By DYLAN LYSEN <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-06-24/kansas-abortion-laws-constitution-roe-v-wade">Kansas News Service</a>

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, in a decision overturning the 
nearly 50-year-old case of Roe v. Wade, ruled that it’s up to each state
 to determine what, if any, restrictions to impose on abortion access.

That ruling raises the stakes for an upcoming constitutional amendment vote in Kansas.

The high court’s ruling confirms what <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-05-03/roe-v-wade-decision-will-mean-kansas-abortion-rights-hinge-on-a-state-vote-in-august" target="_blank">was expected for weeks</a> after a draft of the decision was leaked showing the 1973 precedent was doomed.

The
 country is now covered with a state-by-state patchwork of differing 
abortion laws. Some states could follow the ruling by enacting more 
restrictive laws — including Kansas. But the Sunflower State will first 
need to change the Kansas Constitution before it can pursue them.

Abortion rights in Kansas currently fall under the protection of <a href="https://www.kcur.org/2019-04-26/kansas-supreme-court-rules-state-constitution-protects-right-to-abortion" target="_blank">a 2019 </a><a href="https://www.kcur.org/2019-04-26/kansas-supreme-court-rules-state-constitution-protects-right-to-abortion" target="_blank">Kansas</a><a href="https://www.kcur.org/2019-04-26/kansas-supreme-court-rules-state-constitution-protects-right-to-abortion" target="_blank"> Supreme Court ruling</a>
 that found the state constitution includes the right to an abortion. 
But that ruling spurred the Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature to 
push for a change to the state constitution.

Kansas voters will 
decide on Aug. 2 whether to amend the state constitution with a 
provision that says it doesn’t promise access to abortion. All Kansas 
voters may cast a ballot on the issue in that primary, regardless of 
whether they’re affiliated with a party.

Here’s what the U.S. Supreme court ruling means for abortion rights in Kansas:

The Supreme Court ruling does not immediately change anything in 
Kansas, but it raises the stakes for a statewide abortion rights vote in
 August.

The federal ruling puts even more importance on the 
upcoming state constitutional amendment vote, setting up all-or-nothing 
political fight that will determine the future of abortion rights in the
 state.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruling is now the only shield for
 abortion rights in the state. If the amendment is approved, those state
 abortion protections would be scrapped.

The state constitutional amendment itself would not ban abortion in Kansas.

If
 Kansas voters approve the amendment, abortion will not be banned 
immediately. Instead, approval could open the floodgates for lawmakers 
to pass more restrictive abortion laws, likely following the lead of 
neighboring Republican-led states.

Oklahoma approved a <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-04-14/more-women-are-expected-to-come-to-kansas-clinics-because-of-oklahomas-abortion-ban" target="_blank">near-total ban on abortion</a> this year, and Texas enacted significant abortion restrictions in 2021.

One <a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/hb2746_00_0000.pdf" target="_blank">bill banning abortion</a>
 that does not appear to allow exceptions even in cases of rape or 
incest was introduced in the Kansas Legislature this spring. Lawmakers 
did not take action on the bill before adjourning for the rest of 2022.

Kansas lawmakers could look to restrictions quickly.

If
 the constitutional amendment in approved in August, Republicans will 
likely be ready to introduce bills for new abortion restrictions.

Tighter
 abortion laws also would likely become a major campaign topic in the 
fall that Republicans to lean on to help keep their supermajority in the
 Legislature.

Then, when they return to Topeka in January, those 
bills could be approved quickly — especially if Republican Derek Schmidt
 defeats incumbent Democrat Laura Kelly for governor. That would pave 
the way for bills to sail through the lawmaking process.

Unaffiliated and smaller party voters may cast a ballot on the amendment question during the primary.

Despite
 the constitutional amendment vote coming during the primary election, 
when the Republican and Democrat parties pick who they want to go onto 
general elections for positions, voters who are not part of those major 
political parties <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-06-09/kansas-abortion-amendment-how-all-registered-voters-can-cast-a-ballot-in-augusts-primary-election" target="_blank">will still be able to vote</a> on the constitutional amendment.

Anyone
 can vote on the constitutional amendment. Voters who are not Republican
 or Democrat — such as Libertarian Party voters, or those who chose not 
to be affiliated with a political party — will be provided a ballot with
 only the constitutional amendment question on it.

Dylan Lysen 
reports on politics for the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on 
Twitter @DylanLysen or email him at dlysen@kcur.org.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656082391177.png" alt="Kansas voters will decide whether to remove the last barrier to abortion rights in the state constitution during the Aug. 2 primary election. Dylan Lysen / Kansas News Service" />
 <figcaption>Kansas voters will decide whether to remove the last barrier to abortion rights in the state constitution during the Aug. 2 primary election. Dylan Lysen / Kansas News Service</figcaption>
 </figure>By DYLAN LYSEN <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-06-24/kansas-abortion-laws-constitution-roe-v-wade">Kansas News Service</a>The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, in a decision overturning the 
nearly 50-year-old case of Roe v. Wade, ruled that it’s up to each state
 to determine what, if any, restrictions to impose on abortion access.That ruling raises the stakes for an upcoming constitutional amendment vote in Kansas.The high court’s ruling confirms what <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-05-03/roe-v-wade-decision-will-mean-kansas-abortion-rights-hinge-on-a-state-vote-in-august" target="_blank">was expected for weeks</a> after a draft of the decision was leaked showing the 1973 precedent was doomed.The
 country is now covered with a state-by-state patchwork of differing 
abortion laws. Some states could follow the ruling by enacting more 
restrictive laws — including Kansas. But the Sunflower State will first 
need to change the Kansas Constitution before it can pursue them.<div><iframe title="If Roe v. Wade is overturned, a patchwork of restrictive laws would take effect" aria-label="Map" id="datawrapper-chart-aebuB" src=https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aebuB/31/ scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" width="600" height="605"></iframe></div>Abortion rights in Kansas currently fall under the protection of <a href="https://www.kcur.org/2019-04-26/kansas-supreme-court-rules-state-constitution-protects-right-to-abortion" target="_blank">a 2019 </a><a href="https://www.kcur.org/2019-04-26/kansas-supreme-court-rules-state-constitution-protects-right-to-abortion" target="_blank">Kansas</a><a href="https://www.kcur.org/2019-04-26/kansas-supreme-court-rules-state-constitution-protects-right-to-abortion" target="_blank"> Supreme Court ruling</a>
 that found the state constitution includes the right to an abortion. 
But that ruling spurred the Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature to 
push for a change to the state constitution.Kansas voters will 
decide on Aug. 2 whether to amend the state constitution with a 
provision that says it doesn’t promise access to abortion. All Kansas 
voters may cast a ballot on the issue in that primary, regardless of 
whether they’re affiliated with a party.Here’s what the U.S. Supreme court ruling means for abortion rights in Kansas:<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656082532826.png" alt="The federal ruling overturning Roe v. Wade raises the stakes on the upcoming state constitutional amendment vote, which will determine the future of abortion rights in Kansas. Dylan Lysen / Kansas News Service" />
 <figcaption>The federal ruling overturning Roe v. Wade raises the stakes on the upcoming state constitutional amendment vote, which will determine the future of abortion rights in Kansas. Dylan Lysen / Kansas News Service</figcaption>
 </figure>The Supreme Court ruling does not immediately change anything in 
Kansas, but it raises the stakes for a statewide abortion rights vote in
 August.The federal ruling puts even more importance on the 
upcoming state constitutional amendment vote, setting up all-or-nothing 
political fight that will determine the future of abortion rights in the
 state.The Kansas Supreme Court ruling is now the only shield for
 abortion rights in the state. If the amendment is approved, those state
 abortion protections would be scrapped.The state constitutional amendment itself would not ban abortion in Kansas.If
 Kansas voters approve the amendment, abortion will not be banned 
immediately. Instead, approval could open the floodgates for lawmakers 
to pass more restrictive abortion laws, likely following the lead of 
neighboring Republican-led states.Oklahoma approved a <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-04-14/more-women-are-expected-to-come-to-kansas-clinics-because-of-oklahomas-abortion-ban" target="_blank">near-total ban on abortion</a> this year, and Texas enacted significant abortion restrictions in 2021.One <a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/hb2746_00_0000.pdf" target="_blank">bill banning abortion</a>
 that does not appear to allow exceptions even in cases of rape or 
incest was introduced in the Kansas Legislature this spring. Lawmakers 
did not take action on the bill before adjourning for the rest of 2022.Kansas lawmakers could look to restrictions quickly.If
 the constitutional amendment in approved in August, Republicans will 
likely be ready to introduce bills for new abortion restrictions.Tighter
 abortion laws also would likely become a major campaign topic in the 
fall that Republicans to lean on to help keep their supermajority in the
 Legislature.Then, when they return to Topeka in January, those 
bills could be approved quickly — especially if Republican Derek Schmidt
 defeats incumbent Democrat Laura Kelly for governor. That would pave 
the way for bills to sail through the lawmaking process.Unaffiliated and smaller party voters may cast a ballot on the amendment question during the primary.Despite
 the constitutional amendment vote coming during the primary election, 
when the Republican and Democrat parties pick who they want to go onto 
general elections for positions, voters who are not part of those major 
political parties <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-06-09/kansas-abortion-amendment-how-all-registered-voters-can-cast-a-ballot-in-augusts-primary-election" target="_blank">will still be able to vote</a> on the constitutional amendment.Anyone
 can vote on the constitutional amendment. Voters who are not Republican
 or Democrat — such as Libertarian Party voters, or those who chose not 
to be affiliated with a political party — will be provided a ballot with
 only the constitutional amendment question on it.Dylan Lysen 
reports on politics for the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on 
Twitter @DylanLysen or email him at dlysen@kcur.org.

