from the impelling force of the extreme emotional disturbance rather than from evil or malicious purposes. It is not a mental disease in itself, and an enraged, inflamed, or disturbed emotional state does not constitute an extreme emotional disturbance unless there is a reasonable explanation or excuse therefor, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under circumstances as defendant believed them to be. McClellan v. Commonwealth, 715 S.W.2d 464, 468-69 (Ky.1986). Kentucky courts have explained that, to show EED, there must be a triggering event — -a “sudden and uninterrupted” event that “triggers the explosion of violence on the part of the criminal defendant.” Foster v. Commonwealth, 827 S.W.2d 670, 678 (Ky.1991) (<HOLDING>). As a result, “extreme emotional disturbance
holding woman who claimed she was terminated after giving birth because she became pregnant was part of the protected class holding that a woman can consent to a search of a bedroom shared by herself and the man she lived with including the closet holding woman who alleged she was terminated for having an abortion stated a prima facie case for discrimination holding that a woman who suffered back pain who was medically limited to light lifting and who had problems bending could make a claim holding that a woman was not entitled to an eed instruction after she murdered five individuals without a recent aggravating incident despite the fact that the woman had suffered significant  physical and emotional harm as a child and abused drugs and alcohol