STAFF WHO ARE BEING INJURED.

AND SO YOU KNOW, IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

WE HAVE KIDS WHO ARE VERY HIGH ACUITY AND VERY, VERY HARD TO PLACE.

>> Renee: HOW DO YOU SEE IT REPRESENTATIVE?

AND WELCOME YOUR FIRST TIME BEING ON "KENTUCKY TONIGHT"?

>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE TONIGHT.

AND I THINK THE FAMILY PRESERVATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT WILL HELP IN TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER TO KEEP KIDS OUT OF THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM.

IT IS SO COMPLEX.

IT IS SUCH A COMPLEX ISSUE I DON'T KNOW THE EASIEST WAY TO SIT AND SAY THESE ARE THE FIXES THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THE SITUATION WE KNOW THAT IT'S TRAUMATIZING FOR KIDS WHEN THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE HOME.

IT'S TRAUMATIZING FOR KIDS IT IS ANOTHER LAYER OF IT WHEN THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES.

OR FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY EVEN IF THEY CANNOT BE WITH THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS.

SO I THINK THAT THERE'S -- LEGISLATIVELY, I THINK WE DO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FIXES.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

I THINK WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND ABLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE CONVERSATIONS.

AND WITH MY BACKGROUND, TOO, I WORK FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MY HUSBAND WORKS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS WELL, WHAT WE SEE I'VE WORKED WITH FAMILIES FOR 15 YEARS AND MY HUSBAND HE WORKS WITH KIDS.

BUT EVERYTHING THAT'S WE TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS AND CARE PROVIDERS MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, IT ALL PLAYS A ROLE IN TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR KIDS IN THE TO HAVER CARE SYSTEM BUT THE GOAL IS TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO PULL THEM OUT.

I THINK WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES WITH SENATOR ADAMS LEGISLATION AND THE PRESERVATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.

>> Renee: LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.

THAT IS A BICAMERAL EFFORT AND THE BILL IS STARTING OFF SENATE BILL BILL -- HOUSE BILL 291 THERE IS NOT A SENATE BILL BILL THAT GOES THAT HIGH THIS TIME.

>> NOT YET.

>> Renee: I'M SURE.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS.

THERE WAS A PRESS CONFERENCE AND WE COVERED THAT ON KENTUCKY EDITION.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE HAPPEN?

>> AT LEAST I COME AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HAVING WORKED ON THE DIGNITY BILLS WHERE WE DIDN'T PUT PREGNANT WOMEN INTO JAIL.

WE ALLOWED THEM TO GET CLEAN AND HAVE THEIR BABIES AND SERVE OUT THEIR SENTENCE IN A DIFFERENT FORM THAN WE'VE EVER SEEN BEFORE.

AND I KIND OF VIEWED THIS AS AN EXTENSION OF THE DIGNITY BILL.

I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS IS JUST FOR THE JUDGE TO CONSIDER.

SO WHEN THE PERSON GOES BEFORE THE JUDGE, FOR SENTENCING, THAT JUDGE CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ARE THEY THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER?

ARE THEY TAKING CARE OF AN ELDERLY PARENT?

DO THEY HAVE A SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD?

DO THEY HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS COMPLETELY DEPENDING ON THEM?

AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT IT'S ONLY FOR LOW LEVEL, NONVIOLENT, NONSEXUAL CRIMES.

AND SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WHERE IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE ON THE COMMONWEALTH TO KEEP THAT FAMILY INTACT AND RATHER THAN FARM THEM OUT TO THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM; INCARCERATE THEM.

YOU CAN KEEP THEM AT HOME AND HAVE THOSE SERVICES.

IS IT SUBSTANCE TREATMENT?

IS IT KIND OF THOSE FAMILY PRESERVATION TYPE OF THINGS.

IS IT PARENTING CLASSES?

IS IT FINANCIAL CLASSES?

SO YOU CAN DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS WHILE KEEPING THAT FAMILY INTACT AND THEY DON'T -- IT'S NOT A RISK TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

>> Renee: THE COST IS IT MORE COST EFFICIENT TO GO THAT ROUTE?

>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY MORE COST EFFICIENT AND WE HAVE 16,000 KIDS EVERY YEAR THAT COME INTO THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.

WHICH ONES GO BACK.

SO RATHER THAN HAVE THAT ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE OF HAVING THAT PARENT INCARCERATED FOR SOMETHING THAT IS SO LOW LEVEL, THE JUDGE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE ABLE TO CONSIDER WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THIS FAMILY INTACT OR WE'RE GOING TO INCARCERATE THAT INDIVIDUAL.

>> Renee: DO WE KNOW THE NUMBERS OF HOW MANY CURRENT INMATES THIS WOULD APPLY TO?

>> NO, WE DO NOT.

BUT IT SAYS ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT IS THAT THE WOMEN IN KENTUCKY'S PRISONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE INCARCERATED FOR DRUG AND PROPERTY OFFENSES COMPARED TO MEN.

THIS KIND OF WE THINK THAT WILL BE IMPACTFUL TO THE FEMALE POPULATION.

>> Renee: BUT IT ALSO COULD APPLY TO MEN?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

IT COULD.

RIGHT.

>> Renee: YOU CARRIED A COMMENT ON THIS?

>> I THINK IT IS A GREAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

ANYTIME WE CAN SEE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY LOOKING UPSTREAM AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FULL COST OF THE ACTIONS WE TAKE.

SO THERE IS A REAL COST TO TAKING A PARENT OUT OF A HOME AND PUTTING A CHILD INTO FOSTER CARE.

AND IT IS A COST TO THAT CHILD IN THEIR LIFE AND ALSO A COST TO THE TAXPAYERS OF KENTUCKY IN TERMS OF WHAT IT MEANS FOR THAT CHILD'S TRAJECTORY.

SENATOR ADAMS IS NOT MANDATING ANYTHING SHE IS GIVING JUDGES WHO ARE BEST SITUATED THE ABILITY TO AASSESS THE FACTS AND LOOK AT THE FAMILY AND DETERMINE WHAT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AND THE FAMILY'S INTEREST.

>> Renee: AND THEY CURRENTLY CANNOT DO THAT NOW?

>> THERE'S NOTHING IN STATUTE THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN CONSIDER.

WE ARE TELLING JUDGES WE HOPE YOU WILL LOOK AT THIS WE THINK IT IS GOOD FISCAL AND MORAL POLICY AND GOOD FOR THE FAMILIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

SOMETIMES I GET WORRIED WE DON'T LOOK UPSTREAM ENOUGH AND THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS.

LAST SESSION HOUSE BILL 5 TO ME WAS AN EXAMPLE.

