Democrats pass as late breaking ‘clarification' of Kentucky abortion law clears Senate
In response to what one Republican called 'a desperate need for clarity' in Kentucky's abortion law, the Senate has approved language detailing the ban's exception for 'life of the mother' and listing some situations when doctors may end complex pregnancies.
All Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate passed on the vote, saying they hadn't had time to review the changes, which were first made public Wednesday, or to understand if the amendment would help or hurt pregnant women and medical providers.
Health care professionals in Kentucky and beyond have long said the state's abortion laws are too medically vague and inhibit their ability to properly treat miscarriages, hemorrhages and other emergencies.
Sen. Julie Raque Adams, R-Louisville, carried House Bill 90 on the Senate floor. Once a bill only to pave the way for freestanding birth centers in Kentucky, itl now carries the abortion clarification language.
HB 90 has now passed both chambers and only needs House concurrence with the amendment to be sent to Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear for a signature or veto.
The clarification language was first added to a different bill Wednesday, but that bill has yet to clear a chamber.
'There is a desperate need for clarity on a lot of … medical issues that come up during the course of a pregnancy,' Raque Adams said. 'There is a lot of misinformation out there in the medical community, and doctors just need to be doctors. And so this language that's before us today adds some much needed clarity for the medical community.'
The clarification still instructs health care providers to 'make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.'
But it outlines that doctors can intervene to remove molar and ectopic pregnancies, manage miscarriages, treat sepsis and hemorrhage and more.
It also leaves the determination of an emergency to 'the physician's reasonable medical judgment.'
Sen. Cassie Chambers Armstrong, D-Louisville, said she would support anything that 'will save the lives of pregnant women in this state' but she felt the language was rushed through the process.
Chambers Armstrong said she hadn't received the bill substitute in time to understand it and consult with experts, slamming 'an intentional choice by the majority party in the way this legislation was moved to disenfranchise me and the people I represent on this very important issue.'
'I really hope that this bill does take a step forward in terms of allowing doctors to provide lifesaving care. I truly hope that that is what this legislation does. However, I don't know that,' she said.
In committees Wednesday, Dr. Jeffrey M. Goldberg, the legislative advocacy chair for the Kentucky chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said the language isn't perfect and will need more work. But, he said, physicians already work under such ambiguity that something has to be done.
Sen. Karen Berg, D-Louisville, said the effort at clarity is still 'full of words that have no meaning to a physician.'
'It's an excellent effort to fix a huge — huge — problem of our own making,' said Berg, who is also a doctor. 'But it can't be rushed. It needs to be right.'
Beshear in his weekly news conference said the Republican changes are not enough to restore access to abortion in Kentucky. He pointed out that Kentucky's abortion ban still would have no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. 'Even with this bill, it would be significantly less access than virtually every other state in the United States.'
He also said he has questions about whether the new language would clarify or confuse the legal picture for health care providers. 'We were told by those that that passed the trigger law originally that it provided an exception for the life of the mother, and now this bill is saying that it needs to be passed through law. So one question I'm going to have is: Is it more or less restrictive than the current understanding in the medical community that we have right now?'
McKenna Horsley contributed to this story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mike Collins rolls out 159-county organization in Georgia Senate bid
Rep. Mike Collins's (R-Ga.) campaign is rolling out a grassroots organization in all of Georgia's 159 counties in support of his Senate bid as he vies for the GOP nod to take on Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.). The news of the 159-county organization, which was first shared with The Hill, includes 413 county captains across the state and is aimed at turning out low-propensity voters. The campaign noted the last few Republicans to have county-level mobilization campaigns who were successful in statewide reelection bids were President Trump and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R). In a press release, the Collins campaign touted the initiative's creation, noting the Georgia Republican had only been in the race for two weeks, and calling it 'a testament to the appeal of Collins' message, authentic brand, and his team's experience in the state.' The Collins campaign noted it included leaders who had previously served on Trump's and Kemp's county-level mobilization efforts. Collins is vying against Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) and former football coach Derek Dooley, seen as Kemp's preferred candidate, for the Republican nomination to challenge Ossoff next year. Collins has gained several endorsements from his congressional delegation in addition to state legislative leaders, which include some of Kemp's allies. Meanwhile, Carter has a financial edge so far with more cash on hand than Collins. Carter ended the latest quarter with $4 million in the bank while Collins, who's been in the race for several weeks, ended the last quarter with $1 million. Carter loaned himself $2 million in the last quarter as he puts some of his own financial resources into the race. Dooley, meanwhile, enjoys connections to Kemp's political orbit. Collins and Carter have both hammered the former football coach hard since Dooley announced, setting up what's expected to be a hotly contested primary.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
On gerrymandering, Democrats should fight fire with fire
If you want to understand how Congress became so polarized, look no further than Texas. Egged on by President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbot (R) and Republican leaders in the state are trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting, bucking the norm of waiting until the conclusion of the census every 10 years to redraw congressional maps to accommodate population changes. Both Democrats and Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering over the years. But only Texas Republicans have tried twice — in 2003 and now — to exercise the nuclear option of mid-decade redrawing of districts twice. I understand the motivations of these Republicans — and the desire of Democrats to take revenge. In 2012, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and we had a score to settle with Republicans for eliminating six Democratic seats in Texas in their 2003 mid-decade assault. We might have tried to persuade Democratic governors and legislators to strike earlier than the typical redrawing of maps after the 2010 census, but we decided not to retaliate against Republican rule-breaking with rule-breaking of our own. Instead, we waited for the regular process to take place ahead of the 2012 election. Once the decennial census concluded, we quickly realized that our best opportunity to pick up more seats was in Illinois, where the House delegation had eight Democrats and 11 Republicans. Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic leaders in the statehouse became political Picassos, redrawing districts to create three more Democratic seats after the 2012 elections. That was not a one-off. Both parties have regularly engaged in designing their own abstract district art. Pennsylvania's old Seventh District — designed in 2011 to protect Republican incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan — was famously called ' Goofy kicking Donald Duck ' for its bizarre resemblance to the Disney characters. In 2000, Arizona created a district that snaked oddly along the Colorado River so as to include the Hopi Reservation but not the surrounding Navajo Reservation, circumventing longstanding tensions between the two tribes. In 2022, a plan favored by Democrats in New York extended my former Third Congressional District across several bridges and the Long Island Sound, into the Bronx. But that gerrymandering plan backfired, as a state judge struck it down. The result of this map madness is that the moderate, competitive districts have shriveled, while the number of highly partisan districts has skyrocketed. When I first entered Congress in 2001, there were 29 districts with a partisan voting index within a range of four points, reliably swinging between a two-point Republican or Democratic advantage, depending on national trends. In other words, they were toss-ups, and the incumbents needed crossover voters to win reelection. Bipartisanship wasn't a fuzzy goal — it was an urgent strategic imperative. Today, the number of those districts is just 16. Most of the other districts have been drawn to be more red or blue. That means that many House members don't lay awake at night fretting about being defeated in the general election by someone in the other party. Instead, they lay awake thinking about being defeated by a fringe, extreme candidate in their next primary. The political gravity of Congress has shifted. Our system forces legislators to the ideological extremes, when most Americans fall closer to the center. That's without even accounting for the trend of partisan residential sorting, as Americans increasingly live with ideologically likeminded neighbors. We've divided ourselves into Fox News and MSNBC districts, where contradicting views are rarely found on any given block. Of course, some states have attempted redistricting reforms. California and Arizona adopted independent commissions. New York has a bipartisan redistricting commission that places guardrails on just how much Democrats can gerrymander. And that's part of the problem Democrats face: Republicans in Texas and elsewhere play to win by breaking the rules, while in Democratic controlled states, leaders often play to protect the rules, even when it costs them. Over the years, many have argued that Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Instead, Democrats have historically focused on writing a fair fire code even as arson consumes American bipartisanship. But this new Texas mid-decade redistricting push seems to have finally changed the Democratic mindset. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York and JB Pritzker of Illinois are teasing mutual assured gerrymandering destruction by threatening mid-decade redistricting in their own states if Texas Republicans go through with their plan. Each of these efforts faces an uphill legal climb, however, given that voters in two of those three states outlawed such practices. Democrats have realized that patiently waiting until the next redistricting cycle is not an option. Congressional majorities aren't won on a moral high ground but on the streets. Only when Republican members of Congress from New York, California and Illinois see their seats turn blue will national GOP leaders recognize that, in gerrymandering, 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole political system blind. And so to restore bipartisanship in the long run, Democrats may need to play by Texas Republican rules.
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Mayes hints at possible legal action if Corporation Commission repeals renewable energy mandate
Attorney General Kris Mayes signaled she might take the Corporation Commission to court if it dismantles renewable energy standards she helped create nearly 20 years ago. Why it matters: The future of Arizona's renewable energy mandate is on the line. The big picture: The commission last year instructed staff to draft rules that would repeal its renewable energy standards, saying they're unnecessary and appear to drive up costs. The Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST) Rules require affected utilities to get 15% of the electricity they provide from renewable sources. Staff in late July issued a formal proposal to repeal the standards. Driving the news: Mayes on Monday sent a letter to the commission warning that repealing REST "isn't just nonsensical; it's unlawful." REST isn't perfect, the AG concedes, and she would "wholeheartedly support" efforts to modernize the rules, but she opposes outright repeal. A spokesperson for Mayes declined to comment on whether she'll sue the commission if it votes to repeal the standards. Flashback: Mayes was a Republican member of the commission — she's now a Democrat — when it passed the REST rules in 2006. She was part of the 4-1 majority that voted for the standards. Zoom in: A third-party economic analysis performed for the commission found that REST repeal "could marginally reduce monthly residential electric bills" by $1-$2 and result in minor administrative cost savings for utilities. But renewable energy-related costs for some utility customers would continue due to long-term financial obligations. And repeal would have indirect costs including "reduced transparency, regulatory certainty and potentially slower renewable energy adoption," the analysis said. Between the lines: Mayes argued in her letter that REST helps keep customer rates lower for millions of Arizonans and creates jobs in the renewable energy sector. She said rate-making decisions must legally be based on "high-quality evidence, not speculation and conjecture." "In addition to being bad policy, repealing the REST Rules as proposed here is an unlawful abdication of the Commission's duty to set just and reasonable rates," she wrote. The other side: Commission chair Kevin Thompson told Axios he's not surprised Mayes is "rattling her saber, considering she played a pivotal part in implementing this gravy train that has cost ratepayers billions of dollars." He said his focus is on protecting ratepayers and not pushing "costly ideological mandates." Commission vice chair Nick Myers said he's unconcerned about a lawsuit if the commission repeals REST. "We'll let her do what she thinks she needs to do, and if she has legal grounds, bring them up," he said. Reality check: Renewable energy accounts for about 19% of the energy that Arizona Public Service, the state's largest utility, provides its electric retail customers, the company tells Axios. What's next: The commission will vote at a Thursday meeting on whether to instruct staff to begin the repeal process.