Roe overturned: What that means for abortion in Kansas

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Friday that “it’s a sad day for the court and the country” after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

(Click below to watch President Biden's comments)

“Now with Roe gone, let’s be very clear, the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk,” he said from the White House.

He added that "the court has done what it’s never done before — expressly taking away a constitution right that is so fundamental to so many Americans,” he said.

The White House has been preparing for this moment since a draft of the decision leaked in May. Officials have been huddling with state leaders, advocates, health care professionals and others to prepare for a future without Roe v. Wade.

He said the court has done what it’s never done before in taking away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans. He says the decision places the health and life of women at risk. 

Now Biden’s plans will be tested in terms of politics and policy. Biden said his administration would defend a woman's right to cross state lines to seek an abortion.

Outside the Supreme Court, a crowd of abortion supporters swelled to the hundreds after the ruling was issued. One chanted into a bullhorn, “legal abortion on demand” and “this decision must not stand.” Some shouted “the Supreme Court is illegitimate."

“It’s a painful day for those of us who support women’s rights,” said Laura Free, an Ithaca resident and women’s rights historian who came to Washington to do research. When she learned of the decision, she said, “I had to come here.”

A competing faction demonstrated in favor of the ruling, holding signs saying "the future is anti-abortion″ and “dismember Roe.”

Garrett Bess, with Heritage Action for America, a lobbying arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said his organization would be working in states to continue efforts to limit abortion.

“This has been a long time coming and it’s a welcome decision,” he said.

Biden and other Democrats hope to use outrage over the court decision to rally voters in November's midterm elections. Although nationwide legislation ensuring access to abortion appears out of reach, more Democratic victories at the state level could limit Republican efforts to ban the practice.

In a statement, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department “will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.” He said that in addition to protecting providers and those seeking abortions in states where it remains legal, “we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care.”

He also noted that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone, a drug used to end pregnancies.

“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” Garland said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the court's ruling “is outrageous and heart-wrenching” and fulfills the Republican Party's "dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., applauded the decision.

“A lot of lives are going to be saved,” McCarthy told reporters. “But it also goes back to people in the states to have a say in the process.”

Many Republican-controlled states are poised to severely restrict abortion, or even ban it outright.

The White House has been exploring options for Biden to take executive action to safeguard abortion rights, but his options are limited.

Lawrence Gostin, who runs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health at Georgetown Law, said before Friday's ruling that he expected the Biden administration to be “to be nibbling around the edges, and is not going to do anything really profound.”

Gostin said he’s discussed a variety of options with administration officials but believes they are “gun shy” given the potential for legal challenges that could lead to more roadblocks from a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.

Some of Gostin’s suggestions included having Medicaid cover the cost of traveling across state lines to end pregnancies, as well as expanding access to abortion medication that can be delivered by mail.

“States couldn’t pick and choose what cancer drug they would allow, and they shouldn’t be permitted to choose what options women have for medication abortions that are fully approved as safe and effective,” he said.

During their preparations, White House officials have held a series of meetings with advocates, medical groups and faith leaders who are supportive of abortion access.

The Rev. John Dorhauer, the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ, drove from Cleveland to Washington to attend one meeting earlier this month. Another virtual meeting was held this week, featuring Vice President Kamala Harris.

“It was rather impressive to see the commitment the White House and the vice president’s office has had to gather advocates from around the country,” Dorhauer said.

However, there are also concerns that the administration is not ready.

Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, attended a recent virtual meeting with abortion providers and said she expects “a true health crisis.”

“I think that we should have been preparing for far longer than we have been,” McNicholas said. “Do I think that they recognize that this a problem? Yes. Do I think that they’re prepared in this moment? No.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will speak from the White House about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Biden's remarks are scheduled for 12:30 p.m. EDT Friday and will outline his approach to this new phase of the fight over abortion access. The White House has been holding meetings and researching policy ideas for weeks, but its options appear to be limited. 

A White House spokeswoman said this week Biden “believes we should defend the right of all Americans to make their own decisions.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656088873001.png" alt="President Biden said the court has done what it’s never done before in taking away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans. He says the decision places the health and life of women at risk.-White House image" />
 <figcaption>President Biden said the court has done what it’s never done before in taking away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans. He says the decision places the health and life of women at risk.-White House image</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Friday that “it’s a sad day for the court and the country” after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.(Click below to watch President Biden's comments)<div><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FWhiteHouse%2Fvideos%2F739710633941546%2F&show_text=false&width=560&t=376" width="560" height="314" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe></div>“Now with Roe gone, let’s be very clear, the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk,” he said from the White House.He added that "the court has done what it’s never done before — expressly taking away a constitution right that is so fundamental to so many Americans,” he said.The White House has been preparing for this moment since a draft of the decision leaked in May. Officials have been huddling with state leaders, advocates, health care professionals and others to prepare for a future without Roe v. Wade.He said the court has done what it’s never done before in taking away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans. He says the decision places the health and life of women at risk. The White House has been preparing for this moment since a draft of the decision leaked in May. Officials have been huddling with state leaders, advocates, health care professionals and others to prepare for a future without Roe v. Wade.Now Biden’s plans will be tested in terms of politics and policy. Biden said his administration would defend a woman's right to cross state lines to seek an abortion.Outside the Supreme Court, a crowd of abortion supporters swelled to the hundreds after the ruling was issued. One chanted into a bullhorn, “legal abortion on demand” and “this decision must not stand.” Some shouted “the Supreme Court is illegitimate."“It’s a painful day for those of us who support women’s rights,” said Laura Free, an Ithaca resident and women’s rights historian who came to Washington to do research. When she learned of the decision, she said, “I had to come here.”A competing faction demonstrated in favor of the ruling, holding signs saying "the future is anti-abortion″ and “dismember Roe.”Garrett Bess, with Heritage Action for America, a lobbying arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said his organization would be working in states to continue efforts to limit abortion.“This has been a long time coming and it’s a welcome decision,” he said.Biden and other Democrats hope to use outrage over the court decision to rally voters in November's midterm elections. Although nationwide legislation ensuring access to abortion appears out of reach, more Democratic victories at the state level could limit Republican efforts to ban the practice.In a statement, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department “will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.” He said that in addition to protecting providers and those seeking abortions in states where it remains legal, “we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care.”He also noted that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone, a drug used to end pregnancies.“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” Garland said.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the court's ruling “is outrageous and heart-wrenching” and fulfills the Republican Party's "dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions.”House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., applauded the decision.“A lot of lives are going to be saved,” McCarthy told reporters. “But it also goes back to people in the states to have a say in the process.”Many Republican-controlled states are poised to severely restrict abortion, or even ban it outright.The White House has been exploring options for Biden to take executive action to safeguard abortion rights, but his options are limited.Lawrence Gostin, who runs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health at Georgetown Law, said before Friday's ruling that he expected the Biden administration to be “to be nibbling around the edges, and is not going to do anything really profound.”Gostin said he’s discussed a variety of options with administration officials but believes they are “gun shy” given the potential for legal challenges that could lead to more roadblocks from a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.Some of Gostin’s suggestions included having Medicaid cover the cost of traveling across state lines to end pregnancies, as well as expanding access to abortion medication that can be delivered by mail.“States couldn’t pick and choose what cancer drug they would allow, and they shouldn’t be permitted to choose what options women have for medication abortions that are fully approved as safe and effective,” he said.During their preparations, White House officials have held a series of meetings with advocates, medical groups and faith leaders who are supportive of abortion access.The Rev. John Dorhauer, the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ, drove from Cleveland to Washington to attend one meeting earlier this month. Another virtual meeting was held this week, featuring Vice President Kamala Harris.“It was rather impressive to see the commitment the White House and the vice president’s office has had to gather advocates from around the country,” Dorhauer said.However, there are also concerns that the administration is not ready.Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, attended a recent virtual meeting with abortion providers and said she expects “a true health crisis.”“I think that we should have been preparing for far longer than we have been,” McNicholas said. “Do I think that they recognize that this a problem? Yes. Do I think that they’re prepared in this moment? No.”------<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656087288784.png" alt="Protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday afternoon -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday afternoon -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will speak from the White House about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide.Biden's remarks are scheduled for 12:30 p.m. EDT Friday and will outline his approach to this new phase of the fight over abortion access. The White House has been holding meetings and researching policy ideas for weeks, but its options appear to be limited. A White House spokeswoman said this week Biden “believes we should defend the right of all Americans to make their own decisions.”

🎥 Biden: Abortion ruling 'a sad day' for country

Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in Dobbs that overturns Roe v. Wade, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt Friday issued an opinion to the Missouri Revisor of Statutes that “triggers” parts of Missouri’s House Bill 126, effectively ending abortion in the State of Missouri, according to a statement from his office.

 Missouri is the first state in the country to do so.

<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/22-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=39ffd2d_2">&nbsp;Click here</a>&nbsp;to read the full opinion

"Today, following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, with the issuance of an attorney general opinion, my Office has yet again reinforced Missouri’s dedication to protecting the sanctity of life, both born and unborn. With this attorney general opinion, my Office has effectively ended abortion in Missouri, becoming the first state in the country to do so following the Court’s ruling,” said&nbsp;Attorney General Schmitt. 

