TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Dr. Lee Norman, who led Kansas through the coronavirus pandemic until his abrupt departure last month, has said in an interview that he was “Fauci’d” out by COVID-19 politics.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly announced on Nov. 19 that Norman had stepped down as both top administrator at the state Department of Health and Environment and state health officer. He had been the health department’s top administrator since Kelly took office in January 2019. He was replaced quickly by Janet Stanek, a longtime hospital administrator from Topeka.

But in an interview with&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-11-30/fired-kansas-health-secretary-says-he-was-faucied-by-covid-politics" target="_blank">Kansas News Service</a>&nbsp;published Tuesday, Norman said he resigned because he was asked to. He cited constant friction between the governor and the Republican-led legislature.

“The shameful treatment in the Trump administration of public health leaders, I think, set the stage for having the same thing happen at the state level,” Norman said, citing frequent&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-radio-advisory-donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-health-government-and-politics-48194557d9af1a41bae9ef1495e9d37c">criticism from the right of Dr. Anthony Fauci</a>, the government’s top infectious disease expert.

Referring to the constant criticism, Norman said, “To be honest with you, I think I was Fauci’d.”

Kelly, in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-public-health-legislature-kansas-5ac08ed1d87f8c7b350d07c215f92022">announcing Norman’s departure</a>, praised him as “the most consequential” leader in the department’s history. The departure came two weeks after Kelly expressed opposition publicly to vaccine mandates from Democratic President Joe Biden that affect more than 100 million workers.

Norman was perhaps the most visible Kelly adviser early in the coronavirus pandemic, often standing alongside her in a white lab coat. But he was less visible in recent months.

Conflicts with the public and elected leaders at the municipal and county level have resulted in the firings and resignations of many public health leaders across the U.S. Norman said 48 of Kansas’ 105 counties have lost their public health administrator or county health officer.

“The brain drain out of public health puts us in peril going forward,” he said.

Norman reiterated that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and offer the best defense against current and future variants of the virus.

“The longer we have non-immune individuals roaming the Earth, the more variants we are going to see emerge,” he said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599689971178.png" alt="Dr. Lee Norman said he resigned because he was asked to." />
 <figcaption>Dr. Lee Norman said he resigned because he was asked to.</figcaption>
 </figure>TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Dr. Lee Norman, who led Kansas through the coronavirus pandemic until his abrupt departure last month, has said in an interview that he was “Fauci’d” out by COVID-19 politics.Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly announced on Nov. 19 that Norman had stepped down as both top administrator at the state Department of Health and Environment and state health officer. He had been the health department’s top administrator since Kelly took office in January 2019. He was replaced quickly by Janet Stanek, a longtime hospital administrator from Topeka.But in an interview with&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-11-30/fired-kansas-health-secretary-says-he-was-faucied-by-covid-politics" target="_blank">Kansas News Service</a>&nbsp;published Tuesday, Norman said he resigned because he was asked to. He cited constant friction between the governor and the Republican-led legislature.“The shameful treatment in the Trump administration of public health leaders, I think, set the stage for having the same thing happen at the state level,” Norman said, citing frequent&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-radio-advisory-donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-health-government-and-politics-48194557d9af1a41bae9ef1495e9d37c">criticism from the right of Dr. Anthony Fauci</a>, the government’s top infectious disease expert.Referring to the constant criticism, Norman said, “To be honest with you, I think I was Fauci’d.”Kelly, in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-public-health-legislature-kansas-5ac08ed1d87f8c7b350d07c215f92022">announcing Norman’s departure</a>, praised him as “the most consequential” leader in the department’s history. The departure came two weeks after Kelly expressed opposition publicly to vaccine mandates from Democratic President Joe Biden that affect more than 100 million workers.Norman was perhaps the most visible Kelly adviser early in the coronavirus pandemic, often standing alongside her in a white lab coat. But he was less visible in recent months.Conflicts with the public and elected leaders at the municipal and county level have resulted in the firings and resignations of many public health leaders across the U.S. Norman said 48 of Kansas’ 105 counties have lost their public health administrator or county health officer.“The brain drain out of public health puts us in peril going forward,” he said.Norman reiterated that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and offer the best defense against current and future variants of the virus.“The longer we have non-immune individuals roaming the Earth, the more variants we are going to see emerge,” he said.

Ex-Kansas health chief says he was 'Fauci'd' out of his job

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion rights are on the line at the Supreme Court in historic arguments over the landmark ruling nearly 50 years ago that declared a nationwide right to end a pregnancy.

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?516168-1/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-oral-argument">Click here to listen</a> to the a replay of arguments that ended at 11a.m. CDT

The justices on Wednesday will weigh whether to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks and overrule the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Mississippi also is asking the court to overrule the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe. The arguments can be heard live on the court’s website, starting at 10 a.m. EST.

The case comes to a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has been transformed by three appointees of President Donald Trump, who had pledged to appoint justices he said would oppose abortion rights.

The court had never agreed to hear a case over an abortion ban so early in pregnancy until all three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were on board.

A month ago, the justices also heard arguments over a uniquely designed Texas law that has succeeded in getting around the Roe and Casey decisions and banning abortions in the nation’s second-largest state after about six weeks of pregnancy. The dispute over the Texas law revolves around whether the law can be challenged in federal court, rather than the right to an abortion.

Despite its unusually quick consideration of the issue, the court has yet to rule on the Texas law, and the justices have refused to put the law on hold while the matter is under legal review.

The Mississippi case poses questions central to the abortion right. Some of the debate Wednesday is likely to be over whether the court should abandon its long-held rule that states cannot ban abortion before the point of viability, at roughly 24 weeks.

More than 90% of abortions are performed in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, well before viability, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mississippi argues that viability is an arbitrary standard that doesn’t take sufficient account of the state’s interest in regulating abortion. It also contends that scientific advances have allowed some babies who were born earlier than 24 weeks to survive, though it does not argue that the line is anywhere near 15 weeks.

Only about 100 patients per year get abortions after 15 weeks at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s lone abortion clinic. The facility does not provide abortions after 16 weeks.

But the clinic argues that the court doesn’t normally assess constitutional rights based on how few people are affected, and that the justices shouldn’t do so in this case.

Joined by the Biden administration, the clinic also says that since Roe, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the “Constitution guarantees ‘the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability.’”