>> THE SAFER KENTUCKY ACT.

WHICH REQUIRED THAT WE CITE PEOPLE FOR THINGS LIKE NOT HAVING SHELTER.

I WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A COST TO THEM.

I'M GLAD TO SEE MEASURES WHERE WE ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TRUE ECONOMIC PICTURE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO DISRUPT INDIVIDUALS' LIVES.

>> Renee: AND TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN PERHAPS NOT A REVERSAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM EFFORTS BUT A DIALING BACK WHEN WE HAD SENATOR WESTERFIELD'S BILL THAT DEALT WITH YOUTH AND YOUTH OFFENDERS AND STATUS OFFENSES THAT WE'VE SEEMINGLY AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MOVED AWAY FROM THAT KIND OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PARADIGM.

>> WELL, I WOULD SAY WE'RE STILL VERY INTERESTED IN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.

AND SOME CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS IN THIS INSTANCE WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO ALLOW THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, IT IS A LOW LEVEL CRIME, THEY ARE PARENTING THEIR CHILDREN OR TRYING TO HOW CAN WE BEST SUPPORT THEM AND WE'VE DONE THAT IN REENTRY WAYS AS WELL.

AND AS FAR AS HOUSE BILL 5, I AGREE THAT THERE WERE SOME AREAS THAT SEEMINGLY SEEMED HARSH BUT WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE REALITY AT THAT TIME CITIES ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH NOW, AND NOT HAVING A PLAN FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HOMELESS.

NOW, AGAIN, WE CAN GO BACK TO PREVENTING ALL OF THESE SITUATIONS IN SOME WAY.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A CRISIS.

AND WE HAVE A FIRE.

AND WE'VE GOT TO PUT IT OUT.

AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH MORE THEFT, YOU KNOW THERE ARE MORE OF THESE INSTANCES THAT WE'RE SEEING.

IT IS NOT JUST IN KENTUCKY.

WE'VE SEEN THIS ACROSS THE NATION, REALLY.

AND SO YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU PARS THIS OUT, HOW DO YOU PROTECT THOSE FOLKS AND HELP PEOPLE GET BACK ON THEIR FEET, BUT STILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOME OF THEIR ACTIONS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE CRIMINAL.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, WE HAVE TO DO BOTH.

>> Renee: WHEN WE THINK ABOUT A RECENT INCIDENT IN LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY WHERE A PREGNANT WOMAN WHO WAS LIVING ON THE STREETS WAS CITED FOR HOMENESS AND SHE WAS GOING INTO LABOR AND WAS NOT BELIEVED BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE STORIES ARE MADE UP.

THE POLICE CHIEF APOLOGIZED AND THAT CITATION HAS BEEN DROPPED.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO VERSUS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN HOUSE BILL 5 THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCONNECT THERE.

AM I WRONG?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT NO, YOU'RE NOT WRONG IN HOUSE BILL 5, THAT BILL SPECIFICALLY TARGETED VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

THIS BILL IS NONVIOLENT, NONSEXUAL OFFENDERS.

THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE CRIMES.

HOUSE BILL 5 WAS ONLY FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

TRYING TO GET OUR STREETS SAFER.

TRYING TO GET OUR NEIGHBORHOODS SAFER.

>> Renee: HOMELESS POPULATIONS WERE INCLUDED IN THAT?

>> THERE WAS A CAMPING PROVISION IN THAT.

AND YEAH, THAT'S WAS A SEPARATE PIECE.

BUT THE MAJORITY OF HOUSE BILL 5 WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

>> Renee: CARE TO COMMENT?

>> OF COURSE, I MEAN I STRUGGLED WITH HOUSE BILL 5 FOR VERY SPECIFIC REASONS.

I THOUGHT IT ACTUALLY HAD GOOD PROVISIONS IN IT BUT IT WENT A STEP TOO FAR WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE ISSUES FACING THE PEOPLE WHO FIND THEMSELVES WITHOUT A HOME.

THE HOUSELESS ARE THEY DON'T WAKE UP IN THE MORNING AND SAY, HEY I WANT TO BE HOMELESS TODAY.

THERE IS A REASON THEY GOT THERE.

FOR ME, HOUSE BILL 5 WAS NOT FOR ME IT WAS NOT THE BEST LEGISLATION THAT WE COULD HAVE PUT FORWARD.

BUT I THINK THAT, AGAIN, LOOKING AT SENATOR ADAMS' BILL IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS TO REVISIT PERHAPS WHAT WAS DONE AND MAYBE COME AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT WAY.

>> Renee: THE MEASURE BECAUSE IT GETS TO THE ROOT CAUSES OF THE CRIME YOUR MEASURE DOES.

>> DIGNITY, COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING.

>> YEAH, I FOCUS ON REHABILITATION.

YOU FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVES TO SENTENCING.

YOU FOCUS ON THINGS THAT EMPOWER THAT INDIVIDUAL TO START TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONS.

THAT EMPOWER THAT INDIVIDUAL TO SAY OH, MY GOODNESS WHY DID I DO THAT?

AND I WANT HELP.

BECAUSE I WANT TO DO BETTER.

AND RENEE, THIS IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY.

THIS IS FOR A JUDGE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION TO SAY THIS PERSON IS A GREAT CANDIDATE TO HAVE THIS KIND OF ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING.

AND IT WON'T APPLY TO EVERYBODY.

AND THERE MIGHT BE FAILURES IN IT.

BUT WE'VE GOT TO START TO THINK ABOUT THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

WE CAN'T JUST KEEP THROWING PEOPLE IN JAIL AND EXPECTING IT NOT TO HAVE WORKFORCE ISSUES OR ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES.

AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING TO A PLACE WHERE WE CAN RESTORE THAT PERSON'S DIGNITY AND THEY CAN SAY YOU KNOW WHAT?

I'M NOT DOING THAT AGAIN I'M NOT GOING BACK THERE AGAIN.

>> Renee: IS YOUR CAUCUS COMFORTABLE MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION?

>> WE HAD A JUST INTRODUCED REPRESENTATIVE WILSON INTRODUCED IT IN THE HOUSE AND I INTRODUCED IT IN THE SENATE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT REPRESENTATIVE WILSON'S BILL IS PROBABLY GOING TO MOVE.

HE'S BEEN VERY -- HIS REMARKS ARE VERY INTERESTING ON THIS TOPIC.

BECAUSE AND HE SHARED IT WITH THE PRESS CONFERENCE AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE SHARING IT HERE.

HIS MOM WAS INCARCERATED WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER AND HE SAID THAT WAS AN EXPERIENCE FOR ME.

AND MY YOUNGER BROTHER.