“My Office has been fighting to uphold the sanctity of life since I became attorney general, culminating in today’s momentous court ruling and attorney general opinion. I will continue the fight to protect all life, born and unborn.” Section B of HB126 states, “The enactment of section 188.017 of this act shall only become effective upon notification to the revisor of statutes by an opinion by the attorney general of Missouri…”&nbsp; And Section 188.017 that is “triggered” by an attorney general’s opinion states, in part, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency…” Thus, with the opinion from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, is now outlawed in the State of Missouri.&nbsp; The opinion states, “By issuing this Attorney General Opinion No. 22-2022&nbsp;and providing it directly to you, I hereby provide notification to the Revisor of Statutes, pursuant to § 188.017.4(1), that the United States Supreme Court has overruled, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in § 188.017, RSMo, and that as a result, it is reasonably probable that § 188.017 would be upheld by the court as constitutional.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656081443186.png" alt="Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said, "Since taking office, I have always fought to protect the unborn. Because of our action today, millions of lives will be protected moving forward" -courtesy photo" />
 <figcaption>Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said, "Since taking office, I have always fought to protect the unborn. Because of our action today, millions of lives will be protected moving forward" -courtesy photo</figcaption>
 </figure>Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in Dobbs that overturns Roe v. Wade, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt Friday issued an opinion to the Missouri Revisor of Statutes that “triggers” parts of Missouri’s House Bill 126, effectively ending abortion in the State of Missouri, according to a statement from his office. Missouri is the first state in the country to do so.<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/22-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=39ffd2d_2">&nbsp;Click here</a>&nbsp;to read the full opinion"Today, following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, with the issuance of an attorney general opinion, my Office has yet again reinforced Missouri’s dedication to protecting the sanctity of life, both born and unborn. With this attorney general opinion, my Office has effectively ended abortion in Missouri, becoming the first state in the country to do so following the Court’s ruling,” said&nbsp;Attorney General Schmitt. “My Office has been fighting to uphold the sanctity of life since I became attorney general, culminating in today’s momentous court ruling and attorney general opinion. I will continue the fight to protect all life, born and unborn.” Section B of HB126 states, “The enactment of section 188.017 of this act shall only become effective upon notification to the revisor of statutes by an opinion by the attorney general of Missouri…”&nbsp; And Section 188.017 that is “triggered” by an attorney general’s opinion states, in part, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency…” Thus, with the opinion from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, is now outlawed in the State of Missouri.&nbsp; The opinion states, “By issuing this Attorney General Opinion No. 22-2022&nbsp;and providing it directly to you, I hereby provide notification to the Revisor of Statutes, pursuant to § 188.017.4(1), that the United States Supreme Court has overruled, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in § 188.017, RSMo, and that as a result, it is reasonably probable that § 188.017 would be upheld by the court as constitutional.”

Abortion immediately banned in Missouri as trigger law takes effect

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/what-is-roe-v-wade-33c08858dc8b0aa5f0450858b51a648a">Roe v. Wade</a>. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.

The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The ruling came more than a month after the stunning&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-07439f9fc4542f1500ab78dfd34036b1">leak of a draft opinion</a>&nbsp;by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.

Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Alito wrote.

Authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, Alito wrote.

Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The latter three justices are Trump appointees. Thomas first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago.

Chief Justice John Roberts would have stopped short of ending the abortion right, noting that he would have upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, and said no more.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent.

“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,” they wrote.

The ruling is expected to disproportionately affect minority women who already face limited access to health care, according to statistics analyzed by The Associated Press.

Thirteen states, mainly in the South and Midwest, already have laws on the books that ban abortion in the event Roe is overturned. Another half-dozen states have near-total bans or prohibitions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

In roughly a half-dozen other states, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to data compiled by Guttmacher.

The decision came against a backdrop of public opinion surveys that find a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe and handing the question of whether to permit abortion entirely to the states. Polls conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and others also have consistently shown about 1 in 10 Americans want abortion to be illegal in all cases. A majority are in favor of abortion being legal in all or most circumstances, but polls indicate many also support restrictions especially later in pregnancy.

The Biden administration and other defenders of abortion rights have warned that a decision overturning Roe also would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and even potentially, contraception.

But Alito wrote in his draft opinion that his analysis addresses abortion only, not other rights that also stem from a right to privacy that the high court has found implicit, though not directly stated, in the Constitution. Abortion is different, Alito wrote, because of the unique moral question it poses.

Whatever the intentions of the person who leaked Alito’s draft opinion, the conservatives held firm in overturning Roe and Casey.

In his draft, Alito dismissed the arguments in favor of retaining the two decisions, including that multiple generations of American women have partly relied on the right to abortion to gain economic and political power.

Changing the composition of the court has been central to the anti-abortion side’s strategy. Mississippi and its allies made increasingly aggressive arguments as the case developed, and two high-court defenders of abortion rights retired or died. The state initially argued that its law could be upheld without overruling the court’s abortion precedents.

Then-Gov. Phil Bryant signed the 15-week measure into law in March 2018, when Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still members of a five-justice majority that was mainly protective of abortion rights.

By early summer, Kennedy had retired and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh a few months later. The Mississippi law was blocked in lower federal courts.

But the state always was headed to the nation’s highest court. It did not even ask for a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately held the law invalid in December 2019.

By early September 2020, the Supreme Court was ready to consider the state’s appeal.

The court scheduled the case for consideration at the justices’ private conference on Sept. 29. But in the intervening weeks, Ginsburg died and Barrett was quickly nominated and confirmed without a single Democratic vote.

The stage now was set, although it took the court another half year to agree to hear the case.

By the time Mississippi filed its main written argument with the court in the summer, the thrust of its argument had changed and it was now calling for the wholesale overruling of Roe and Casey.

The first sign that the court might be receptive to wiping away the constitutional right to abortion came in late summer, when the justices divided 5-4 in allowing Texas to enforce a ban on the procedure at roughly six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant. That dispute turned on the unique structure of the law, including its enforcement by private citizens rather than by state officials, and how it can be challenged in court.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in a searing dissent for the three liberal justices that their conservative colleagues refused to block “a flagrantly unconstitutional law” that “flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents.” Roberts was also among the dissenters.

Then in December, after hearing additional arguments over whether to block the Texas law known as S.B. 8, the court again declined to do so, also by a 5-4 vote. “The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings,” Roberts wrote, in a partial dissent.

In their Senate hearings, Trump’s three high-court picks carefully skirted questions about how they would vote in any cases, including about abortion.

But even as Democrats and abortion rights supporters predicted Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would vote to upend abortion rights if confirmed, the two left at least one Republican senator with a different impression. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine predicted Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wouldn’t support overturning the abortion cases, based on private conversations she had with them when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.

Barrett was perhaps the most vocal opponent of abortion in her time as a law professor, before becoming a federal judge in 2017. She was a member of anti-abortion groups at Notre Dame University, where she taught law, and she signed a newspaper ad opposing “abortion on demand” and defending “the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” She promised to set aside her personal views when judging cases.

Trump, meanwhile, had predicted as a candidate that whoever he named to the court would “automatically” vote to overrule Roe.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656080467605.png" alt="A view outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the decision was announced Friday morning -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>A view outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the decision was announced Friday morning -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/what-is-roe-v-wade-33c08858dc8b0aa5f0450858b51a648a">Roe v. Wade</a>. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.The ruling came more than a month after the stunning&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-07439f9fc4542f1500ab78dfd34036b1">leak of a draft opinion</a>&nbsp;by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Today’s historic decision on the Dobbs case signals a new beginning for millions of unborn American children. Thank you <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a>!&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1540340873757597696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned.“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Alito wrote.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656080662104.png" alt="Protesters outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protesters outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>Authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, Alito wrote.Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The latter three justices are Trump appointees. Thomas first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago.Chief Justice John Roberts would have stopped short of ending the abortion right, noting that he would have upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, and said no more.Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent.“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,” they wrote.The ruling is expected to disproportionately affect minority women who already face limited access to health care, according to statistics analyzed by The Associated Press.Thirteen states, mainly in the South and Midwest, already have laws on the books that ban abortion in the event Roe is overturned. Another half-dozen states have near-total bans or prohibitions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.In roughly a half-dozen other states, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to data compiled by Guttmacher.The decision came against a backdrop of public opinion surveys that find a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe and handing the question of whether to permit abortion entirely to the states. Polls conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and others also have consistently shown about 1 in 10 Americans want abortion to be illegal in all cases. A majority are in favor of abortion being legal in all or most circumstances, but polls indicate many also support restrictions especially later in pregnancy.The Biden administration and other defenders of abortion rights have warned that a decision overturning Roe also would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and even potentially, contraception.But Alito wrote in his draft opinion that his analysis addresses abortion only, not other rights that also stem from a right to privacy that the high court has found implicit, though not directly stated, in the Constitution. Abortion is different, Alito wrote, because of the unique moral question it poses.Whatever the intentions of the person who leaked Alito’s draft opinion, the conservatives held firm in overturning Roe and Casey.In his draft, Alito dismissed the arguments in favor of retaining the two decisions, including that multiple generations of American women have partly relied on the right to abortion to gain economic and political power.Changing the composition of the court has been central to the anti-abortion side’s strategy. Mississippi and its allies made increasingly aggressive arguments as the case developed, and two high-court defenders of abortion rights retired or died. The state initially argued that its law could be upheld without overruling the court’s abortion precedents.Then-Gov. Phil Bryant signed the 15-week measure into law in March 2018, when Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still members of a five-justice majority that was mainly protective of abortion rights.By early summer, Kennedy had retired and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh a few months later. The Mississippi law was blocked in lower federal courts.But the state always was headed to the nation’s highest court. It did not even ask for a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately held the law invalid in December 2019.By early September 2020, the Supreme Court was ready to consider the state’s appeal.The court scheduled the case for consideration at the justices’ private conference on Sept. 29. But in the intervening weeks, Ginsburg died and Barrett was quickly nominated and confirmed without a single Democratic vote.The stage now was set, although it took the court another half year to agree to hear the case.By the time Mississippi filed its main written argument with the court in the summer, the thrust of its argument had changed and it was now calling for the wholesale overruling of Roe and Casey.The first sign that the court might be receptive to wiping away the constitutional right to abortion came in late summer, when the justices divided 5-4 in allowing Texas to enforce a ban on the procedure at roughly six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant. That dispute turned on the unique structure of the law, including its enforcement by private citizens rather than by state officials, and how it can be challenged in court.But Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in a searing dissent for the three liberal justices that their conservative colleagues refused to block “a flagrantly unconstitutional law” that “flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents.” Roberts was also among the dissenters.Then in December, after hearing additional arguments over whether to block the Texas law known as S.B. 8, the court again declined to do so, also by a 5-4 vote. “The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings,” Roberts wrote, in a partial dissent.In their Senate hearings, Trump’s three high-court picks carefully skirted questions about how they would vote in any cases, including about abortion.But even as Democrats and abortion rights supporters predicted Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would vote to upend abortion rights if confirmed, the two left at least one Republican senator with a different impression. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine predicted Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wouldn’t support overturning the abortion cases, based on private conversations she had with them when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.Barrett was perhaps the most vocal opponent of abortion in her time as a law professor, before becoming a federal judge in 2017. She was a member of anti-abortion groups at Notre Dame University, where she taught law, and she signed a newspaper ad opposing “abortion on demand” and defending “the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” She promised to set aside her personal views when judging cases.Trump, meanwhile, had predicted as a candidate that whoever he named to the court would “automatically” vote to overrule Roe.