Erasing viability as the line between when abortions may and may not be banned would effectively overrule Roe and Casey, even if the justices do not explicitly do that, the clinic says.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1638369620989.png" alt="A large crowd of protesters on both sides of the abortion issue outside the Supreme Court Wednesday morning -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>A large crowd of protesters on both sides of the abortion issue outside the Supreme Court Wednesday morning -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion rights are on the line at the Supreme Court in historic arguments over the landmark ruling nearly 50 years ago that declared a nationwide right to end a pregnancy.<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?516168-1/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-oral-argument">Click here to listen</a> to the a replay of arguments that ended at 11a.m. CDTThe justices on Wednesday will weigh whether to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks and overrule the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.Mississippi also is asking the court to overrule the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe. The arguments can be heard live on the court’s website, starting at 10 a.m. EST.The case comes to a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has been transformed by three appointees of President Donald Trump, who had pledged to appoint justices he said would oppose abortion rights.The court had never agreed to hear a case over an abortion ban so early in pregnancy until all three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were on board.A month ago, the justices also heard arguments over a uniquely designed Texas law that has succeeded in getting around the Roe and Casey decisions and banning abortions in the nation’s second-largest state after about six weeks of pregnancy. The dispute over the Texas law revolves around whether the law can be challenged in federal court, rather than the right to an abortion.Despite its unusually quick consideration of the issue, the court has yet to rule on the Texas law, and the justices have refused to put the law on hold while the matter is under legal review.The Mississippi case poses questions central to the abortion right. Some of the debate Wednesday is likely to be over whether the court should abandon its long-held rule that states cannot ban abortion before the point of viability, at roughly 24 weeks.More than 90% of abortions are performed in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, well before viability, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Mississippi argues that viability is an arbitrary standard that doesn’t take sufficient account of the state’s interest in regulating abortion. It also contends that scientific advances have allowed some babies who were born earlier than 24 weeks to survive, though it does not argue that the line is anywhere near 15 weeks.Only about 100 patients per year get abortions after 15 weeks at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s lone abortion clinic. The facility does not provide abortions after 16 weeks.But the clinic argues that the court doesn’t normally assess constitutional rights based on how few people are affected, and that the justices shouldn’t do so in this case.Joined by the Biden administration, the clinic also says that since Roe, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the “Constitution guarantees ‘the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability.’”Erasing viability as the line between when abortions may and may not be banned would effectively overrule Roe and Casey, even if the justices do not explicitly do that, the clinic says.

🎤 Abortion rights at stake in historic Supreme Court showdown

SEDGWICK COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities investigating a reported fatal accidental shooting identified 13-year-old Waylon Treat of Wichita as the victim, according to officer Trevor Macy.

The boy's cousin established a fundraiser to assist the family.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/5sgpy-help-with-funeral-costs?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&amp;utm_medium=copy_link_all&amp;utm_source=customer">CLICK here to view&nbsp;</a>the GoFundMe page.

Just after 6:00 p.m., Monday, police were dispatched to a shooting at a home in the 4300 block of S.Bernita in Wichita, according to Macy.

At the home, first responders located the boy with a single gunshot wound to the head. EMS transported him to an area hospital in critical condition and he was later pronounced deceased.

Investigators learned that a 16-year-old brother had brought a handgun home, and both he and the 13-year-old were handling the firearm inside the home.&nbsp; At some point in the handling of the firearm, the gun went off – striking Waylon and causing the fatal injury.

Adults were home at the time of the shooting but were unaware of the gun, according to Macy. This tragic incident was reported to be an accident, but police are still investigating the circumstances, according to Macy. Once the investigation has concluded, it will be presented to the District Attorney's office.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1638358756955.png" alt="photo courtesy GoFundMe" />
 <figcaption>photo courtesy GoFundMe</figcaption>
 </figure>SEDGWICK COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities investigating a reported fatal accidental shooting identified 13-year-old Waylon Treat of Wichita as the victim, according to officer Trevor Macy.The boy's cousin established a fundraiser to assist the family.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/5sgpy-help-with-funeral-costs?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&amp;utm_medium=copy_link_all&amp;utm_source=customer">CLICK here to view&nbsp;</a>the GoFundMe page.Just after 6:00 p.m., Monday, police were dispatched to a shooting at a home in the 4300 block of S.Bernita in Wichita, according to Macy.At the home, first responders located the boy with a single gunshot wound to the head. EMS transported him to an area hospital in critical condition and he was later pronounced deceased.Investigators learned that a 16-year-old brother had brought a handgun home, and both he and the 13-year-old were handling the firearm inside the home.&nbsp; At some point in the handling of the firearm, the gun went off – striking Waylon and causing the fatal injury.Adults were home at the time of the shooting but were unaware of the gun, according to Macy. This tragic incident was reported to be an accident, but police are still investigating the circumstances, according to Macy. Once the investigation has concluded, it will be presented to the District Attorney's office.

Friends assist Kansas family after boy dies in accidental shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has decided that National Guard members who refuse COVID-19 vaccination will be barred from federally funded drills and training required to maintain their Guard status.

Austin spelled out the policy in an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press. In the memo, he instructed leaders of the military services Tuesday to publish guidance by next week on dealing with Guard members who fail to meet military medical readiness requirements by refusing the vaccine.

“Vaccination is essential to the health and readiness of the force,” he wrote.

All members of the military are required to be vaccinated unless they obtain an official waiver for medical or other reasons.

The military services have set varying deadlines that apply to active and reserve forces. Members of the Air Guard must be vaccinated by December; Army Guard members have until June. Austin's policy will affect Guard members only when the vaccination deadline set by their service has been reached.

Under federal law, members of the National Guard must assemble for drills and participate in training a specific number of days per year.

Austin said those Guard members who are not allowed to participate in drills due to their refusal to be vaccinated will not be paid by the Defense Department. And they will not receive credit that would count toward retirement and other federal benefits. Austin told the service leaders to implement that policy in coordination with the chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Pentagon's top personnel officer.

When Guard troops are on state active duty, such as responding to local emergencies like flooding, they report to their governor and are paid by their state. But during monthly or annual training or when they are responding to larger emergencies in the state, they are controlled by the governor but funded by the federal government. This is known as Title 32 status, which is distinct from situations in which Guard members may be called to active duty for federal service, known as Title 10 status.

In spelling out the consequences of refusing the vaccine, Austin applied to the entire National Guard the same policy he established in response to Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt's request that his Guard members be exempt from the vaccine mandate. Stitt has argued that as governor he has the authority to allow members of the Oklahoma Guard to avoid the vaccine while they are under state control.

In a Nov. 2 letter to Austin, Stitt wrote that the mandate “violates the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans, as it asks them to potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs in order to not lose their jobs.”

In his response Monday, Austin denied Stitt's request and said the governor's concerns “do not negate the need" to be vaccinated. Oklahoma so far is the only state to assert that it can sidestep Austin's mandate.

The Pentagon considers the COVID-19 vaccines critical to maintaining a ready force — active and reserve — that can deploy when needed to protect the nation, and National Guard members are part of that force.

