A SECOND OPINION
This space is for our physician members to speak their minds freely on both medical or non-medical issues of the day and respond to the opinions of others . The GLMS Editorial Board reserves the right to choose what will be published . Please note that the views expressed in A Second Opinion or any other article in this publication are not those of the Greater Louisville Medical Society or Louisville Medicine .
Candy Coated Policy by JOHN DAVID KOLTER , MD
The annual Kentucky Medical Association meeting recently wrapped up at the crown jewel of the Bluegrass Industrial Park , the Marriott East , celebrating a return to an in-person meeting with ample surface parking . The meeting culminated with the House of Delegates , where KMA policy is created and , as a matter of housekeeping , disposed of , death by sunsetting . Historically consistent , the meeting was replete with the usual cast of experienced delegates politely , but paternalistically , correcting one another on the intricacies of parliamentary procedure ( a process that is surprisingly entertaining to watch unfold ). Regardless , the House considered many resolutions coming out of the Reference Committee , and produced some meaningful and , hopefully , efficacious KMA policy . However , there was variability on the point of meaningful policy and , interestingly , not all relevant discussions occurred openly in the House of Delegates .
Resolution topics on the consent calendar this year were broad , but the subject matter of the extracted resolutions receiving debate on the floor of the House was predictable , guns and abortion . The pernicious spate of mass shootings in our country and the recent actions of our Supreme Court gave these topics urgency , while the immutable overlap with medicine gave the topics relevance .
The consent calendar included four resolutions related to reproductive health and , dare I put the word in print , abortion . Coming out of Reference Committee , these resolutions were recommended to be addressed as a group and were extracted as such , along with Resolution 15 . Resolution 15 , not originally intended to be specifically a reproductive health resolution , was titled Encourage the Use of Peer-Reviewed Research and Evidence-Based Practices as the Foundation of Health Care Policy . Essentially , it resolved “ that KMA encourages that ( 1 ) laws imposed on health care practice , institutions , and providers be evidence-based with significant efficacy and value , as demonstrated by best available evidence ; and that ( 2 ) appropriate citations ( s ) from the peer-reviewed scientific literature be appended to the drafts of policy regarding healthcare .”
Extracted with the rest of the “ abortion resolutions ,” the intent was anything but thinly veiled . The Reference Committee recommended Resolution 15 be adopted in lieu of three of the four abortion resolutions and recommended retitling the fourth , removing “ abortion ” from the title . Resolution 15 was clearly softer and easier to digest . It was not a harsh pill , but something gentler and candy-coated to help the message go down , if you will .
In the morning , at the pre-House Caucus breakfast there was significant debate surrounding support for a resolution that conspicuously didn ’ t use the word “ abortion ” or even “ reproductive health ” at all . The authors of some of the extracted resolutions , noted that Resolution 15 had the best chance of passing on the floor of the House . Further , previous outside conversations with Kentucky legislators were disclosed noting their intended refusal to speak to the KMA on the topic if there was policy with direct verbiage that included the word “ abortion .” The authors , with some dismay and sense of political inevitability , reviewed their strategy ,
( continued on page 36 ) October 2022 35