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

BUTLER COUNTY —Friends of 21-year-old Kansas girl who died in a weekend accident have<a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/carley-bullard?utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_source=unknown&amp;utm_campaign=comms_34pk+carley-bullard"> created a fundraiser </a>to assist her family.

On Sunday law enforcement authorities and emergency crews&nbsp; located the body of Carley Bullard who was reported missing along the Walnut River after an ATV crash South of Augusta.&nbsp;

Just before 3:30 a.m., Saturday, friends and family reported Bullard was missing when an ATV she was on traveled off a bank of the Walnut River.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1655909388476.png" alt="Carley Bullard photo GoFundMe" />
 <figcaption>Carley Bullard photo GoFundMe</figcaption>
 </figure>BUTLER COUNTY —Friends of 21-year-old Kansas girl who died in a weekend accident have<a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/carley-bullard?utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_source=unknown&amp;utm_campaign=comms_34pk+carley-bullard"> created a fundraiser </a>to assist her family.On Sunday law enforcement authorities and emergency crews&nbsp; located the body of Carley Bullard who was reported missing along the Walnut River after an ATV crash South of Augusta.&nbsp;Just before 3:30 a.m., Saturday, friends and family reported Bullard was missing when an ATV she was on traveled off a bank of the Walnut River.

Fundraiser continues for family of Kan. girl who died in ATV accident

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate easily approved a bipartisan&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-violence-gun-politics-mental-ab399a7a1c5eea98bcd12e944679355f">gun violence bill</a>&nbsp;Thursday that seemed unthinkable a month ago, setting up final approval of what will be Congress’ most far-reaching response in decades to the nation’s run of brutal mass shootings.

After years futile Democratic efforts to curb firearms,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/shootings-texas-new-york-violence-buffalo-df9202d5686880aab00559979d180e17">15 Republicans joined with them as both sides decided inaction was untenable</a>&nbsp;after last month’s rampages in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/buffalo-supermarket-shooting-victims-982351652caf7ecf3da304c6c64f62fb">Buffalo, New York</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-may-24-584466945120">Uvalde, Texas</a>.

 It took weeks of closed-door talks but senators emerged with a compromise embodying incremental but impactful movement to curb bloodshed that has come to regularly shock — yet no longer surprise — the nation. Kansas Senators Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall voted against the measure.

The $13 billion measure would toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders and help states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged dangerous. It would also fund local programs for school safety, mental health and violence prevention.

“Families in Uvalde and Buffalo, and too many tragic shootings before, have demanded action. And tonight, we acted,” President Joe Biden said after passage. He said the House should send it to him quickly, adding, “Kids in schools and communities will be safer because of it.”

The election-year package fell far short of more robust gun restrictions Democrats have sought and Republicans have thwarted for years, including bans on the assault-type weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines used in the slayings in Buffaloand Uvalde. Yet the accord let leaders of both parties declare victory and demonstrate to voters that they know how to compromise and make government work, while also leaving room for each side to appeal to its core supporters.

“This is not a cure-all for the all the ways gun violence affects our nation,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., whose party has made gun restrictions a goal for decades. “But it is a long overdue step in the right direction.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a nod to the Second Amendment right to bear arms that drives many conservative voters, said “the American people want their constitutional rights protected and their kids to be safe in school.” He said “they want both of those things at once, and that is just what the bill before the Senate will have accomplished.”

The day proved bittersweet for advocates of curtailing gun violence. Underscoring the enduring potency of conservative cIout, the right-leaning&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-what-to-know-a068d964981b6d1242a5ab124224f77a">Supreme Court issued a decision expanding the right of Americans to carry arms in public by</a>&nbsp;striking down a New York law requiring people to prove a need for carrying a weapon before they get a license to do so.

McConnell hailed the justices’ decision and Senate passage of the guns bill as “complementary victories that will make our country freer and safer at the same time.”

The Senate vote on final passage was 65-33. A cluster of House Democrats who watched the vote in the chamber’s rear included Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., whose 17-year old son was shot to death in 2012 by a man complaining his music was too loud.

In the key roll call hours earlier, senators voted 65-34 to end a filibuster by conservative GOP senators. That was five more than the 60-vote threshold needed. The House planned to vote Friday and approval seemed certain.

On both votes, 15 Senate Republicans joined all 50 Democrats, including their two allied independents, in backing the legislation.

Yet the votes highlighted the risks Republicans face by defying the party’s pro-gun voters and firearms groups like the National Rifle Association. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Todd Young of Indiana were the only two of the 15 up for reelection this fall. Of the rest, four are retiring and eight don’t face voters until 2026.

Tellingly, GOP senators voting “no” included potential 2024 presidential contenders like Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Tim Scott of South Carolina. Some of the party’s most conservative members voted “no” as well, including Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah.

Cruz said the legislation would “disarm law-abiding citizens rather than take serious measures to protect our children.”

John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, hailed senators who supported the measure for “coming together and putting the safety of the American people ahead of gun lobby priorities.”

While the Senate measure was a clear breakthrough, the outlook for continued congressional movement on gun curbs is dim.

Less than one-third of the Senate’s 50 GOP senators backed the measure and solid Republican opposition is certain in the House. Top House Republicans urged a “no” vote in an email from the No. 2 GOP leader, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, that called the bill “an effort to slowly chip away at law-abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.”

Both chambers — now narrowly controlled by Democrats — could well be run by the GOP after November’s midterm elections.

Senate action came one month after a gunman killed 19 students and two teachers in Uvalde. Just days before that, a white man was accused of being motivated by racism as he killed 10 Black grocery shoppers in Buffalo. Both shooters were 18 years old, a youthful profile shared by many mass shooters, and the close timing of the two slaughters and victims with whom many could identify stirred a demand by voters for action, lawmakers of both parties said.

The talks were led by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C. Murphy represented Newtown, Connecticut, when an assailant killed 20 students and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, while Cornyn has been involved in past gun talks following&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-school-shooting-victims-0fc46ce400c3fed9081ee5c033d2aba5">mass shootings in his state</a>&nbsp;and is close to McConnell.

Murphy said the measure would save thousands of lives and was a chance to “prove to a weary American public that democracy is not so broken that it is unable to rise to the moment.”

“I don’t believe in doing nothing in the face of what we saw in Uvalde” and elsewhere, Cornyn said.

The bill would make the local juvenile records of people age 18 to 20 available during required federal background checks when they attempt to buy guns. Those examinations, currently limited to three days, would last up to a maximum of 10 days to give federal and local officials time to search records.

People convicted of domestic abuse who are current or former romantic partners of the victim would be prohibited from acquiring firearms, closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”

That ban currently only applies to people married to, living with or who have had children with the victim. The compromise bill would extend that to those considered to have had “a continuing serious relationship.”

There would be money to help states enforce red flag laws and for other states without them that for violence prevention programs. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have such laws.