According to figures provided by the National Guard Bureau, 70% of Guard members had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of Nov. 22 and 62.6% had been fully vaccinated. Those numbers may undercount vaccinations since some Guard members may have been vaccinated outside of the military system, with their records not yet fully updated.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1638310118543.png" alt="Defense Secretary Austin said those Guard members who are not allowed to participate in drills due to their refusal to be vaccinated will not be paid by the Defense Department.-photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Defense Secretary Austin said those Guard members who are not allowed to participate in drills due to their refusal to be vaccinated will not be paid by the Defense Department.-photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has decided that National Guard members who refuse COVID-19 vaccination will be barred from federally funded drills and training required to maintain their Guard status.Austin spelled out the policy in an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press. In the memo, he instructed leaders of the military services Tuesday to publish guidance by next week on dealing with Guard members who fail to meet military medical readiness requirements by refusing the vaccine.“Vaccination is essential to the health and readiness of the force,” he wrote.All members of the military are required to be vaccinated unless they obtain an official waiver for medical or other reasons.The military services have set varying deadlines that apply to active and reserve forces. Members of the Air Guard must be vaccinated by December; Army Guard members have until June. Austin's policy will affect Guard members only when the vaccination deadline set by their service has been reached.Under federal law, members of the National Guard must assemble for drills and participate in training a specific number of days per year.Austin said those Guard members who are not allowed to participate in drills due to their refusal to be vaccinated will not be paid by the Defense Department. And they will not receive credit that would count toward retirement and other federal benefits. Austin told the service leaders to implement that policy in coordination with the chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Pentagon's top personnel officer.When Guard troops are on state active duty, such as responding to local emergencies like flooding, they report to their governor and are paid by their state. But during monthly or annual training or when they are responding to larger emergencies in the state, they are controlled by the governor but funded by the federal government. This is known as Title 32 status, which is distinct from situations in which Guard members may be called to active duty for federal service, known as Title 10 status.In spelling out the consequences of refusing the vaccine, Austin applied to the entire National Guard the same policy he established in response to Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt's request that his Guard members be exempt from the vaccine mandate. Stitt has argued that as governor he has the authority to allow members of the Oklahoma Guard to avoid the vaccine while they are under state control.In a Nov. 2 letter to Austin, Stitt wrote that the mandate “violates the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans, as it asks them to potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs in order to not lose their jobs.”In his response Monday, Austin denied Stitt's request and said the governor's concerns “do not negate the need" to be vaccinated. Oklahoma so far is the only state to assert that it can sidestep Austin's mandate.The Pentagon considers the COVID-19 vaccines critical to maintaining a ready force — active and reserve — that can deploy when needed to protect the nation, and National Guard members are part of that force.According to figures provided by the National Guard Bureau, 70% of Guard members had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of Nov. 22 and 62.6% had been fully vaccinated. Those numbers may undercount vaccinations since some Guard members may have been vaccinated outside of the military system, with their records not yet fully updated.

Pentagon chief: Guard who refuse vaccine won't get paid

WASHINGTON
 — As part of a wider effort to increase security, the Internal Revenue 
Service today reminded taxpayers they can get extra protection starting 
in January by joining the agency's Identity Protection Personal 
Identification Number (IP PIN) program.

Anyone who can verify their identity can protect themselves against 
tax-related identity theft by opting into the IP PIN program. More than 
5.1 million taxpayers are now participating in the IP PIN program, 
enabling them to proactively protect themselves against identity theft. 
The IRS has made recent changes to the program to make it easier for 
more taxpayers to join. The fastest and easiest way to receive an IP Pin
 is by using the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/identity-theft-fraud-scams/get-an-identity-protection-pin">Get an IP PIN</a> tool.

Today's reminder marks the third day of National Tax Security 
Awareness Week, which runs through December 3. This annual observance is
 sponsored by the Security Summit, a partnership that includes state tax
 agencies, the nation's tax industry and the IRS.

The Security Summit was established in 2015 to protect taxpayers and 
the nation's tax system against tax-related identity theft. This unique 
collaboration between the public and private sectors has increased 
mutual defenses against criminals trying to file fraudulent tax returns 
and steal refunds.

One of the key features of the IRS system involves an IP PIN, which 
is a six-digit number assigned to eligible taxpayers to help prevent the
 misuse of their Social Security number or Individual Taxpayer 
Identification Number on fraudulent federal income tax returns.

An IP PIN is known only to the taxpayer and the IRS. Originally 
designed for confirmed victims of tax-related identity theft, the IP PIN
 program was expanded in 2021 to include any taxpayer, nationwide, who 
wants the additional protection and security of using an IP PIN to file 
tax returns with the IRS.

"When people have this special code, it prevents someone else from 
filing a tax return in their name," said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. 
"The fastest way to get an Identity Protection PIN is to use our online 
tool, but keep in mind people must pass a rigorous authentication 
process. We must know that the person asking for the IP PIN is who they 
really say they are."

An IP PIN helps the IRS verify a taxpayer's identity and accept their
 federal income tax returns, regardless of whether they are filing 
electronically or on paper. The online Get an IP PIN tool at <a href="https://www.irs.gov/identity-theft-fraud-scams/get-an-identity-protection-pin">IRS.gov/ippin</a>
 immediately displays the taxpayer's IP PIN. In each subsequent year, 
any participating taxpayer will then use the tool to obtain a new 
number.

The IRS urges any IP PIN applicant previously rejected during the 
identity authentication process to try applying again in 2022. The 
authentication process has been refined and improved, now enabling many 
taxpayers screened out in the past to have a better chance of passing 
the authentication process.

Before applying, keep in mind these key points about the IP PIN program:

Options for people who can't pass the online authentication process

Two options are available for people who cannot pass the IRS online 
identity authentication process. One involves filing Form 15227 and the 
other requires a visit to an <a href="https://www.irs.gov/help/contact-your-local-irs-office">IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC)</a>. Unlike the online option, both of these options involve, for security reasons, a delay in receiving an IP PIN.

<a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f15227.pdf">Form 15227</a>&nbsp;PDF:
 For processing year 2022, individuals with an adjusted gross income of 
$73,000 or less and those married filing jointly with an AGI of $146,000
 or less with access to a telephone can complete Form 15227&nbsp;and either 
mail or fax it to the IRS. An IRS representative will then call them to 
verify their identity with a series of questions. Taxpayers choosing 
this option who pass the identity authentication process will generally 
receive their IP PIN in about a month.

IRS Taxpayer Assistance Centers: Any taxpayer who is
 ineligible to file a Form 15227 may make an appointment to visit an IRS
 Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC). Anyone using this option must bring 
two forms of picture identification. Because this is an in-person 
identity verification, an IP PIN will be mailed to the taxpayer after 
their visit. Normally, allow three weeks for delivery. To find the 
nearest TAC, use the <a href="https://apps.irs.gov/app/officeLocator/index.jsp">IRS Local Office Locator</a> online tool or call <a href="tel:844-545-5640">844-545-5640</a>.