AND SO HE COMES AT THIS FROM A PLACE OF THAT IS VERY PERSONAL TO HIM.

>> Renee: LIVED EXPERIENCE.

>> AND IT WOULD HAVE WORKED FOR HIS MOM.

AND SO THOSE KINDS OF STORIES HAVE VERY POWERFUL THEY GIVE REAL MEANING TO THE THINGS WE DO AND THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE MIGHT HAVE BEFORE US TO THINK ABOUT THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

>> Renee: ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON THIS?

>> TO SAY I LEARN A LOT FROM THIS ISSUE FROM TRYING TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE ISSUES TO MY KIDS.

LAST YEAR ON THE FLOOR DEBATE DURING HOUSE BILL 5 I TOLD THE STORY MY OLDEST CHILD NOTICED SOMEONE UNSHELTERED UNDERPASS, AND I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO HIM HOW SOME PEOPLE DON'T HAVE HOUSES AND IMMEDIATELY HE SAID WE SHOULD BUILD THEM HOUSES THAT IS THE SOLUTION BUILD EVERYONE HOUSES IT SEEMS SO SIMPLE.

SOMETIMES WE THINK THESE THINGS ARE NAIVE.

GOOD POLICY IS GOING TO THE CORE VALUES THAT WE HAVE AND SAYING IF SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE A HOUSE LET'S BUILD THEM A HOUSE.

IF WE'RE RISKING TEARING A FAMILY APART AND WE DON'T HAVE TO LET'S KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER.

I HOPE WE AS KENTUCKIANS CAN REMEMBER THOSE CORE VALUES AND LEGISLATE FROM THE CORE VALUES I THINK WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND THERE.

>> THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO ADD TO THAT AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE SAID, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I THINK ABOUT A LOT, TOO, IS WHENEVER WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A PARENT IS INCARCERATED AND THE CHILD HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE IF IT'S NOT THE FOSTER SYSTEM IT MAYBE WITH KINSHIP CARE.

WE HAVE SO MANY GRANDPARENTS, GREAT GRANDPARENTS, GREAT AUNTS RAISING YOUNG KIDS.

AND IT PUTS A BURDEN ON THEM.

AND THERE IS A 2024 CENSUS THAT SAYS THAT KENTUCKY IS ONE OF EIGHT STATES WHERE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR COUNTIES HAS A HIGHER RATE OF GRANDS PARENTS RAISING THEIR GRANDCHILDREN THAN WHAT THE COUNTRY'S AVERAGE IS.

SO, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE BETTER POLICY TO KEEP CORE FAMILIES TOGETHER AND TO -- IT DOES PUT THE POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE JUDGES WHO MAYBE ABLE TO SAY IT IS A NONVIOLENT, LOW LEVEL OFFENSE, LET'S NOT PUT THIS FAMILY THROUGH TRAUMA LET'S WORK ON HELPING THEM CORRECT MISTAKES REINTEGRATE WHATEVER TERM YOU WANT TO USE.

>> Renee: IS IT A SINGLE OFFENSE OR CAN THERE BE SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES OR MULTIPLE OFFENSES IS THERE A CAP ON OFFENSES?

>> NO.

THIS IS FROM HOW I READ THE BILL AS WRITTEN IS IF A PERSON IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME, THEN DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE IS WHEN THE JUDGE WILL GET THE REPORT AND THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE THIS IS A PERSON'S FIRST OFFENSE OR THIS IS A PERSON'S 10TH OFFENSE.

AND THE JUDGE SAYS GOSH, I'M JUST ASSUMING MAYBE THAT PERSON THAT IS THEIR FIRST OFFENSE THEY ARE A PRIMARY CAREGIVER OF A SPECIAL NEEDS KID.

THEN THAT JUDGE MIGHT THINK HUH, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PUT THAT CHILD IN FOSTER CARE?

HOW LONG IS THAT MOTHER GOING TO BE INCARCERATED OR FATHER INCARCERATED?

THEY HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

BUT IT IS IN THE SENTENCING PHASE OF THE PROCESS.

>> Renee: OKAY.

MAKING A PIVOT HERE BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF HEALTH RELATED BILLS THAT TARGET SOME COMMON PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES.

LONG STANDING PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES I WILL TICK THROUGH SOME OF THESE AND WE CAN PARS THEM OUT.

CHANGING LAW TO ALLOW FOR THE RETAIL SALE OF RAW MILK IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN 16 STATES.

MAKE DPLOR DATED WATER OPTIONAL FOR GOVERNMENTS IN THE STATE.

TRANSPARENCY ABOUT BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRESENCE OF COVID-19 ANTIBODIES AND VACCINATIONS AND MAKING PROVISIONS FOR DIRECT BLOOD DONORS.

THOSE ARE A FEW I'M SURE THERE ARE MORE.

REPRESENTATIVE, I COME TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE CHAIR OF THE HOUSE HEALTH SERVICES COMMITTEE, HOW DOES OVERALL THAT PACKAGE OF WHAT I READ HOW DOES THAT STRIKE YOU ABOUT WHERE THE BODY IS THINKING?

>> YEAH.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BODY IS PROBABLY CONSIDERING CHOICE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU KNOW, THE RAW MILK ISSUE AND THE FLUORIDATION ISSUE, THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND ACTUAL EFFICACY OF FLUORIDE IN WATER.

I THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK QUESTIONS AND CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE.

BUT ALL OF THOSE BILLS THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED ARE REALLY BOILED DOWN TO PAYING ATTENTION TO SCIENCE.

SO FLUORIDATION WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION NUMEROUS TIMES.

THE BILL THAT IS THE PROPOSAL NOW WOULD ALLOW LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO KEEP ADDING FLUORIDE.

NOW, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE CAN SAY.

HOW MANY PEOPLE DRINK TAP WATER?

WE DRINK BOTTLED WATER WE FILTER WATER.

HOW MUCH OF THE FLUORIDATION IS ACTUALLY REACHING PEOPLE?

I DON'T KNOW.

WE DON'T REALLY KNOW BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DELIVER FLUORIDE SHOULD THIS HAPPEN.

I'M NOT TERRIBLY CONCERNED.

DO I THINK THAT FLUORIDE HAS CHANGED SOME OF OUR ORAL HEALTH IN OUR PROBABLY MORE IMPOVERISHED AREAS OR UNDERSERVED AREAS?

POSSIBLY.

AND I THINK IT HAS.

BUT NOW WE HAVE FLUORIDE IN OUR TOOTHPASTE.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET FLUORIDE.

SO ON THE RAW MILK ISSUE, YOU KNOW, I THINK I WOULD I WOULD BE OKAY WITH IT AS LONG AS WE PUT A DISCLAIMER THAT IT MAY CONTAIN A BACTERIA THAT CAN HARM A FETUS.