The measure expands the use of background checks by rewriting the definition of the federally licensed gun dealers required to conduct them. Penalties for gun trafficking are strengthened, billions of dollars are provided for behavioral health clinics and school mental health programs and there’s money for school safety initiatives, though not for personnel to use a “dangerous weapon.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656067928516.png" alt="Members of the United State's Senate during Thursday's vote on the gun violence bill.-photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Members of the United State's Senate during Thursday's vote on the gun violence bill.-photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate easily approved a bipartisan&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-violence-gun-politics-mental-ab399a7a1c5eea98bcd12e944679355f">gun violence bill</a>&nbsp;Thursday that seemed unthinkable a month ago, setting up final approval of what will be Congress’ most far-reaching response in decades to the nation’s run of brutal mass shootings.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Kansans expect me to protect their Constitutional freedoms in the U.S. Senate, and I will not sacrifice those freedoms for this gun grabbing scheme.&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1540158340160012288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>After years futile Democratic efforts to curb firearms,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/shootings-texas-new-york-violence-buffalo-df9202d5686880aab00559979d180e17">15 Republicans joined with them as both sides decided inaction was untenable</a>&nbsp;after last month’s rampages in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/buffalo-supermarket-shooting-victims-982351652caf7ecf3da304c6c64f62fb">Buffalo, New York</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-may-24-584466945120">Uvalde, Texas</a>. It took weeks of closed-door talks but senators emerged with a compromise embodying incremental but impactful movement to curb bloodshed that has come to regularly shock — yet no longer surprise — the nation. Kansas Senators Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall voted against the measure.The $13 billion measure would toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders and help states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged dangerous. It would also fund local programs for school safety, mental health and violence prevention.“Families in Uvalde and Buffalo, and too many tragic shootings before, have demanded action. And tonight, we acted,” President Joe Biden said after passage. He said the House should send it to him quickly, adding, “Kids in schools and communities will be safer because of it.”The election-year package fell far short of more robust gun restrictions Democrats have sought and Republicans have thwarted for years, including bans on the assault-type weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines used in the slayings in Buffaloand Uvalde. Yet the accord let leaders of both parties declare victory and demonstrate to voters that they know how to compromise and make government work, while also leaving room for each side to appeal to its core supporters.“This is not a cure-all for the all the ways gun violence affects our nation,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., whose party has made gun restrictions a goal for decades. “But it is a long overdue step in the right direction.”Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a nod to the Second Amendment right to bear arms that drives many conservative voters, said “the American people want their constitutional rights protected and their kids to be safe in school.” He said “they want both of those things at once, and that is just what the bill before the Senate will have accomplished.”The day proved bittersweet for advocates of curtailing gun violence. Underscoring the enduring potency of conservative cIout, the right-leaning&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-what-to-know-a068d964981b6d1242a5ab124224f77a">Supreme Court issued a decision expanding the right of Americans to carry arms in public by</a>&nbsp;striking down a New York law requiring people to prove a need for carrying a weapon before they get a license to do so.McConnell hailed the justices’ decision and Senate passage of the guns bill as “complementary victories that will make our country freer and safer at the same time.”The Senate vote on final passage was 65-33. A cluster of House Democrats who watched the vote in the chamber’s rear included Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., whose 17-year old son was shot to death in 2012 by a man complaining his music was too loud.In the key roll call hours earlier, senators voted 65-34 to end a filibuster by conservative GOP senators. That was five more than the 60-vote threshold needed. The House planned to vote Friday and approval seemed certain.On both votes, 15 Senate Republicans joined all 50 Democrats, including their two allied independents, in backing the legislation.Yet the votes highlighted the risks Republicans face by defying the party’s pro-gun voters and firearms groups like the National Rifle Association. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Todd Young of Indiana were the only two of the 15 up for reelection this fall. Of the rest, four are retiring and eight don’t face voters until 2026.Tellingly, GOP senators voting “no” included potential 2024 presidential contenders like Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Tim Scott of South Carolina. Some of the party’s most conservative members voted “no” as well, including Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah.Cruz said the legislation would “disarm law-abiding citizens rather than take serious measures to protect our children.”John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, hailed senators who supported the measure for “coming together and putting the safety of the American people ahead of gun lobby priorities.”While the Senate measure was a clear breakthrough, the outlook for continued congressional movement on gun curbs is dim.Less than one-third of the Senate’s 50 GOP senators backed the measure and solid Republican opposition is certain in the House. Top House Republicans urged a “no” vote in an email from the No. 2 GOP leader, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, that called the bill “an effort to slowly chip away at law-abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.”Both chambers — now narrowly controlled by Democrats — could well be run by the GOP after November’s midterm elections.Senate action came one month after a gunman killed 19 students and two teachers in Uvalde. Just days before that, a white man was accused of being motivated by racism as he killed 10 Black grocery shoppers in Buffalo. Both shooters were 18 years old, a youthful profile shared by many mass shooters, and the close timing of the two slaughters and victims with whom many could identify stirred a demand by voters for action, lawmakers of both parties said.The talks were led by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C. Murphy represented Newtown, Connecticut, when an assailant killed 20 students and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, while Cornyn has been involved in past gun talks following&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-school-shooting-victims-0fc46ce400c3fed9081ee5c033d2aba5">mass shootings in his state</a>&nbsp;and is close to McConnell.Murphy said the measure would save thousands of lives and was a chance to “prove to a weary American public that democracy is not so broken that it is unable to rise to the moment.”“I don’t believe in doing nothing in the face of what we saw in Uvalde” and elsewhere, Cornyn said.The bill would make the local juvenile records of people age 18 to 20 available during required federal background checks when they attempt to buy guns. Those examinations, currently limited to three days, would last up to a maximum of 10 days to give federal and local officials time to search records.People convicted of domestic abuse who are current or former romantic partners of the victim would be prohibited from acquiring firearms, closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”That ban currently only applies to people married to, living with or who have had children with the victim. The compromise bill would extend that to those considered to have had “a continuing serious relationship.”There would be money to help states enforce red flag laws and for other states without them that for violence prevention programs. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have such laws.The measure expands the use of background checks by rewriting the definition of the federally licensed gun dealers required to conduct them. Penalties for gun trafficking are strengthened, billions of dollars are provided for behavioral health clinics and school mental health programs and there’s money for school safety initiatives, though not for personnel to use a “dangerous weapon.”

Moran, Marshall vote no as Senate OKs landmark gun violence bill

SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a shooting that sent two people to the hospital in Topeka.

Just after 6:30 pm Thursday, police responded to report of a possible shooting at Munson Avenue and SW Washburn Avenue, according to Lt. Michael Hren. 

Officers located two subjects who were suffering from gunshot wounds. AMR transported both to the hospital with life threatening injuries.

At the hospital, the victims injuries were downgraded to non-life threatening, according to Hren. Police transported a person of interest and witnesses were transported to the Law Enforcement Center. 

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656068895714.png" alt="Police on the scene of the shooting-photo courtesy WIBW TV" />
 <figcaption>Police on the scene of the shooting-photo courtesy WIBW TV</figcaption>
 </figure>SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a shooting that sent two people to the hospital in Topeka.Just after 6:30 pm Thursday, police responded to report of a possible shooting at Munson Avenue and SW Washburn Avenue, according to Lt. Michael Hren. Officers located two subjects who were suffering from gunshot wounds. AMR transported both to the hospital with life threatening injuries.At the hospital, the victims injuries were downgraded to non-life threatening, according to Hren. Police transported a person of interest and witnesses were transported to the Law Enforcement Center.

Police investigate Kansas shooting that injured two

Manhattan—Lightning is being blamed for an early morning fire in Manhattan.

Just before&nbsp; 12:30 a.m. Friday, fire crews were dispatched to 320 Rosewalk Place for a report of a structure fire, according to Assistant Fire Chief&nbsp; Sam Dameron.

Upon arrival, crews found a single-story duplex with fire on the exterior gable of the structure above the garage.&nbsp; Both sides of the duplex were occupied at the time of the fire and the three occupants of the structure were able to exit without injury.

Structure loss is estimated at $10,000 to 320 Rosewalk Place and $10,000 to 326 Rosewalk Place. There was no fire loss to the contents.&nbsp; The occupants were not displaced due to the fire, according to Damron.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656067296409.png" alt="Photo courtesy Manhattan Fire Deparatment." />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy Manhattan Fire Deparatment.</figcaption>
 </figure>Manhattan—Lightning is being blamed for an early morning fire in Manhattan.Just before&nbsp; 12:30 a.m. Friday, fire crews were dispatched to 320 Rosewalk Place for a report of a structure fire, according to Assistant Fire Chief&nbsp; Sam Dameron.Upon arrival, crews found a single-story duplex with fire on the exterior gable of the structure above the garage.&nbsp; Both sides of the duplex were occupied at the time of the fire and the three occupants of the structure were able to exit without injury. Structure loss is estimated at $10,000 to 320 Rosewalk Place and $10,000 to 326 Rosewalk Place. There was no fire loss to the contents.&nbsp; The occupants were not displaced due to the fire, according to Damron.

Lightning caused Kansas duplex fire

WASHINGTON (AP) —The rights of LGBTQ students would become enshrined in federal law and victims of campus sexual assault would gain new protections under&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm-factsheet.pdf" target="_blank">new rules proposed by the Biden administration</a>&nbsp;on Thursday.

<a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment">Click here to read the</a> statement from the Dept. of Education

<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm.pdf" target="_blank">The proposal</a>, announced on the 50th anniversary of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-timeline-5fc023ca41d7d8c2489de24a23413938">Title IX women’s rights law</a>, is intended to replace a set of controversial rules issued during the Trump administration by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-us-news-ap-top-news-sexual-assault-sexual-misconduct-f489490cb06c0ac02e6c586be9abc5f1">Education Secretary Betsy DeVos</a>.

President Joe Biden’s education secretary, Miguel Cardona, said that even though there have been significant strides toward gender equality, discrimination and sexual violence persist.

“Even as we celebrate all the progress we’ve achieved, standing up for equal access and inclusion is as important as ever before,” he said.

The proposal is almost certain to be challenged by conservatives, and it is expected to lead to new legal battles over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-transgender-athletes-rights-9adfe49a8e07f66f07b5e2302bb94730">the rights of transgender students</a>&nbsp;in schools, especially in sports. It now faces a public feedback period before the administration can finalize any changes, meaning the earliest that the policy is likely to take effect is next year.

The step meets a demand from victims rights advocates who wanted Biden to release new rules no later than the anniversary of Title IX, which outlaws discrimination based on sex in schools and colleges.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-sports-donald-trump-education-5ae8d4c03863cf98072e810c5de37048">Advocates say DeVos’ rules</a>&nbsp;have gone too far in protecting students accused of sexual misconduct, at the expense of victims.

As a presidential candidate, Biden had promised a quick end to DeVos’ rules, saying they would “shame and silence survivors.”

In announcing its proposal, Biden’s Education Department said DeVos’ rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination.”

For the first time, the rules would formally protect LGBTQ students under Title IX. Nothing in the 1972 law explicitly addresses the topic, but the new proposal would clarify that the law applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

It would make clear that “preventing someone from participating in school programs and activities consistent with their gender identity would cause harm in violation of Title IX,” according to the department. More specific rules dealing with the rights of transgender students in school sports will be released later, the department said.