The IRS, state tax agencies, the private sector tax industry, 
including tax professionals, work in partnership as the Security Summit 
to help protect taxpayers from identity theft and refund fraud. This is 
the third in <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-tax-security-awareness-week-2021">a week-long series of tips</a> to raise awareness about identity theft.

See <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/security-summit">IRS.gov/securitysummit</a> for more details. Also, check out the most recent A Closer Look column on <a href="https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/national-tax-security-awareness-week-tips-to-help-protect-taxpayers">National Tax Security Awareness Week</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON
 — As part of a wider effort to increase security, the Internal Revenue 
Service today reminded taxpayers they can get extra protection starting 
in January by joining the agency's Identity Protection Personal 
Identification Number (IP PIN) program.Anyone who can verify their identity can protect themselves against 
tax-related identity theft by opting into the IP PIN program. More than 
5.1 million taxpayers are now participating in the IP PIN program, 
enabling them to proactively protect themselves against identity theft. 
The IRS has made recent changes to the program to make it easier for 
more taxpayers to join. The fastest and easiest way to receive an IP Pin
 is by using the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/identity-theft-fraud-scams/get-an-identity-protection-pin">Get an IP PIN</a> tool.Today's reminder marks the third day of National Tax Security 
Awareness Week, which runs through December 3. This annual observance is
 sponsored by the Security Summit, a partnership that includes state tax
 agencies, the nation's tax industry and the IRS.The Security Summit was established in 2015 to protect taxpayers and 
the nation's tax system against tax-related identity theft. This unique 
collaboration between the public and private sectors has increased 
mutual defenses against criminals trying to file fraudulent tax returns 
and steal refunds.One of the key features of the IRS system involves an IP PIN, which 
is a six-digit number assigned to eligible taxpayers to help prevent the
 misuse of their Social Security number or Individual Taxpayer 
Identification Number on fraudulent federal income tax returns.An IP PIN is known only to the taxpayer and the IRS. Originally 
designed for confirmed victims of tax-related identity theft, the IP PIN
 program was expanded in 2021 to include any taxpayer, nationwide, who 
wants the additional protection and security of using an IP PIN to file 
tax returns with the IRS."When people have this special code, it prevents someone else from 
filing a tax return in their name," said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. 
"The fastest way to get an Identity Protection PIN is to use our online 
tool, but keep in mind people must pass a rigorous authentication 
process. We must know that the person asking for the IP PIN is who they 
really say they are."An IP PIN helps the IRS verify a taxpayer's identity and accept their
 federal income tax returns, regardless of whether they are filing 
electronically or on paper. The online Get an IP PIN tool at <a href="https://www.irs.gov/identity-theft-fraud-scams/get-an-identity-protection-pin">IRS.gov/ippin</a>
 immediately displays the taxpayer's IP PIN. In each subsequent year, 
any participating taxpayer will then use the tool to obtain a new 
number.The IRS urges any IP PIN applicant previously rejected during the 
identity authentication process to try applying again in 2022. The 
authentication process has been refined and improved, now enabling many 
taxpayers screened out in the past to have a better chance of passing 
the authentication process.Before applying, keep in mind these key points about the IP PIN program:<ul>
 <li>For 2022, the Get an IP PIN tool is scheduled to launch on 
January 10. It's the fastest and easiest way to get an IP PIN. It is 
also the only option that immediately reveals the IP PIN to the 
taxpayer. For that reason, the IRS urges everyone to try the Get an IP 
PIN tool first, before pursuing other options.</li><li>No identity theft affidavit is required for taxpayers opting in. 
This means that anyone who voluntarily applies for an IP PIN doesn't 
need to file <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/when-to-file-a-form-14039-identity-theft-affidavit">Form 14039, Identity Theft Affidavit</a>, with the IRS.</li><li>The IP PIN is valid for one year. This means that each January any participating taxpayer must obtain a newly generated IP PIN.</li><li>Be sure to enter the IP PIN on any return, whether it is filed 
electronically or on paper. This includes any amended returns or returns
 for prior years. Doing so will help avoid processing delays or having 
the return rejected by the IRS.</li><li>Anyone with either a Social Security number (SSN) or Individual 
Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) who can verify their identity is 
eligible for the IP PIN opt-in program.</li><li>Any eligible family member can get an IP PIN. This includes the 
primary taxpayer (the person listed first on a tax return), the 
secondary taxpayer (on a joint return, the person listed second on the 
return) or any of their dependents.</li><li>With one key exception, never reveal an IP PIN to anyone. The only 
exception is a taxpayer who uses a trusted tax professional to file 
their return. Even then, only share the IP PIN with the trusted tax pro 
when it is time to sign and submit the return. The IRS will never ask 
for an IP PIN. Remember to watch out: Phone calls, emails and texts 
requesting an IP PIN are scams. &nbsp;</li><li>Identity theft victims should still fill out an ID theft affidavit.
 This means that any confirmed victim of tax-related identity theft 
still needs to file Form 14039 with the IRS if their e-filed tax return 
was rejected by the agency due to a duplicate SSN filing. The IRS will 
then investigate their case. Once the fraudulent tax return is removed 
from their account, the IRS will automatically mail an IP PIN to the 
confirmed victim at the start of the next calendar year. Because of 
security risks, confirmed identity theft victims cannot opt out of the 
IP PIN program.</li>
 </ul><h2>Options for people who can't pass the online authentication process</h2>Two options are available for people who cannot pass the IRS online 
identity authentication process. One involves filing Form 15227 and the 
other requires a visit to an <a href="https://www.irs.gov/help/contact-your-local-irs-office">IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC)</a>. Unlike the online option, both of these options involve, for security reasons, a delay in receiving an IP PIN.<a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f15227.pdf">Form 15227</a>&nbsp;PDF:
 For processing year 2022, individuals with an adjusted gross income of 
$73,000 or less and those married filing jointly with an AGI of $146,000
 or less with access to a telephone can complete Form 15227&nbsp;and either 
mail or fax it to the IRS. An IRS representative will then call them to 
verify their identity with a series of questions. Taxpayers choosing 
this option who pass the identity authentication process will generally 
receive their IP PIN in about a month.IRS Taxpayer Assistance Centers: Any taxpayer who is
 ineligible to file a Form 15227 may make an appointment to visit an IRS
 Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC). Anyone using this option must bring 
two forms of picture identification. Because this is an in-person 
identity verification, an IP PIN will be mailed to the taxpayer after 
their visit. Normally, allow three weeks for delivery. To find the 
nearest TAC, use the <a href="https://apps.irs.gov/app/officeLocator/index.jsp">IRS Local Office Locator</a> online tool or call <a href="tel:844-545-5640">844-545-5640</a>.The IRS, state tax agencies, the private sector tax industry, 
including tax professionals, work in partnership as the Security Summit 
to help protect taxpayers from identity theft and refund fraud. This is 
the third in <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-tax-security-awareness-week-2021">a week-long series of tips</a> to raise awareness about identity theft.See <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/security-summit">IRS.gov/securitysummit</a> for more details. Also, check out the most recent A Closer Look column on <a href="https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/national-tax-security-awareness-week-tips-to-help-protect-taxpayers">National Tax Security Awareness Week</a>.