THERE ARE RISKS TO ALL OF THIS.

SO I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHEN THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR SOME OF THESE POLICIES THAT THERE ARE RISKS AND THERE'S REAL SCIENCE THAT HAS DETERMINED THAT MILK TO BE PASTURE RISED.

PASTURIZEED.

I THINK WE STILL NEED TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

ON THE BLOOD DONATIONS, I THINK, AGAIN, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE MRNA VACCINE REALLY TRANSLATES WHEN IT'S IN BLOOD DOES IT REALLY CHANGE YOUR DNA?

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND THAT'S THE CASE.

I THINK IT WOULD ALSO BE COSTLY TO TEST ALL OF THE BLOOD.

AND THE PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS IS, I THINK, IT'S IN THE 90s, 96% OF US HAVE ANTIBODIES FOR COVID.

SO YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE 96% OF THE POPULATION FROM DONATING BLOOD.

SO I THINK THAT SCIENCE WILL BEAR OUT SOME OF THESE NEED MORE WORK.

AND, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LAND ON ALL OF THOSE.

>> I AGREE AND I WILL SAY IT MORE STRONGLY THAN WHAT REPRESENTATIVE MOSHER SAID.

I WORRY THE BILLS ARE POLITICIZING SCIENCE.

WE KNOW THAT PASTURIZED MILK WAS A GREAT LEAP FORWARD IF YOU DON'T PASTURIZE MILK YOU CAN DIE.

THERE'S SALMONELLA AND E.coli AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO DIE ARE CHILDREN, PREGNANT WOMEN AND OLDER PEOPLE WITH COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEMS.

SO WE WOULD NOT LET SOMEONE SELL CONTAMINATED WATER.

WE WOULD NOT LET SOMEONE SELL FOOD THAT POSED A HEALTH RISK SAME THING SHOULD BE TRUE FOR MILK.

ON THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDE, ANOTHER GREAT PUBLIC HEALTH LEAP FORWARD.

WE KNOW FROM A LOT OF SCIENTIST DATA THAT PUTTING FLUORIDE IN WATER REDUCES CAVITIES BY 25%.

IN A STATE LIKE KENTUCKY WHERE WE HAVE POOR DENTAL OUTCOMES AND WE KNOW OUR RURAL FOLKS AND OUR KIDS ARE THE ONES MOST IMPACTED BY THAT, THIS IS A COST-EFFECTIVE CHEAP WAY TO SAVE PEOPLE A LOT OF PAIN AND SAVE THEM HEALTH IMPACTS.

EVERY DOLLAR YOU PUT IN FLUORIDATION SAVES THE TAXPAYERS OVER $30.

SO I WORRY ABOUT THESE BILLS THAT ARE POLITICIZING SCIENCE.

THESE ARE DECISIONS WE SHOULD BE TRUSTING THE EXPERTS.

RENEE, ONE OF THE BILLS YOU MISS SECOND ONE THAT WOULD MAKE IT A FELONY TO COMPLY WITH MANDATES OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION OR RECOMMENDATIONS.

ONE OF THE LEADERS IN PUTTING FORWARD MEDICAL GUIDANCE ABOUT DENG GAY FEVER AND HEALTH CONDITIONS AND SAY IT IS A FELONY TO FOLLOW THAT GUIDANCE IS SOMETHING I FIND CONCERNING TO BE HONEST.

I THINK IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TRUE THAT A LOT OF FOLKS WHO ARE PUSHING THESE BILLS ARE LOOKING FOR CHOICE.

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A CHOICE.

AND, YET, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WOMEN BEING ABLE TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES DURING PREGNANCY THAT IS A CONVERSATION THAT IS NOT MOVING FORWARD IN THE LEGISLATURE IN THE WAY WE WANT.

WE STILL LIVE IN A STATE WITH ONE OF THE MOST EXTREME ABORTION BANS IN THE WHOLE UNITED STATES.

WHERE THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE, A 12-YEAR-OLD RAPE VICTIM STILL HAS TO CARRY HER RAPIST'S BABY THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS FOR INCEST NO EXCEPTIONS FOR A NONVIABLE PREGNANCY WE FORCE WOMEN TO CARRY A BABY TO TERM WHEN THEY KNOW ALL THEY WANT TO TAKE A HEALTH I BABY HOME FROM THE HOSPITAL.

WE FORCE THEM TO GO THROUGH THE RISKS OF PREGNANCY AND LABOR TO JUST FOR A NONVIABLE PREGNANCY.

IT'S CRUEL.

AND SO I HOPE WHEN WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HEALTH POLICY AND CHOICE WE CAN FOCUS ON THAT BECAUSE THERE IS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO AT LEAST MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDING SOME EXCEPTIONS TO A 12-YEAR-OLD RAPE VICTIM DOESN'T HAVE TO CARRY HER RAPIST'S BABY IN THE STATE.

WE'VE SEEN BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION FILED IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND I HOPE IT WILL GET MOVEMENT.

>> Renee: I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

SENATOR ADAMS I WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER MEASURES ON THE RAW MILK AND THE FLUORIDATION AND WE WILL HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ABORTION EXCEPTIONS.

>> SURE.

>> AND THE QUESTION BEFORE WHERE DOES YOUR CAUCUS STAND ON THIS?

AND I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS ALSO.

BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE KIND OF A CAUCUS-DRIVEN GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS.

AND A LOT OF POLICY WILL GET DISCUSSED DURING THE SHORT SESSION OR THE LONG SESSION.

THAT DOESN'T QUITE MAKE IT TO THE FINISH LINE.

AND SO WE HAVE NOT HAD A FULL CAUCUS CONVERSATION ON SOME OF THESE.

I WILL CALL THEM OUTLIER HEALTH ISSUES.

AND MAYBE THEY WILL GAIN TRACTION.

AS OF NOW I DON'T SEE A LOT OF MOMENTUM OF THESE MOVING FORWARD.

AND.

>> Renee: THERE IS NO SENATE COMPANION BILLS TO WHAT I MENTIONED?

>> I DON'T SEE A LOT OF MOMENTUM MOVING FORWARD MY THOUGHT IS IN THE SHORT SESSION IT MAY NOT BEAR OUT TO BE PUBLIC POLICY THAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNS OR VETOES.

>> Renee: WHAT IS HEALTH POLICY ISSUE THAT YOUR CAUCUS WANTS TO PUSH FORWARD IN THE REMAINING DAYS OF A SHORT SESSION?

>> IT'S -- WE DO HAVE I THINK ONE OR TWO VAPING BILLS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD RELATIVE TO LICENSING STORES THAT CAN SELL.