Biden marked the anniversary of Title IX by acknowledging the impact the law has had in advancing equity but acknowledging there was more to do.

“As we look to the next 50 years, I am committed to protecting this progress and working to achieve full equality, inclusion, and dignity for women and girls, LGBTQI+ Americans, all students, and all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Many of the proposed changes would restore Obama-era rules that DeVos’ policy replaced.

The definition of sexual harassment would be expanded to cover a wider range of misconduct. Schools would be required to address any allegation that creates a “hostile environment” for students, even if the misconduct arises off campus. Most college employees, including professors and coaches, would be required to notify campus officials if they learn of potential sex discrimination.

In a victory for victims rights advocates, the proposal would eliminate a rule requiring colleges to hold live hearings to investigate sexual misconduct cases — one of the most divisive aspects of DeVos’ policy. Live hearings would be allowed under the new policy, but colleges could also appoint campus officials to question students separately.

Biden’s action drew praise from victims rights groups, LGBTQ advocates and Democratic lawmakers.

“These proposed regulations demonstrate a strong commitment to protecting educational opportunities for all students including LGBTQ students,” said Janson Wu executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “Especially in light of ongoing state legislative attacks, we are grateful for the administration’s strong support of LGBTQ youth.”

Republicans in Congress were quick to denounce the proposal. Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said the rules will “demolish due process rights and the safety of young women and girls across the country, with promised regulations still to come to undermine women’s access to athletic opportunities.”

If the proposal is finalized, it would mark the second rewrite of federal Title IX rules in two years. DeVos’ rules were themselves intended to reverse Obama-era guidance. The Obama policy was embraced by victims advocates but led to hundreds of lawsuits from accused students who said their colleges failed to give them a fair process to defend themselves.

The whiplash has left many schools scrambling to adopt ever-changing rules. Some have pressed for a political middle ground that will protect students without prompting new rules every time the White House changes power.

“It doesn’t serve anybody’s interest to have this ping-pong effect of changing rules every five years,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus security consultant and president of Safety Advisors for Educational Campuses. “That’s just not a good way to get things done. It’s very difficult for everyone involved.”

DeVos’ rules dramatically reshaped the way colleges handle allegations of sexual assault and harassment, with an emphasis on ensuring the constitutional due process rights of the accused.

Under her rules, accused students were given wider rights to review and respond to evidence against them, and students had the right to cross-examine one another through a representative at live hearings.

The live hearing requirement was applauded as a victory for accused students, but it drew intense backlash from other advocates who said it forced victims to relive their trauma.

DeVos also reduced colleges’ obligations in responding to complaints. Her policy narrowed the definition of harassment and scaled back the types of cases colleges are required to address. As a result, some campuses have seen steep decreases in the number of Title IX complaints coming in from students.

Under her rules, for example, colleges are not required to investigate most complaints that arise off campus, and they do not have to act on any complaint unless the alleged misconduct is “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive.”

The overhaul was partly meant to lighten the burden on colleges as they mediate complex cases, but some say it ultimately added more work.

Leaders of some colleges have said the DeVos rules are too prescriptive and force them to turn campus discipline systems into miniature courtrooms. Many schools have continued to address all sexual misconduct complaints even if they do not meet the narrowed harassment definition, but they have had to set up separate discipline processes to handle those cases.

Advocates on both sides say that can be confusing for students.

“It shouldn’t be that way. It should be, if anything, more uniform — that’s the whole reason the Title IX regulations were put into place,” said Kimberly Lau, a New York lawyer who represents students in Title IX cases

Biden’s proposal is a major step in keeping his promise to reverse DeVos’ rules. He started the process last year when he ordered the Education Department to review the rules, but the agency has been bogged down by a slow-moving rule-making process.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656015992947.png" alt="President Biden during a White House Pride Month reception-photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>President Biden during a White House Pride Month reception-photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) —The rights of LGBTQ students would become enshrined in federal law and victims of campus sexual assault would gain new protections under&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm-factsheet.pdf" target="_blank">new rules proposed by the Biden administration</a>&nbsp;on Thursday.<a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment">Click here to read the</a> statement from the Dept. of Education<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm.pdf" target="_blank">The proposal</a>, announced on the 50th anniversary of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-timeline-5fc023ca41d7d8c2489de24a23413938">Title IX women’s rights law</a>, is intended to replace a set of controversial rules issued during the Trump administration by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-us-news-ap-top-news-sexual-assault-sexual-misconduct-f489490cb06c0ac02e6c586be9abc5f1">Education Secretary Betsy DeVos</a>.President Joe Biden’s education secretary, Miguel Cardona, said that even though there have been significant strides toward gender equality, discrimination and sexual violence persist.“Even as we celebrate all the progress we’ve achieved, standing up for equal access and inclusion is as important as ever before,” he said.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Tune in as we host a Pride Month Reception at the White House. <a href="https://t.co/8pRrnp4967">https://t.co/8pRrnp4967</a>&mdash; President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1537175699072638977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The proposal is almost certain to be challenged by conservatives, and it is expected to lead to new legal battles over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-transgender-athletes-rights-9adfe49a8e07f66f07b5e2302bb94730">the rights of transgender students</a>&nbsp;in schools, especially in sports. It now faces a public feedback period before the administration can finalize any changes, meaning the earliest that the policy is likely to take effect is next year.The step meets a demand from victims rights advocates who wanted Biden to release new rules no later than the anniversary of Title IX, which outlaws discrimination based on sex in schools and colleges.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-sports-donald-trump-education-5ae8d4c03863cf98072e810c5de37048">Advocates say DeVos’ rules</a>&nbsp;have gone too far in protecting students accused of sexual misconduct, at the expense of victims.As a presidential candidate, Biden had promised a quick end to DeVos’ rules, saying they would “shame and silence survivors.”In announcing its proposal, Biden’s Education Department said DeVos’ rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination.”For the first time, the rules would formally protect LGBTQ students under Title IX. Nothing in the 1972 law explicitly addresses the topic, but the new proposal would clarify that the law applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.It would make clear that “preventing someone from participating in school programs and activities consistent with their gender identity would cause harm in violation of Title IX,” according to the department. More specific rules dealing with the rights of transgender students in school sports will be released later, the department said.Biden marked the anniversary of Title IX by acknowledging the impact the law has had in advancing equity but acknowledging there was more to do.“As we look to the next 50 years, I am committed to protecting this progress and working to achieve full equality, inclusion, and dignity for women and girls, LGBTQI+ Americans, all students, and all Americans,” he said in a statement.Many of the proposed changes would restore Obama-era rules that DeVos’ policy replaced.The definition of sexual harassment would be expanded to cover a wider range of misconduct. Schools would be required to address any allegation that creates a “hostile environment” for students, even if the misconduct arises off campus. Most college employees, including professors and coaches, would be required to notify campus officials if they learn of potential sex discrimination.In a victory for victims rights advocates, the proposal would eliminate a rule requiring colleges to hold live hearings to investigate sexual misconduct cases — one of the most divisive aspects of DeVos’ policy. Live hearings would be allowed under the new policy, but colleges could also appoint campus officials to question students separately.Biden’s action drew praise from victims rights groups, LGBTQ advocates and Democratic lawmakers.“These proposed regulations demonstrate a strong commitment to protecting educational opportunities for all students including LGBTQ students,” said Janson Wu executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “Especially in light of ongoing state legislative attacks, we are grateful for the administration’s strong support of LGBTQ youth.”Republicans in Congress were quick to denounce the proposal. Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said the rules will “demolish due process rights and the safety of young women and girls across the country, with promised regulations still to come to undermine women’s access to athletic opportunities.”If the proposal is finalized, it would mark the second rewrite of federal Title IX rules in two years. DeVos’ rules were themselves intended to reverse Obama-era guidance. The Obama policy was embraced by victims advocates but led to hundreds of lawsuits from accused students who said their colleges failed to give them a fair process to defend themselves.The whiplash has left many schools scrambling to adopt ever-changing rules. Some have pressed for a political middle ground that will protect students without prompting new rules every time the White House changes power.“It doesn’t serve anybody’s interest to have this ping-pong effect of changing rules every five years,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus security consultant and president of Safety Advisors for Educational Campuses. “That’s just not a good way to get things done. It’s very difficult for everyone involved.”DeVos’ rules dramatically reshaped the way colleges handle allegations of sexual assault and harassment, with an emphasis on ensuring the constitutional due process rights of the accused.Under her rules, accused students were given wider rights to review and respond to evidence against them, and students had the right to cross-examine one another through a representative at live hearings.The live hearing requirement was applauded as a victory for accused students, but it drew intense backlash from other advocates who said it forced victims to relive their trauma.DeVos also reduced colleges’ obligations in responding to complaints. Her policy narrowed the definition of harassment and scaled back the types of cases colleges are required to address. As a result, some campuses have seen steep decreases in the number of Title IX complaints coming in from students.Under her rules, for example, colleges are not required to investigate most complaints that arise off campus, and they do not have to act on any complaint unless the alleged misconduct is “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive.”The overhaul was partly meant to lighten the burden on colleges as they mediate complex cases, but some say it ultimately added more work.Leaders of some colleges have said the DeVos rules are too prescriptive and force them to turn campus discipline systems into miniature courtrooms. Many schools have continued to address all sexual misconduct complaints even if they do not meet the narrowed harassment definition, but they have had to set up separate discipline processes to handle those cases.Advocates on both sides say that can be confusing for students.“It shouldn’t be that way. It should be, if anything, more uniform — that’s the whole reason the Title IX regulations were put into place,” said Kimberly Lau, a New York lawyer who represents students in Title IX casesBiden’s proposal is a major step in keeping his promise to reverse DeVos’ rules. He started the process last year when he ordered the Education Department to review the rules, but the agency has been bogged down by a slow-moving rule-making process.