'Identity protection' PIN adds extra layer of protection during tax time

OSAGE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a Kansas man on drug charges after an arrest.

Just before 5p.m. Monday, a sheriff’s deputy conducted a traffic stop at 6th and Cedar in Lyndon for a traffic violation, according to Osage County Chris Wells.

During the stop, a K9 was deployed, and deputy located illegal narcotics.

The driver of the vehicle, Dalton D. Pabst, 28, of Pomona, Kansas was taken into custody and transported to the Osage County Jail on requested charges of driving without a valid license and possession of methamphetamine. 

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1638322300623.png" alt="Pabst photo Osage County Jail" />
 <figcaption>Pabst photo Osage County Jail</figcaption>
 </figure>OSAGE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a Kansas man on drug charges after an arrest.Just before 5p.m. Monday, a sheriff’s deputy conducted a traffic stop at 6th and Cedar in Lyndon for a traffic violation, according to Osage County Chris Wells.During the stop, a K9 was deployed, and deputy located illegal narcotics.The driver of the vehicle, Dalton D. Pabst, 28, of Pomona, Kansas was taken into custody and transported to the Osage County Jail on requested charges of driving without a valid license and possession of methamphetamine.

K9 helps Kansas deputy during traffic stop, drug bust

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell took a sharp and unexpected turn Tuesday toward tightening credit for consumers and businesses in the face of mounting concerns about high inflation.

Powell signaled that the Fed will likely act more quickly to phase out its ultra-low-interest rate policies even as the emergence of the new omicron variant of COVID-19 has raised fresh doubts about the future of the economy and the direction of inflation.

The Fed chair told the Senate Banking Committee that the central bank’s policymakers will discuss at their next meeting in mid-December whether to accelerate the reduction of their monthly bond purchases, which have been intended to lower long-term borrowing costs. The Fed just announced those reductions in early November at a pace that would end the bond buying in June. But on Tuesday, Powell signaled that the Fed is inclined to end those purchases several months before then.

Doing so would put the Fed on a path to begin raising its key short-term interest rate as early as the first half of next year. That rate has been pegged at nearly zero since last March, when the coronavirus sent the economy into a deep recession. A higher Fed rate would, in turn, raise borrowing costs for mortgages, credit cards and some business loans.

Stock prices tumbled after Powell’s comments, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 650 points, or nearly 2%, for the day. Very low interest rates, nurtured by the Fed, have been a key factor in driving share prices to all-time highs since the pandemic struck.

“He was decidedly more hawkish in tone than I expected and, I think, than the financial markets expected,” said Kathy Bostjancic, chief U.S. financial economist at Oxford Economics. (Hawks generally favor higher borrowing costs to quell inflation, while doves typically emphasize lower rates to fuel hiring.)

Fed policymakers have come under pressure from a sharp jump in inflation, with consumer prices having soared 6.2% in October from a year earlier, the highest such inflation rate in 31 years. In response, some Fed officials in recent weeks had already started to push for a faster tapering of the central bank’s bond purchases.

Yet the sudden emergence of the omicron variant had led some Fed-watchers to speculate that the central bank would avoid any major policy shifts until a clearer picture of the variant and its likely impact on the economy emerged. But Powell’s remarks Tuesday — and the questions he faced from senators — were far more focused on inflation than on the likelihood that omicron, about which little is known, could seriously weaken the economy.

“The economy is very strong, and inflationary pressures are high,” Powell said. “It is therefore appropriate, in my view, to consider wrapping up the taper of our asset purchases … perhaps a few months sooner.”

“This is a very abrupt pivot from the Fed,” said Krishna Guha, an analyst at the investment bank Evercore ISI. “The eight-month taper plan was only announced four weeks ago.”

Under fire from some Senate Republicans about worsening inflation, Powell suggested that price increases will likely slow next year as supply bottlenecks ease. But he also acknowledged that price increases have been spreading to broader categories of products and services, and as a result “the risk of higher inflation has increased.”

For months, Powell and other Fed officials had described inflation as “transitory,” which did not necessarily mean they thought it would disappear soon but that it wouldn’t keep spiraling higher. That outlook has so far proved too optimistic, and Powell said it is “probably a good time to retire that word and try to explain more clearly what we mean.”

The Fed chair said he thought the central bank’s policymakers will know more about the potential economic impact of the omicron variant in time for their next meeting in mid-December.

Regardless of the eventual consequences, the omicron variant seems sure to make Powell’s job more complicated next year. If omicron leads to another wave of factory and port shutdowns in the United States and overseas, supply chain bottlenecks could worsen and raise prices even more.

At the same time, omicron could renew fears among many workers about becoming infected on the job, leading to more resignations when quits are already at a record high or discouraging some of those out of work from taking a new job. That could weaken the job market and the economy. Under such a scenario, the Fed’s dual mandates of stable prices and maximum employment could come into conflict.

In a significant shift, Powell appeared to make inflation-fighting a more urgent priority than job growth by noting that higher prices themselves threaten the economic recovery. And a long period of growth, he said, is needed to regain the “great labor market” that existed before the pandemic.

“We’re going to need a long expansion,” the Fed chair said. “To get that, we’re going to need price stability, and in a sense, the risk of persistent high inflation is also a major risk to getting back to such a labor market.”

Rising inflation has put the Fed in a delicate spot, because the economy remains about 4 million jobs short of pre-pandemic levels, and many Democrats in Congress will want to see rates stay near zero until most of those jobs have been recovered.

“The Fed cannot pump the brakes on our economic recovery too soon, before workers get a chance to fully rebound,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who chairs the Banking Committee. “And I mean all workers,” he added, noting that the Black unemployment rate remains twice that of white Americans.

By contrast, Sen. Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the committee, suggested that the economy largely recovered roughly a year ago. As a result, emergency measures, such as the Fed’s bond purchases, haven’t been needed since then, he said.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who also testified before the Senate Banking panel Tuesday, urged Congress to raise the nation’s borrowing limit. Yellen has previously warned that without an increase in the debt ceiling, the government could default on its debt obligations for the first time soon after Dec. 15.

“I cannot overstate how critical it is that Congress address this issue,” she said. “America must pay its bills on time and in full. If we do not, we will eviscerate our current recovery.”

Congress, which is expected to address the borrowing limit, also faces a Friday deadline to provide enough funding to keep the federal government open.