WE HAD THE QUITE A ROBUST VAPING BILL LAST SESSION THAT CAME THROUGH.

SO WE'RE DOING SOME CLEAN UP ON THAT.

THERE IS A REAL CONCERN AMONGST OUR CAUCUS THAT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT WE CAN WRAP OUR ARMS WITH AND PROTECT OUR KIDS FROM HAVING ACCESS TO THOSE PRODUCTS THOSE TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

AND WHATEVER ELSE IS INCLUDED IN THAT VAPE JUICE.

AND SO I KNOW WE'RE MOVING THAT FORWARD.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE PRIMARY ONE.

>> Renee: I WANT TO GET TO YOU ABOUT RAW MILK AND FLUORIDATED WATER AND THEN WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABORTION EXCEPTIONS.

>> FOR SURE.

I AGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE MOSHER THAT AND ACTUALLY ALL THE LADIES HERE, SCIENCE.

I THINK WE HAVE TO PUT OUR FAITH IN SCIENCE.

I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS THAT IT WOULD BE HARD TO PUT FORTH A MEASURE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE SALE OF RAW MILK WHEN WE KNOW THAT IT CAN CAUSE HEALTH ISSUES.

PREGNANT WOMEN, FETUSES, WHEN KENTUCKY ALREADY HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST MATERNAL INFANT MORTALITY RATES IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL IN MOVING ANY TYPE OF MEASURE LIKE THAT FORWARD.

AND AS FAR AS FLUORIDATED WATER GOES, I THINK IT IS A GOOD QUESTION LIKE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DRINKING TAP?

HOW ARE WE ACCESSING FLUORIDE?

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE IF THE BILL PASSES AND COMMUNITIES ARE ABLE TO STOP FLUORIDATING THE WATER, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THOSE COMMUNITIES AND OFTEN IT'S THE MORE RURAL COMMUNITIES ARE RECEIVING ACCESS TO GOOD DENTAL CARE.

THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE WE ARE TEACHING GOOD DENTAL HYGIENE THE MOUTH IS THE GATEWAY TO THE HEALTH OF THE REST OF THE BODY.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IF SOMETHING A MEASURE LIKE THIS PASSES THAT WE ARE DOING THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO TO KEEP KENTUCKIANS HEALTHY.

AND THE LAST ONE ON THAT?

>> BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS.

>> AS A PROLIFIC DONOR TO THE LOCAL KENTUCKY BLOOD CENTER I AIM A PLATELET DONOR NOT A WHOLE BLOOD DONOR I THINK THIS IS ONE WHERE SCIENCE SHOULD BEAR OUT AND PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

SO MANY FACTORS GO INTO THIS.

BLOOD STORAGE WHO IS GOING TO HOUSE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO A DIRECT BLOOD DONATION HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE A GOOD MATCH?

BLOOD TYPING IS IMPORTANT AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET THE CORRECT BLOOD TYPE SHOULD YOU NEED A TRANSFUSION OR PLATELETS FOR LEUKEMIA OR IF YOU ARE A BURN VICTIM.

ANY REASON WHY SOMEONE MAY NEED SOMEBODY ELSE'S BLOOD PRODUCT.

THAT'S ONE I WOULD -- I'M NOT SURE THAT THE SCIENCE BEARS OUT FOR WHAT THE GOAL OF IT IS.

>> Renee: SO LET'S TALK ABOUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET TO THE DIAPER TAX AND MEASURES YOU MAY HAVE.

>> WHO DOES THE DIAPER TAX?

>> Renee: AND YOU'VE GOT BIPARTISAN TRACTION.

BEFORE WE GET TO THAT ABORTION EXCEPTIONS AND KEN FLEMING HAS A BILL HOUSE BILL 203 AND TWO OTHER SPONSORS ON THIS MEASURE.

REPRESENTATIVE MOSER DO YOU THINK THIS COULD GET TRACTION THIS SHORT SESSION?

>> YES AND WE SHOULD EMPHASIZE SHORT SESSION WE NEARLY A THIRD OF THE WAY THROUGH THIS SESSION.

IT WILL BE FAST AND FURIOUS FROM HERE ON OUT.

BUT I DO KNOW THIS IS AN ONGOING DISCUSSION IN OUR CAUCUSES AND ACROSS THE STATE.

KENTUCKIANS DISCUSS THIS AND IT'S IMPORTANT.

THERE IS GREAT COMPASSION FOR THE WOMEN AND GIRLS WHO ARE VICTIMIZED.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A STRONG COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING LIFE.

AND PROTECTING THE UNBORN IN KENTUCKY.

SO WHAT I WOULD THINK THAT WE COULD GET BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AROUND ARE CLARIFYING SOME OF THE MEDICAL EXCEPTIONS THAT WE HAVE.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS WHO ARE JUST UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO.

THEY ARE ALMOST AFRAID TO USE THEIR BEST MEDICAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT IS A FELONY RIGHT NOW IF THEY DON'T DOCUMENT SOMETHING CORRECTLY OR IF IT DOESN'T PASS MUSTER SOMEHOW.

SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT WE CAN AGREE THAT ARE STILL NOT EXACTLY CLEAR.

HOW DO YOU HANDLE A PATIENT WITH PREMATURE REPRESENT TOUR OF MEMBRANES?

AN ETD TOPIC PREGNANCY.

ECTOPIC PREGNANCY.

THINGS THAT WOULD AUTOMATIC WARRANT BECAUSE THEY CAN BE LIFE-THREATENING THEY WOULD WARRANT A TERMINATION OF THE PREGNANCY BEFORE IT BECOMES A PROBLEM FOR THE MOTHER.

SOMETIMES THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ARE WAITING TOO LONG AND SOME OF THESE MOMS ARE HAVING TO GO OUT OF THE STATE.

WE DON'T WANT THAT.

WE WANT OUR MOMS TO BE ABLE TO GET CARE IN KENTUCKY IF THEY HAVE A CRISIS PREGNANCY.

IF WE FOCUS ON ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS THERE AND REALLY THINK ABOUT HOW TO STRENGTHEN OUR LAWS AROUND THOSE AREAS.

THOSE ARE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD THE MOST OFTEN.

YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES FILING THESE BILLS AND KEEPING THIS CONVERSATION ALIVE.

BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TENUOUS THIS SUBJECT IS AND HOW CRITICAL IT IS TO GET GOOD HEALTHCARE AND IF YOU HAVE A CRISIS PREGNANCY, TO BE ABLE TO GET THE HEALTHCARE THAT YOU NEED.