LGBTQ students would get new protections under Biden plan

WASHINGTON — National Taxpayer Advocate Erin M. Collins today released her statutorily mandated <a href="http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/ObjectivesReport2023">midyear report to Congress</a>.
 The report expresses concern about continuing delays in the processing 
of paper-filed tax returns and the consequent impact on taxpayer 
refunds. At the end of May, the agency had a backlog of 21.3 million 
unprocessed paper tax returns, an increase of 1.3 million over the same 
time last year.

"The IRS has said it is aiming to crush the backlogged inventory this
 year, and I hope it succeeds," Collins wrote. "Unfortunately, at this 
point the backlog is still crushing the IRS, its employees, and most 
importantly, taxpayers. As such, the agency is continuing to explore 
additional processing strategies."

The report points out that the significant majority of individual 
taxpayers receive refunds. "At the end of the day, a typical taxpayer 
cares most about receiving his or her refund timely," Collins wrote. 
"Particularly for lower income taxpayers who receive Earned Income Tax 
Credit benefits, tax refunds may constitute a significant percentage of 
their household income for the year. Thus, these processing delays are 
creating unprecedented financial difficulties for millions of taxpayers 
and outright hardships for many."

Among business taxpayers, many have been waiting extended periods to 
receive Employee Tax Retention Credits for which they are eligible, in 
addition to their regular refunds.

Key taxpayer challenges this year have included return processing 
delays, correspondence processing delays, and difficulty reaching the 
IRS by phone.

More than 90% of individual income taxpayers e-file their returns, 
yet last year, about 17 million taxpayers filed their returns on paper. 
Some choose to file on paper. Some have no choice because they encounter
 e-filing barriers, such as when they are required to file a tax form or
 schedule the IRS cannot accept electronically. Before the pandemic, the
 IRS typically delivered refunds to paper-filers within four to six 
weeks. Over the past year, refund delays on paper-filed returns have 
generally exceeded six months, with delays of 10 months or more common 
for many taxpayers.

The report says the IRS has failed to make progress in eliminating 
its paper backlog because "its pace of processing paper tax returns has 
not kept up with new receipts." During the month of May, the IRS 
processed an average of about 205,000 individual income tax returns 
(Forms 1040) per week. Its Form 1040 backlog at the end of May stood at 
8.2 million, with millions more paper tax returns not yet classified or 
expected to arrive before the extended filing deadline of October 15. 
The report says the IRS would have to process well over 500,000 Forms 
1040 per week – more than double its current pace – to eliminate the 
backlog this year. "The math is daunting," the report says.

The IRS has publicly committed to reducing its paper tax return 
backlog to a "healthy" level by the end of the year, but it has not 
provided a definition of "healthy." "Historically, the IRS has paid 
refunds resulting from paper-filed returns within four to six weeks," 
Collins wrote. "From a taxpayer perspective, returning to a 
four-to-six-week refund delivery period is a reasonable definition of 
'healthy.'"

Largely because of the likelihood that the IRS will carry a large 
inventory of unprocessed paper tax returns into the 2023 filing season, 
Collins issued a Taxpayer Advocate Directive (TAD) in March directing 
the IRS to implement 2-D barcoding or other scanning technology to 
automate the transcription of paper tax returns. "Today, the digits on 
every paper return must be manually keystroked into IRS systems by an 
employee," Collins wrote. "In the year 2022, that doesn't just seem crazy. It is crazy." The IRS's response to the TAD is due on June 27, 2022.

The report credits the IRS with taking recent steps to address the 
backlog but notes "missed opportunities" to have acted earlier. "The 
IRS's paper processing delays were evident more than a year ago, and the
 IRS could have addressed them more aggressively at that time," Collins 
wrote. "Had the IRS taken steps a year ago to reassign current employees
 to processing functions, it could have reduced the inventory backlog 
carried into this filing season and accelerated the payment of refunds 
to millions of taxpayers. Had the IRS implemented 2-D barcoding, optical
 character recognition or similar technology in time for the 2022 filing
 season, it could have reduced the need for employees to engage in the 
highly manual task of transcribing paper tax returns. Had the IRS 
quickly used some of the $1.5 billion of additional funds provided by 
the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), which was enacted 15 months
 ago, to hire and train additional employees, it could have worked 
through the backlog, answered more taxpayer telephone calls and 
otherwise improved taxpayer service."

At the end of May 2021, the IRS had an additional 15.8 million 
returns that had been suspended during processing and required manual 
review by IRS employees. The suspended returns consisted largely 
of&nbsp;e-filed returns on which taxpayers claimed Recovery Rebate Credit 
amounts that differed from the allowable amounts shown on IRS records. 
As of May 2022, the IRS had reduced the number of suspended returns to 
5.4 million.&nbsp;The report credits the IRS with developing procedures to 
reduce delays among suspended returns, in part by automating the review 
process. However, e-filed returns suspended during processing did not 
generally result in extended refund delays.&nbsp;By contrast, unprocessed 
paper-filed tax returns have resulted in refund delays of six to 10 
months or longer.

When a taxpayer receives a notice and is requested to respond or 
chooses to respond, the taxpayer must generally do so by mail. Through 
May 21, the IRS processed 5million taxpayer responses to proposed 
adjustments. It took an average of 251 days to do so – more than eight 
months. That is more than triple the processing time of 74 days in 
fiscal year 2019, the most recent pre-pandemic year. "When a math error 
or similar notice is generated in connection with a paper-filed tax 
return," the report says, "the combination of the return processing 
delay and the correspondence processing delay may mean that the taxpayer
 must wait well over a year to get the issue resolved and receive the 
refund due."

There are currently over 336,000 taxpayers who could not file their 
returns or receive their refunds because identity thieves had already 
filed a return using their identifying information. These taxpayers must
 submit affidavits and other documentation to substantiate their 
identities. They now generally must wait at least a year to receive 
their refunds. The IRS website states: "[D]ue to extenuating 
circumstances caused by the pandemic our identity theft inventories have
 increased and on average it is taking about 360 days to resolve 
identity theft cases."