Yellen also said that for now, the economic recovery “remains strong,” but she urged that Americans get vaccinated or receive booster shots to guard against the omicron variant.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/4/1586436935167.png" alt="Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell -photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell -photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell took a sharp and unexpected turn Tuesday toward tightening credit for consumers and businesses in the face of mounting concerns about high inflation.Powell signaled that the Fed will likely act more quickly to phase out its ultra-low-interest rate policies even as the emergence of the new omicron variant of COVID-19 has raised fresh doubts about the future of the economy and the direction of inflation.The Fed chair told the Senate Banking Committee that the central bank’s policymakers will discuss at their next meeting in mid-December whether to accelerate the reduction of their monthly bond purchases, which have been intended to lower long-term borrowing costs. The Fed just announced those reductions in early November at a pace that would end the bond buying in June. But on Tuesday, Powell signaled that the Fed is inclined to end those purchases several months before then.Doing so would put the Fed on a path to begin raising its key short-term interest rate as early as the first half of next year. That rate has been pegged at nearly zero since last March, when the coronavirus sent the economy into a deep recession. A higher Fed rate would, in turn, raise borrowing costs for mortgages, credit cards and some business loans.Stock prices tumbled after Powell’s comments, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 650 points, or nearly 2%, for the day. Very low interest rates, nurtured by the Fed, have been a key factor in driving share prices to all-time highs since the pandemic struck.“He was decidedly more hawkish in tone than I expected and, I think, than the financial markets expected,” said Kathy Bostjancic, chief U.S. financial economist at Oxford Economics. (Hawks generally favor higher borrowing costs to quell inflation, while doves typically emphasize lower rates to fuel hiring.)Fed policymakers have come under pressure from a sharp jump in inflation, with consumer prices having soared 6.2% in October from a year earlier, the highest such inflation rate in 31 years. In response, some Fed officials in recent weeks had already started to push for a faster tapering of the central bank’s bond purchases.Yet the sudden emergence of the omicron variant had led some Fed-watchers to speculate that the central bank would avoid any major policy shifts until a clearer picture of the variant and its likely impact on the economy emerged. But Powell’s remarks Tuesday — and the questions he faced from senators — were far more focused on inflation than on the likelihood that omicron, about which little is known, could seriously weaken the economy.“The economy is very strong, and inflationary pressures are high,” Powell said. “It is therefore appropriate, in my view, to consider wrapping up the taper of our asset purchases … perhaps a few months sooner.”“This is a very abrupt pivot from the Fed,” said Krishna Guha, an analyst at the investment bank Evercore ISI. “The eight-month taper plan was only announced four weeks ago.”Under fire from some Senate Republicans about worsening inflation, Powell suggested that price increases will likely slow next year as supply bottlenecks ease. But he also acknowledged that price increases have been spreading to broader categories of products and services, and as a result “the risk of higher inflation has increased.”For months, Powell and other Fed officials had described inflation as “transitory,” which did not necessarily mean they thought it would disappear soon but that it wouldn’t keep spiraling higher. That outlook has so far proved too optimistic, and Powell said it is “probably a good time to retire that word and try to explain more clearly what we mean.”The Fed chair said he thought the central bank’s policymakers will know more about the potential economic impact of the omicron variant in time for their next meeting in mid-December.Regardless of the eventual consequences, the omicron variant seems sure to make Powell’s job more complicated next year. If omicron leads to another wave of factory and port shutdowns in the United States and overseas, supply chain bottlenecks could worsen and raise prices even more.At the same time, omicron could renew fears among many workers about becoming infected on the job, leading to more resignations when quits are already at a record high or discouraging some of those out of work from taking a new job. That could weaken the job market and the economy. Under such a scenario, the Fed’s dual mandates of stable prices and maximum employment could come into conflict.In a significant shift, Powell appeared to make inflation-fighting a more urgent priority than job growth by noting that higher prices themselves threaten the economic recovery. And a long period of growth, he said, is needed to regain the “great labor market” that existed before the pandemic.“We’re going to need a long expansion,” the Fed chair said. “To get that, we’re going to need price stability, and in a sense, the risk of persistent high inflation is also a major risk to getting back to such a labor market.”Rising inflation has put the Fed in a delicate spot, because the economy remains about 4 million jobs short of pre-pandemic levels, and many Democrats in Congress will want to see rates stay near zero until most of those jobs have been recovered.“The Fed cannot pump the brakes on our economic recovery too soon, before workers get a chance to fully rebound,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who chairs the Banking Committee. “And I mean all workers,” he added, noting that the Black unemployment rate remains twice that of white Americans.By contrast, Sen. Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the committee, suggested that the economy largely recovered roughly a year ago. As a result, emergency measures, such as the Fed’s bond purchases, haven’t been needed since then, he said.Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who also testified before the Senate Banking panel Tuesday, urged Congress to raise the nation’s borrowing limit. Yellen has previously warned that without an increase in the debt ceiling, the government could default on its debt obligations for the first time soon after Dec. 15.“I cannot overstate how critical it is that Congress address this issue,” she said. “America must pay its bills on time and in full. If we do not, we will eviscerate our current recovery.”Congress, which is expected to address the borrowing limit, also faces a Friday deadline to provide enough funding to keep the federal government open.Yellen also said that for now, the economic recovery “remains strong,” but she urged that Americans get vaccinated or receive booster shots to guard against the omicron variant.

Federal Reserve warning: Tighter credit for consumers, businesses

KANSAS CITY– Mark Hunter appeared before United States District Court Judge Stephen R. Clark Tuesday and was sentenced to six months&nbsp;in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release.&nbsp; Hunter previously pleaded guilty for knowingly possessing or receiving one or more firearms that he knew to be stolen, according to the United State's Attorney.

Pursuant to the plea agreement, on September 25, 2020, the Manchester Police Department seized a pistol that had been reported stolen.&nbsp; A passenger of Southwest Airlines, who was traveling through St. Louis Lambert Airport previously reported that the firearm was stolen out of his luggage.

Subsequently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiated an investigation and identified seven reported thefts of firearms from luggage checked on Southwest Airlines flights that had traveled through Lambert Airport between March 28, 2020 to August 22, 2020.