>> Renee: AND I SHOULD MENTION THAT KEN FLEMING'S BILL WOULD ALLOW AN ABORTION WHEN THE UNBORN CHILD HAS A FATAL ANOMALY AND ADDITIONAL MEDICAL ADVANCES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF AN ABORTION AND ALSO RESULTS IN RAPE AND INCEST.

A CLEAR DEFINITION ABOUT WHAT HIS BILL OUTLINES.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT SUCH MEASURE?

>> PART OF THE WAY TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS ALMOST GEOGRAPHY.

I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, THERE'S VERY FEW ISSUES THAT WE'RE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.

IT'S USUALLY A LOT OF TIMES RURAL VERSUS URBAN.

DEPENDING WHERE YOU ARE FROM, YOU EITHER THINK THIS IS SETTLED POLICY OR BEING FROM THE MORE URBAN AREAS, SUBURBAN AREAS, THEY DON'T FEEL AS IF IT'S SETTLED POLICY YET.

SO THERE IS A LOT MORE CONVERSATION GOING ON IN MY DISTRICT PARTICULARLY.

ON THE SENATE SIDE, SENATOR DAVID YATES FILED, I BELIEVE, SIMILAR LEGISLATION THAT REPRESENTATIVE FLEMING FILED.

AND HE BELIEVES THAT THAT IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE.

AND I'M COMFORTABLE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION.

THE PROBLEM IS IS THAT I THINK THE MAJORITY OF AT LEAST THE SENATE CAUCUS IS NOT REALLY PREPARED TO GO THERE YET.

THEY STILL -- WE'RE STILL A PRO-LIFE CAUCUS.

AND AS A RESULT YOU WILL SEE THE POLICIES.

BUT CHAIRWOMAN MOSER BRINGS UP AN EXCELLENT POINT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALWAYS CONCERNED ME AROUND THIS ISSUE IS THAT WE HAVE A PROVIDER SHORTAGE IN THIS STATE.

PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO OBGYN'S.

WHEN PEOPLE GET OUT OF MEDICAL SCHOOL WE'RE FINDING THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO A STATE LIKE KENTUCKY BECAUSE THERE ARE THESE ISSUES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN SOLVED YET AROUND WHAT THEIR SCOPE OF PRACTICE IS.

AND SO I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE ROOT OF REALLY MAKING SURE THAT WE PROVIDE GOOD HEALTHCARE FOR WOMEN IN THE COMMONWEALTH WE HAVE TO WRAP OUR ARMS AROUND WHAT OBGYN'S ARE TELLING US WHAT THEY NEED TO DO THEIR JOB AND TREAT WOMEN IN A HOLISTIC WAY.

>> I WILL DISAGREE WITH SENATOR ADAMS ABOUT IT BEING A MATTER OF GEOGRAPHY AND I HATE TO DO THAT.

WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO AGREE ON ALMOST EVERYTHING.

WE SAW SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHENEVER AMENDMENT 2 WHICH SAID THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ABORTION IN THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION WE SAW THAT GET OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED AGAINST BY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH.

SO I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY HAVE SPOKEN ON THIS ISSUE AND THEY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT SAYING A 12-YEAR-OLD HAS TO CARRY THE BABY AND GOVERNMENT TELLING THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESSING HEALTHCARE.

I'M ALL FOR CONVERSATIONS AND MY DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN TO TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT THESE POLICIES.

AT THE SAME TIME THE LONGER WE KEEP HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS, I'M HEARING THOSE STORIES OF THE WOMEN WHO ARE BEING TOLD YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO TAKE HOME A HEALTHY BABY THIS PREGNANCY IS NONVIABLE AND THE HEARTBREAK THAT THAT CAUSES THEM WHEN THEY ARE TOLD YOUR FUTURE FERTILITY YOUR HEALTH MIGHT BE AT RISK FROM THIS AND THEY ARE TOLD SORRY THE STATE OF KENTUCKY KNOWS BETTER THAN YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

THERE IS HEARTBREAK THERE.

WE ARE IMPACTING PEOPLE'S LIVES.

SO I FEEL A SENSE OF URGENCY AROUND THIS.

AROUND MAKING SURE THAT WE CAN AT LEAST TELL THAT 12-YEAR-OLD CHILD TELL MATT MOM WHO WANTS THAT BABY THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY MOVING LEGISLATION FORWARD TO TRY TO HELP.

AND I THINK CHAIRWOMAN MOESER PUTS FORWARD A GREAT POINT THE LAW IN KENTUCKY SAYS YOU CAN ACCESS ABORTION CARE TO SAVE THE LIFE OR A LIFE SUSTAINING ORGAN OF A PREGNANT WOMAN.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS A LIFE SUSTAINING ORGAN I WOULD LIKE TO THINK ALL OF MY ORGANS ARE LIFE SUSTAINING.

I LIKE THEM ALL.

AND THEY ARE TOLD IF YOU GET IT WRONG YOU ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL AND CHARGED WITH A FELONY.

WE STILL DISENFRANCHISE PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO VOTE THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES BESIDES LOSING YOUR MEDICAL LICENSE.

>> Renee: HOW DO YOU SEE IT?

>> I HAVE A LOT TO SAY ON THIS TOPIC BUT I WILL TRY AND KEEP IT SHORT.

I HAVE AGREEMENT AND I HAVE A LOT OF AGREEMENT RIGHT HERE AND A LITTLE BIT OF DISAGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE THERE.

BUT I THINK SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT ACCESS OF REPRODUCTIVE CARE IN KENTUCKY.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE AND TALKING ABOUT WOMEN, TALKING ABOUT LIFE-SAVING MEASURES.

LIFE CHANGING ISSUES.

THIS PAST ELECTION CYCLE WE SAW SEVEN OUT OF 10 STATES HAD VOTERS INCLUDING THE VERY RED STATE OF MISSOURI, THAT VOTED TO REPEAL THEIR ABORTION BAN AND GIVE ACCESS, LIKE ROE VS. WADE ACCESS TO CARE.

AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT OHIO VOTERS HAVE ALSO DONE.

BUT ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THIS AND TALKING ABOUT ACCREDITATION AND COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HOW DO WE ATTRACT PEOPLE TO COME HERE.

WE HAVE SUCH A TREMENDOUS DESERT OF CARE FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN KENTUCKY.

70 SOME COUNTIES DO NOT HAVE AN OBGYN AND 70 SOME COUNTIES DON'T HAVE A PEDIATRICIAN.

I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO MOVE WITH THE SENSE OF URGENCY AS WELL IN RESTORING ACCESS TO THE FULL SCOPE OF REPRODUCTIVE CARE BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE FAR WESTERN PART OF THE STATE WHO HAS TO TRAVEL HOURS WHEN THEY FIND THEY ARE HAVING A MEDICAL EMERGENCY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREGNANCY.