During the 2022 filing season, the IRS received about 73 million 
telephone calls. Only one out of 10 calls reached an IRS employee. 
Compared with the 2021 filing season, IRS employees answered less than 
half as many calls, but the percentage of calls answered remained about 
the same because they also received less than half as many calls. The 
time the average taxpayer spent waiting on hold rose from 20 minutes to 
29 minutes. A comparison of telephone service during the 2021 and 2022 
filing seasons is shown in Figure 2.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON — National Taxpayer Advocate Erin M. Collins today released her statutorily mandated <a href="http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/ObjectivesReport2023">midyear report to Congress</a>.
 The report expresses concern about continuing delays in the processing 
of paper-filed tax returns and the consequent impact on taxpayer 
refunds. At the end of May, the agency had a backlog of 21.3 million 
unprocessed paper tax returns, an increase of 1.3 million over the same 
time last year."The IRS has said it is aiming to crush the backlogged inventory this
 year, and I hope it succeeds," Collins wrote. "Unfortunately, at this 
point the backlog is still crushing the IRS, its employees, and most 
importantly, taxpayers. As such, the agency is continuing to explore 
additional processing strategies."The report points out that the significant majority of individual 
taxpayers receive refunds. "At the end of the day, a typical taxpayer 
cares most about receiving his or her refund timely," Collins wrote. 
"Particularly for lower income taxpayers who receive Earned Income Tax 
Credit benefits, tax refunds may constitute a significant percentage of 
their household income for the year. Thus, these processing delays are 
creating unprecedented financial difficulties for millions of taxpayers 
and outright hardships for many."Among business taxpayers, many have been waiting extended periods to 
receive Employee Tax Retention Credits for which they are eligible, in 
addition to their regular refunds.Key taxpayer challenges this year have included return processing 
delays, correspondence processing delays, and difficulty reaching the 
IRS by phone.<h2>Backlog of Unprocessed Paper Tax Returns</h2>More than 90% of individual income taxpayers e-file their returns, 
yet last year, about 17 million taxpayers filed their returns on paper. 
Some choose to file on paper. Some have no choice because they encounter
 e-filing barriers, such as when they are required to file a tax form or
 schedule the IRS cannot accept electronically. Before the pandemic, the
 IRS typically delivered refunds to paper-filers within four to six 
weeks. Over the past year, refund delays on paper-filed returns have 
generally exceeded six months, with delays of 10 months or more common 
for many taxpayers.The report says the IRS has failed to make progress in eliminating 
its paper backlog because "its pace of processing paper tax returns has 
not kept up with new receipts." During the month of May, the IRS 
processed an average of about 205,000 individual income tax returns 
(Forms 1040) per week. Its Form 1040 backlog at the end of May stood at 
8.2 million, with millions more paper tax returns not yet classified or 
expected to arrive before the extended filing deadline of October 15. 
The report says the IRS would have to process well over 500,000 Forms 
1040 per week – more than double its current pace – to eliminate the 
backlog this year. "The math is daunting," the report says.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656095062622.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>The IRS has publicly committed to reducing its paper tax return 
backlog to a "healthy" level by the end of the year, but it has not 
provided a definition of "healthy." "Historically, the IRS has paid 
refunds resulting from paper-filed returns within four to six weeks," 
Collins wrote. "From a taxpayer perspective, returning to a 
four-to-six-week refund delivery period is a reasonable definition of 
'healthy.'"Largely because of the likelihood that the IRS will carry a large 
inventory of unprocessed paper tax returns into the 2023 filing season, 
Collins issued a Taxpayer Advocate Directive (TAD) in March directing 
the IRS to implement 2-D barcoding or other scanning technology to 
automate the transcription of paper tax returns. "Today, the digits on 
every paper return must be manually keystroked into IRS systems by an 
employee," Collins wrote. "In the year 2022, that doesn't just seem crazy. It is crazy." The IRS's response to the TAD is due on June 27, 2022.The report credits the IRS with taking recent steps to address the 
backlog but notes "missed opportunities" to have acted earlier. "The 
IRS's paper processing delays were evident more than a year ago, and the
 IRS could have addressed them more aggressively at that time," Collins 
wrote. "Had the IRS taken steps a year ago to reassign current employees
 to processing functions, it could have reduced the inventory backlog 
carried into this filing season and accelerated the payment of refunds 
to millions of taxpayers. Had the IRS implemented 2-D barcoding, optical
 character recognition or similar technology in time for the 2022 filing
 season, it could have reduced the need for employees to engage in the 
highly manual task of transcribing paper tax returns. Had the IRS 
quickly used some of the $1.5 billion of additional funds provided by 
the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), which was enacted 15 months
 ago, to hire and train additional employees, it could have worked 
through the backlog, answered more taxpayer telephone calls and 
otherwise improved taxpayer service."At the end of May 2021, the IRS had an additional 15.8 million 
returns that had been suspended during processing and required manual 
review by IRS employees. The suspended returns consisted largely 
of&nbsp;e-filed returns on which taxpayers claimed Recovery Rebate Credit 
amounts that differed from the allowable amounts shown on IRS records. 
As of May 2022, the IRS had reduced the number of suspended returns to 
5.4 million.&nbsp;The report credits the IRS with developing procedures to 
reduce delays among suspended returns, in part by automating the review 
process. However, e-filed returns suspended during processing did not 
generally result in extended refund delays.&nbsp;By contrast, unprocessed 
paper-filed tax returns have resulted in refund delays of six to 10 
months or longer.<h2>Correspondence Processing Delays</h2>When a taxpayer receives a notice and is requested to respond or 
chooses to respond, the taxpayer must generally do so by mail. Through 
May 21, the IRS processed 5million taxpayer responses to proposed 
adjustments. It took an average of 251 days to do so – more than eight 
months. That is more than triple the processing time of 74 days in 
fiscal year 2019, the most recent pre-pandemic year. "When a math error 
or similar notice is generated in connection with a paper-filed tax 
return," the report says, "the combination of the return processing 
delay and the correspondence processing delay may mean that the taxpayer
 must wait well over a year to get the issue resolved and receive the 
refund due."There are currently over 336,000 taxpayers who could not file their 
returns or receive their refunds because identity thieves had already 
filed a return using their identifying information. These taxpayers must
 submit affidavits and other documentation to substantiate their 
identities. They now generally must wait at least a year to receive 
their refunds. The IRS website states: "[D]ue to extenuating 
circumstances caused by the pandemic our identity theft inventories have
 increased and on average it is taking about 360 days to resolve 
identity theft cases."<h2>Telephone Challenges</h2>During the 2022 filing season, the IRS received about 73 million 
telephone calls. Only one out of 10 calls reached an IRS employee. 
Compared with the 2021 filing season, IRS employees answered less than 
half as many calls, but the percentage of calls answered remained about 
the same because they also received less than half as many calls. The 
time the average taxpayer spent waiting on hold rose from 20 minutes to 
29 minutes. A comparison of telephone service during the 2021 and 2022 
filing seasons is shown in Figure 2.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656095062622.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>"The combination of more than 21 million unprocessed paper tax 
returns, more than 14 million math error notices, eight-month backlogs 
in processing taxpayer correspondence, and extraordinary difficulty 
reaching the IRS by phone made this filing season particularly 
challenging," Collins wrote.<h2>TAS Objectives for FY 2023</h2>As required by law, the Advocate's report identifies TAS's key 
objectives for the upcoming fiscal year. The report describes 14 
systemic advocacy objectives, six case advocacy and other business 
objectives, and three research objectives. In light of the challenges 
taxpayers have been facing over the last two years, Collins wrote that 
TAS will be placing heavy emphasis on working with the IRS to improve 
the processing of tax returns and taxpayer service generally. Among the 
objectives the report identifies are the following:<ul>
 <li>Automating the processing of paper tax returns. On
 March 29, as noted above, Collins issued a Taxpayer Advocate Directive 
(TAD) directing the IRS to implement scanning technology by the start of
 the 2023 filing season so that paper tax returns can be machine-read 
and employees will not have to keystroke each digit on the return into 
IRS systems. After obtaining an extension for responding, the IRS's 
answer to the TAD is now due on Monday, June 27. IRS leaders have

	indicated they are not likely to implement 2-D barcoding, but 
Collins has strongly urged them to implement a plan to achieve 
automation of paper processing in time for the next filing season. 
"Doing so is critical," Collins wrote. "It is unacceptable that the 
agency is still paying thousands of employees to keystroke the data from
 millions of tax returns, digit by digit, into IRS systems – creating 
the current processing backlog and producing an error rate in 
transcribing individual returns last year of 22 percent."
	</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>Reducing barriers to e-filing tax returns. Some
 taxpayers still prefer to file paper tax returns. However, many paper 
filers, perhaps the majority, would prefer to e-file their returns but 
are not able to do so. Among the barriers: some taxpayers must file IRS 
forms or schedules that the IRS does not accept through its e-file 
system; some taxpayers must include attachments (e.g., 
appraisals or disclosure statements) that cannot be filed by their tax 
software packages; some software packages block returns from e-file if 
the taxpayer overrides certain entries; IRS systems reject certain 
returns during the e-file process and require affected taxpayers to mail
 their returns instead; and some taxpayers live in areas of the country 
without broadband internet access or lack computer access and thus face 
greater difficulty in preparing and e-filing their returns. The report 
says the IRS must reduce e-filing barriers, so that more taxpayers can 
e-file and there will be fewer paper tax returns to transcribe or scan.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>Improving the IRS's hiring and training processes. In
 FY 2022, Congress increased the IRS's overall budget by almost 6% and 
the taxpayer services portion of the budget by nearly nine percent. Many
 of the IRS's challenges stem from inadequate staffing, including 
limited staffing in Submission Processing and telephone call centers. 
The report says that hiring and adequately training new employees will 
enhance the taxpayer experience.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>Improving telephone service. Some taxpayer
 issues may be resolved through technology channels, and enhancing those
 channels must be a priority. But some issues are best resolved through a
 conversation, and some taxpayers are not comfortable with technology. 
The report says it is critical that taxpayers be able to reach the IRS 
by phone. As discussed above, IRS employees were only able to answer 10%
 of taxpayer telephone calls this filing season. "If a private company 
failed to answer nine out of 10 customer calls, customers would go 
elsewhere," Collins wrote. "That, of course, is not an option for U.S. 
taxpayers, so it is critical that the IRS increase staffing in its 
telephone call centers to handle the volume of calls it receives."</li>
 </ul><h2>IRS Responses to National Taxpayer Advocate Administrative Recommendations</h2>The National Taxpayer Advocate is required by statute to submit a 
year-end report to Congress that, among other things, makes 
administrative recommendations to resolve taxpayer problems. 
Section&nbsp;7803(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the National 
Taxpayer Advocate to submit administrative recommendations to the 
Commissioner and requires the IRS to respond within three months. Under 
this authority, the National Taxpayer Advocate annually transmits to the
 Commissioner all administrative recommendations proposed in her 
year-end report for response.The National Taxpayer Advocate made 88 administrative recommendations
 in her 2021 year-end report and then submitted them to the Commissioner
 for response. The IRS has agreed to implement 61 (or 69%) of the 
recommendations in full or in part.The IRS's responses are published on the TAS website at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/arc-recommendations-tracker/">National Taxpayer Advocate’s Annual Report to Congress Tracker</a>.The National Taxpayer Advocate is required by statute to submit two 
annual reports to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate 
Committee on Finance. The statute requires these reports to be submitted
 directly to the Committees without any prior review or comment from the
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
IRS Oversight Board, any other officer or employee of the Department of 
the Treasury, or the Office of Management and Budget. The first report 
must identify the objectives of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate for 
the fiscal year beginning in that calendar year. The second report must 
include a discussion of the ten most serious problems encountered by 
taxpayers, identify the ten tax issues most frequently litigated in the 
courts, and make administrative and legislative recommendations to 
resolve taxpayer problems.The National Taxpayer Advocate blogs about key issues in tax administration. Visit <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/contact-us/subscribe-to-tas/">TAS Subscriptions</a> to subscribe. Past blogs from the National Taxpayer Advocate can be found at <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/taxnews-information/blogs-nta/">Most Recent NTA Blogs</a>. For media inquiries, please contact TAS Media Relations at <a href="mailto:TAS.media@irs.gov">tas.media@irs.gov</a> or call the media line at <a href="tel:202-317-6802">202-317-6802</a>.<h2>About the Taxpayer Advocate Service</h2>The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) is an independent organization
 within the IRS that helps taxpayers and protects taxpayer rights. The 
local taxpayer advocate's number is in local directories and at <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/contact-us/">Contact Us</a>. Taxpayers can also call TAS toll-free at <a href="tel:877-777-4778">877-777-4778</a>.
 TAS can help those who need assistance in resolving an IRS problem, if 
the problem is causing financial difficulty, or those who believe an IRS
 system or procedure isn't working as it should. This service is free. <a href="http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/">We're your voice</a> at the IRS has more information about TAS and taxpayer rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Get updates on tax topics at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/YourVoiceAtIRS">facebook.com/YourVoiceAtIRS</a>, <a href="https://www.twitter.com/YourVoiceAtIRS">Twitter.com/YourVoiceatIRS</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/tasnta">YouTube.com/TASNTA</a>.