During the investigation, which included reviews of scheduling records of Southwest Airline baggage employees and the dates of the thefts of the firearms, Hunter, a baggage employee for Southwest Airlines, became the target of the investigation.&nbsp; 

Records indicated that Hunter of St. Louis was working and had access to baggage from which other guns had been reported stolen.&nbsp; Hunter was approached by agents and admitted to the theft of five firearms from checked luggage he handled in his capacity as a Southwest Airlines baggage handler at St. Louis Lambert Airport.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1638322980553.png" alt="Mark Hunter was approached by agents and admitted to the theft of five firearms from checked luggage he handled in his capacity as a Southwest Airlines baggage handler-photo courtesy St. Louis Lambert Airport.&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Mark Hunter was approached by agents and admitted to the theft of five firearms from checked luggage he handled in his capacity as a Southwest Airlines baggage handler-photo courtesy St. Louis Lambert Airport.&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY– Mark Hunter appeared before United States District Court Judge Stephen R. Clark Tuesday and was sentenced to six months&nbsp;in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release.&nbsp; Hunter previously pleaded guilty for knowingly possessing or receiving one or more firearms that he knew to be stolen, according to the United State's Attorney.Pursuant to the plea agreement, on September 25, 2020, the Manchester Police Department seized a pistol that had been reported stolen.&nbsp; A passenger of Southwest Airlines, who was traveling through St. Louis Lambert Airport previously reported that the firearm was stolen out of his luggage.Subsequently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiated an investigation and identified seven reported thefts of firearms from luggage checked on Southwest Airlines flights that had traveled through Lambert Airport between March 28, 2020 to August 22, 2020.During the investigation, which included reviews of scheduling records of Southwest Airline baggage employees and the dates of the thefts of the firearms, Hunter, a baggage employee for Southwest Airlines, became the target of the investigation.&nbsp; Records indicated that Hunter of St. Louis was working and had access to baggage from which other guns had been reported stolen.&nbsp; Hunter was approached by agents and admitted to the theft of five firearms from checked luggage he handled in his capacity as a Southwest Airlines baggage handler at St. Louis Lambert Airport.&nbsp;

Airline baggage handler sentenced for stealing guns from bags

WASHINGTON (AP) — Leading up to Wednesday's major abortion case at the Supreme Court, the justices have heard from thousands of people and organizations urging the court to either save or scrap two historic abortion decisions.

But on Wednesday they'll hear from just three lawyers: one representing the state of Mississippi, another representing Mississippi's only abortion clinic and the last representing the Biden administration. For each, it’s a chance to be part of what is likely to be a historic case.

The three are scheduled to appear before the justices for just over an hour's worth of arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, though the arguments will likely go longer. Mississippi is asking the justices to overturn two seminal decisions, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions that say women have a constitutional right to abortion before a fetus is viable.

Lawyers who argued those historic cases became famous in their own ways. Sarah Weddington was just 26 when in 1971 she argued Roe v. Wade on behalf of Norma Jean McCorvey, who was known by the pseudonym Jane Roe. Weddington went on to a career in government and academia.

Opposing her was Texas attorney Jay Floyd, who became infamous for opening his argument with a failed attempt at humor. “It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word," he said. When the high court ordered the case re-argued, Floyd was replaced.

Two decades later, when the court heard arguments in the Casey case, Pennsylvania Attorney General Ernest D. Preate Jr. argued in support of his state's abortion law. He later spent time in prison for secretly taking campaign contributions from the operators of illegal gambling machines. The lawyer arguing on behalf of President George H.W. Bush's administration and in support of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, was Ken Starr. It was two years before he was tapped to lead the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. The third attorney who argued in the case, Kathryn Kolbert, co-founded the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is involved in Wednesday's case.

Here are some things to know about the advocates arguing this week:

Scott G. Stewart will defend a Mississippi law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks. Lower courts declared the law unconstitutional.

Though the case marks the first Supreme Court appearance for Stewart, 39, he will be familiar to some of the justices. A graduate of Princeton and Stanford's law school, he was a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas in 2016 when the court dealt abortion opponents a loss, striking down Texas’ widely replicated rules that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.

Thomas dissented from that decision, and Stewart's argument that the justices should overturn Roe and Casey is a position that Thomas himself has taken.

Before becoming Mississippi's solicitor general, Stewart worked for the Department of Justice during the Trump administration. In that role, he defended administration policies including making asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court and preventing a pregnant teen who entered the country illegally from obtaining an abortion while in federal custody.

Arguing against the state of Mississippi is Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights who represents the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi's lone abortion clinic. The clinic sued after the state passed its ban on abortions after 15 weeks.

Because of other restrictions the state has put on abortions, the clinic only performs abortions up to 16 weeks. It says about 100 of the abortions it performs every year occur after 15 weeks.

Rikelman, 49, will be arguing before the court for the second time. Last year, before the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Harvard law graduate argued and won another abortion case. In that case, the center represented a clinic and doctors asking the court to strike down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics. Rikelman has said she made the argument on very little sleep, not because she was nervous but because her hotel's fire alarm was blaring much of the night.

Rikelman immigrated to the United States when she was six. Her family is Jewish and fled Ukraine and to escape discrimination. Rikelman says her background made her “more aware of issues of fairness and discrimination” and helped spark an interest in reproductive rights.

The Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Elizabeth Prelogar, will argue for the federal government. The administration's position is that Roe and Casey were correctly decided and that overturning them would cause "grave harm."

Prelogar, 41, will be making her eleventh argument before the court. Just weeks ago she argued a different Supreme Court case involving abortion. That case was about a restrictive Texas abortion law that prohibits abortion after cardiac activity is detected in a fetus. That's usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant. Prelogar was arguing that the federal government can mount a federal court challenge to the law. The justices have not yet announced their decision in that case.

Before being confirmed to her current position, Prelogar served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. She speaks Russian and lived there as a Fulbright scholar. A graduate of Emory and Harvard law school, she has the rare distinction of having been a law clerk for two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. She is also a former Miss Idaho.