AND AT THAT POINT IT BECOMES MINUTES BECOME LIFE.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY -- AND SAME FOR ME BY THE WAY, DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN ALWAYS HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD IN A FASTER TAKE A FASTER APPROACH TO IT TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL IMPACT THAT THIS HAS ON WOMEN THAT IT HAS ON FAMILIES, THAT IT HAS ON CHILDREN.

IF A WOMEN IS EXPERIENCING A MISCARRIAGE OR HAS A NONVIABLE PREGNANCY THEY MAY HAVE OTHER CHILDREN THAT WILL BE IMPACTED AND TRAUMATIZED IF THE MOM CANNOT RECEIVE CARE.

>> Renee: IS THAT AS FAR AS YOU THINK ABORTION ACCESS SHOULD GO IN KENTUCKY?

OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT BROADENED?

>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE BROADENED AND I CAN SAY THE CONSTITUENTS IN THE 93rd THINK IT SHOULD BE BROADENED IT WAS 71.2% OF THE CONSTITUENTS VOTED AGAINST AMENDMENT 2.

LIKE WE WANT TO ACCESS TO CARE AND WE WANT IT FOR OUR MOTHERS OUR WIVES AND SISTERRINGS AND OUR CHILDREN.

>> Renee: UNLIMITED FOR AND FASHION IS THERE A TIME DURING THE GESTATION PERIOD WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE FOR IT?

>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION AND I CAN ASK WHEN I TALK WITH CONSTITUENTS AGAIN.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE -- I FEEL COMFORTABLE WHERE WE WERE WITH ROE VS. WADE.

AND KNOW THERE WERE TALKS OF HAVING AN ABORTION IN THE NINTH MONTH OR AFTER THE BABY WAS BORN WE KNOW THAT WAS NOT HAPPENING.

AND SO YOU KNOW, I THINK MY REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS MY HEALTHCARE IS BETWEEN ME AND MY DOCTOR.

>> Renee: DO YOU SEE ANY LIMITS WOULD YOU BE FOR AN EXPANSION AND HOWEVER SHOULD THE -- HOW FAR SHOULD THE EXPANSION GO?

>> CODIFYING ROE WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE TO LAND.

I'M ALWAYS NOT SOMEONE GOING THE PERFECT TO LET IT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.

IF WE CAN GET EXCEPTIONS FOR THE 12-YEAR-OLD GIRL A VICTIM OF A CRIME, FOR THAT PERSON WHOSE IS TOLD YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CARRY A NONVIABLE PREGNANCY FOR NINE MONTHS AND GO THROUGH LABOR, GO THROUGH A C SECTION AND ALL OF THE JUST THINK ABOUT IMAGINE A PERSON WHO REALLY WANTS TO TAKE HOME A HEALTHY BABY AND IS TOLD YOUR DREAM IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT EVERY SINGLE DAY AND FEEL THAT IMPACT IN YOUR BODY EVERY SICKLE DAY AND KNOW THAT.

IT IS HEARTBREAKING.

AND SO IF WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS, I THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH PROGRESS WE'LL MAKE I'M HEARTENED THERE ARE AREAS WE CAN WORK ON AND I WANT TO KEEP THOSE CONVERSATIONS GOING.

SO OFTEN WE WANT TO MAKE THIS AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDES US.

AND I THINK WHAT WE SAW FROM THE VOTERS OF KENTUCKY IS THEY HAVE A UNIFIED VOICE ON THIS.

AND WHAT THEY WANT AND THEY WANT US TO BE HAVING CONVERSATIONS AND FIGURING OUTCOME SENSE NEXT STEPS AND I HOPE WE CAN WORK TOGETHER ON THOSE.

>> Renee: LET'S MOVE TO A BILL THAT YOU HAVE SENATE BILL 78 THE THIRD YEAR THAT YOU'VE TRIED TO GET THE SALES TAX 6% SALES TAX DROPPED FROM DIAPERS.

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN IMPERATIVE MEASURE?

>> MOST PEOPLE ARE SURPRISED WHEN THEY FIND OUT WE TAX DIAPERS BECAUSE WE DON'T TAX A LOT OF ESSENTIAL GOODS WE DON'T TAX MEDICINE AND CLOTHES.

WE DON'T WANT TO FUND OUR GOVERNMENT WHO HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PURCHASE ESSENTIAL THINGS.

DIAPERS CAN COST OVER $1,000 A YEAR FOR ONE CHILD.

I HAD TWO KIDS IN DIAPERS FOR TWO YEARS, I'VE KNOWN FAMILIES THAT HAVE HAD THREE OR FOUR.

IT'S $4,000 YOU CANNOT COVER IT WITH SNAP OR WIC THERE IS NO PROGRAM THAT SAYS WE WILL HELP YOU PAY FOR DIAPERS.

AND ON TOP OF THAT THAT IS THE REASON THAT ONE OUT OF TWO FAMILIES STRUGGLE TO AFFORD DIAPERS ON TOP OF THAT THE STATE OF KENTUCKY WILL COLLECT A COUPLE HUNDRED DOLLARS ON THAT FAMILY OF THREE OR FOUR WITH KIDS IN DIAPERS.

I WILL SAY WE JUST BASED AN INCOME TAX CUT WORTH ABOUT $139 FOR A PERSON MAKING $50,000 A YEAR.

IF YOU HAVE THREE KIDS IN DIAPERS WE CAN PUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO THAT FAMILY'S POCKET BY CUTTING THE SALES TAX ON DIAPERS.

AND WE KNOW OTHER STATES THAT HAVE DONE IT WHEN YOU CUT THE SALES TAX ON DIAPERS YOU DON'T LOSE MONEY AND REVENUES.

BECAUSE THAT FAMILY TURNS AROUND AND BUY OTHER THINGS THAT THEIR FAMILY NEEDS IN THE ECONOMY.

SO I KNOW LAST YEAR SENATOR ADAMS WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR SUPPORTERS OF THIS LEGISLATION AND SHE AND I AGREE THIS IS A COMMON SENSE THING WE COULD DO TO SUPPORT OUR FAMILIES.

I HAVE NOT HAD ANYONE TELL ME THAT THEY THINK WE SHOULD KEEP TAXING DIAPERS.

EVERYONE SAYS END THE DIAPER TAX.

THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS HOW AND WHEN BUT I WAS HEARTENED WE SAW A REPUBLICAN FILE A BILL IN THE HOUSE TO DO THE SAME THING.

I WILL KEEP FILING THIS LEGISLATION EVERY SINGLE YEAR AND TALKING ABOUT DIAPERS EVERY SINGLE TIME I CAN BECAUSE IT'S THAT IMPORTANT AND IT MATTERS THAT MUCH.

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE.

WE'LL GET THERE.

>> Renee: THE FORMER LEADER OF THE SENATOR WASN'T HE A COSPONSOR?

>> HE CHEERED FOR IT WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED.

YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP.

>> Renee: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S GOING TO ADVANCE YOUR BILL.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT?

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW I TOP THAT ANSWER.

BECAUSE SHE SAID ALL THE PERTINENT POINTS AS TO WHY I WAS SUPPORTIVE.

>> Renee: WHY HASN'T IT PASSED THE SENATE YET IF THERE'S SO MUCH CHEERING?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THE SAFE ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE SAY IT HAS A REVENUE MEASURE ATTACHED TO IT SO IT NEEDS TO START IN THE HOUSE.

I THINK THAT WE COULD JUSTIFY WHY IT SHOULD START IN THE SENATE AS WELL.

BUT I'M SUPPORTIVE.

AND I THINK THAT SOMETIMES IT TAKES A BILL ONE YEAR OR TWO YEARS OR MAYBE THREE YEARS TO GET THROUGH.

AND SO I'M SUPPORTIVE.

I LIKE THE TENACITY OF THE SPONSOR SO I WILL HELP HER ANYWAY I CAN.

>> Renee: SHE GETS POINTS FOR TENACITY.

>> IT'S KENTUCKY STUSH BONNESS IS WHAT IT IS.

>> IT TOOK THE ANTILITTERING BILL 20 YEARS TO PASS SO TENACITY IS A REQUIREMENT.

TJ ROBTD FRTION BURLINGTON WHO FILED THIS MEASURE IN THE HOUSE AND OTHER MEASURES TO TAKE THE TAX OFF.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT?

AND DO YOU THINK THAT IT WILL GET TRACTION IN YOUR CHAMBER?

>> YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT CAUCUSED AROUND THIS.

WE DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MY COLLEAGUES FEEL.

BUT WE ALL WANT TO SUPPORT FAMILIES AND WE ALL CAN RECOGNIZE THE HARDSHIP THAT SOME OF THESE TAXES ARE ON YOUNG FAMILIES.

I WOULD BE FINE WITH IT.

AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT.

BUT YOU KNOW IF IT ALLEVIATES SOME OF THE PRESSURE THAT YOUNG FAMILIES ARE FEELING WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I MEAN IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE'RE REDUCING THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.

YOU PUT MORE MONEY IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS AND THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND IT ELSEWHERE.

SO WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY REVENUE SHORTFALL FROM THAT.

AND I DON'T EXPECT TO SEE A REVENUE SHORTFALL FROM THIS.

>> Renee: WHAT IS THE FISCAL NOTE ON THE DIAPER BILL?

>> $6 MILLION JUST A DROP IN THE BUCKET AND FRANKLY, OTHER STATES THAT HAVE DONE THIS HAVE SEEN MORE MONEY SAVED IN REDUCED HOSPITAL VISITS FOR EXTREME DIAPER RASH JUST TO MAKEUP FOR THAT COST ALONE.

I THINK THAT WE WOULD SAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

AND I'M GOING TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT DIAPER TAXES UNTIL WE DON'T HAVE ONE.

>> Renee: IN THE THREE MINUTES WE HAVE.

TO YOU CHAIRWOMAN MODESSER TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IN YOUR CHAMBER ARE THE BIG HEALTH POLICY ISSUES YOU THINK CAN GET ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

>> WE ARE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON ACCESS TO CARE, BARRIERS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW THAT ARE IMPEDING THE ABILITY TO GET HEALTHCARE.

SO, OF COURSE, I HAVE MY PRIOR AUTHORIZATION BILL THIS IS YEAR FOUR SPEAKING OF THOSE BILLS THAT TAKE A LONGTIME.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE AGREEMENT.

AND THIS IS A BARRIER TO PATIENTS GETTING CARE IN AN EXPEDIENTS WAY WHEN THE DOCTOR ORDER IT IS WITHOUT THAT WAITING PERIOD.

AND IT WOULD ALSO REDUCE COST ON HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND FACILITIES WHO HAVE TO HIRE ESSENTIALLY ENTIRE STAFFS TO TAKE CARE OF THESE OBTAINING PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS.

THAT IS ONE.

WE ARE STILL FOCUSED ON WORKFORCE.

AND I HAVE A BILL THAT WOULD COLLECT HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE DATA.

WE KNOW WHO IS LICENSED BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHO IS PRACTICING.

WE REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHO IS OUT IN THE WORKFORCE RIGHT NOW.

SO THOSE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT I'M WORKING ON.

I'VE GOT A LONG LIST OF BILLS, HEALTH EDUCATION IS ONE.

WE WHEN WE PASS -- WE'VE PASSED LEGISLATION IN THE PAST FEW SESSIONS THAT HAVE REALLY MADE IT HARD FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENTS TO GET IN AND TEACH OR PROVIDE CURRICULUMS FOR STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS.

SO IT WOULD BE THINGS AS SIMPLE AS HAND WASHING AND NUTRITION, PUBERTY AND HYGIENE, VAPING AND TOBACCO, DRUG PREVENTION.

WE HAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE THINK THAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS VERY BASIC.

ALL SORTS OF OPT-OUTS FOR PARENTS IF ANYTHING IS DIFFICULT.

BUT I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES.

AND REPRESENTATIVE CAMUEL AND I HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION FOR MONTHS.

I THINK IT WILL BE A BIPARTISAN ISSUE.

>> I WILL BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T EXPAND UPON MY VAPING ANSWER OF IT, HEALTH INITIATIVES COMING OUT OF THE SENATE.

WE JUST PASSED FREE STANDING BIRTHING CENTERS.

AND SHELLY'S BILL.

AND OUR CHAIRMAN STEVE MEREDITH IS WORKING ON A 340B PROPOSAL FOR WHICH WOULD BE TRANSPARENCY.

>> YES.

THAT AND SO WE'VE GOT SOME HEALTH INITIATIVES MOVING THAT AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT DIFFERENT MEDICAID CHANGES BECAUSE WE FIGURE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE CHANGES COMING DOWN FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

>> Renee: AND WE WILL BE FOLLOWING THOSE.

AND WE DID TALK ABOUT SENATOR'S BILL ON 6:30 KENTUCKY EDITION AND SHE GOT A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THAT.

GO BACK AND WATCH THAT ON-LINE.

I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT FOR KENTUCKY EDITION AT 6:30 EASTERN 530 CENTRAL RIGHT HERE ON KET.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING TONIGHT AND I WILL SEE YOU SOON.

SO LONG.