Prelogar is only the second woman to lead the solicitor general's office on a permanent basis. Kagan led the office during President Barack Obama's administration before becoming a justice.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/7/1563272580805.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Leading up to Wednesday's major abortion case at the Supreme Court, the justices have heard from thousands of people and organizations urging the court to either save or scrap two historic abortion decisions.But on Wednesday they'll hear from just three lawyers: one representing the state of Mississippi, another representing Mississippi's only abortion clinic and the last representing the Biden administration. For each, it’s a chance to be part of what is likely to be a historic case.The three are scheduled to appear before the justices for just over an hour's worth of arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, though the arguments will likely go longer. Mississippi is asking the justices to overturn two seminal decisions, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions that say women have a constitutional right to abortion before a fetus is viable.Lawyers who argued those historic cases became famous in their own ways. Sarah Weddington was just 26 when in 1971 she argued Roe v. Wade on behalf of Norma Jean McCorvey, who was known by the pseudonym Jane Roe. Weddington went on to a career in government and academia.Opposing her was Texas attorney Jay Floyd, who became infamous for opening his argument with a failed attempt at humor. “It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word," he said. When the high court ordered the case re-argued, Floyd was replaced.Two decades later, when the court heard arguments in the Casey case, Pennsylvania Attorney General Ernest D. Preate Jr. argued in support of his state's abortion law. He later spent time in prison for secretly taking campaign contributions from the operators of illegal gambling machines. The lawyer arguing on behalf of President George H.W. Bush's administration and in support of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, was Ken Starr. It was two years before he was tapped to lead the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. The third attorney who argued in the case, Kathryn Kolbert, co-founded the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is involved in Wednesday's case.Here are some things to know about the advocates arguing this week:SCOTT G. STEWARTScott G. Stewart will defend a Mississippi law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks. Lower courts declared the law unconstitutional.Though the case marks the first Supreme Court appearance for Stewart, 39, he will be familiar to some of the justices. A graduate of Princeton and Stanford's law school, he was a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas in 2016 when the court dealt abortion opponents a loss, striking down Texas’ widely replicated rules that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.Thomas dissented from that decision, and Stewart's argument that the justices should overturn Roe and Casey is a position that Thomas himself has taken.Before becoming Mississippi's solicitor general, Stewart worked for the Department of Justice during the Trump administration. In that role, he defended administration policies including making asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court and preventing a pregnant teen who entered the country illegally from obtaining an abortion while in federal custody.JULIE RIKELMANArguing against the state of Mississippi is Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights who represents the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi's lone abortion clinic. The clinic sued after the state passed its ban on abortions after 15 weeks.Because of other restrictions the state has put on abortions, the clinic only performs abortions up to 16 weeks. It says about 100 of the abortions it performs every year occur after 15 weeks.Rikelman, 49, will be arguing before the court for the second time. Last year, before the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Harvard law graduate argued and won another abortion case. In that case, the center represented a clinic and doctors asking the court to strike down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics. Rikelman has said she made the argument on very little sleep, not because she was nervous but because her hotel's fire alarm was blaring much of the night.Rikelman immigrated to the United States when she was six. Her family is Jewish and fled Ukraine and to escape discrimination. Rikelman says her background made her “more aware of issues of fairness and discrimination” and helped spark an interest in reproductive rights.ELIZABETH PRELOGARThe Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Elizabeth Prelogar, will argue for the federal government. The administration's position is that Roe and Casey were correctly decided and that overturning them would cause "grave harm."Prelogar, 41, will be making her eleventh argument before the court. Just weeks ago she argued a different Supreme Court case involving abortion. That case was about a restrictive Texas abortion law that prohibits abortion after cardiac activity is detected in a fetus. That's usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant. Prelogar was arguing that the federal government can mount a federal court challenge to the law. The justices have not yet announced their decision in that case.Before being confirmed to her current position, Prelogar served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. She speaks Russian and lived there as a Fulbright scholar. A graduate of Emory and Harvard law school, she has the rare distinction of having been a law clerk for two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. She is also a former Miss Idaho.Prelogar is only the second woman to lead the solicitor general's office on a permanent basis. Kagan led the office during President Barack Obama's administration before becoming a justice.

3 lawyers readying arguments in all-or-nothing abortion fight

TOPEKA (AP)—Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has notified state education officials that some public universities are violating a state law passed last week that loosened requirements for obtaining medical and religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccinations.

Schmidt wrote a letter last week to Kansas Board of Regents President Blake Flanders, with copies sent to the University of Kansas Chancellor Doug Girod and Kansas State University President Richard Myers.

Schmidt said “at least some” public universities are violating the new law but specifically mentioned the University of Kansas and Kansas State. He said the institutions must “immediately cease and desist” from their requirements. Schmidt’s spokesman said Tuesday that the letter has not been sent to any other institutions.

University of Kansas spokeswoman Erinn Barcomb-Peterson said Tuesday that the university has updated its forms and processes to comply with state law and a federal executive order. Kansas State University did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Flanders said in a statement that state universities will follow all state laws in implementing vaccine requirements.

“The factors impacting the federal contracting requirements have been shifting rapidly, particularly with new statutes added in the special session and moving federal deadlines,” Flanders said. “The Board requires all universities to remain in compliance with all previously existing and new applicable statutes.”

In October, the University of Kansas, Kansas State University and Wichita State University&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-manhattan-kansas-topeka-1e1fb5acbb8b6612bb00d5b7445a92c4">announced plans</a>&nbsp;to require all employees to be vaccinated to comply with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-26bace6485d88ad1ae3ef2aea60fbb65">executive orders</a>&nbsp;issued by President Joe Biden that require all federal employees and contractors to be vaccinated. The universities also established procedures to allow exemptions for religious or medical reasons.

Schmidt’s letter was sent two days after the Kansas Legislature&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-business-health-religion-822d31ed5cd6cdca053f21f4a9a965d9">passed a law</a>&nbsp;during a special session that requires employers to grant religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for workers who seeks one in writing. The law prohibits employers from investigating the sincerity of the person’s religious beliefs.

Schmidt, a Republican, said procedures initially used by the University of Kansas and Kansas State violate the law. He said the universities had similar forms that require employees to describe the nature of their religious beliefs and to seek third-party documentation to support the sincerity of those beliefs.

“None of this information is necessary except to support an inquiry into the sincerity of the employee’s claim, which is no longer relevant,” Schmidt wrote.

The attorney general also noted that the University of Kansas has a committee to review each exemption request and that Kansas State contracted with a human resources consulting firm to help evaluate the requests and recommend whether they should be approved, which he said also violates the new law.

The attorney general also objected to an “arbitrary” Nov. 15 deadline set by the universities to apply for religious or medical exemptions, earlier than the Jan. 18 deadline set by the federal order.

He said any public university using procedures that violate the new state law should stop immediately and inform employees of the changes.

TOPEKA (AP)—Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has notified state education officials that some public universities are violating a state law passed last week that loosened requirements for obtaining medical and religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccinations.Schmidt wrote a letter last week to Kansas Board of Regents President Blake Flanders, with copies sent to the University of Kansas Chancellor Doug Girod and Kansas State University President Richard Myers.Schmidt said “at least some” public universities are violating the new law but specifically mentioned the University of Kansas and Kansas State. He said the institutions must “immediately cease and desist” from their requirements. Schmidt’s spokesman said Tuesday that the letter has not been sent to any other institutions.University of Kansas spokeswoman Erinn Barcomb-Peterson said Tuesday that the university has updated its forms and processes to comply with state law and a federal executive order. Kansas State University did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Flanders said in a statement that state universities will follow all state laws in implementing vaccine requirements.“The factors impacting the federal contracting requirements have been shifting rapidly, particularly with new statutes added in the special session and moving federal deadlines,” Flanders said. “The Board requires all universities to remain in compliance with all previously existing and new applicable statutes.”In October, the University of Kansas, Kansas State University and Wichita State University&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-manhattan-kansas-topeka-1e1fb5acbb8b6612bb00d5b7445a92c4">announced plans</a>&nbsp;to require all employees to be vaccinated to comply with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-26bace6485d88ad1ae3ef2aea60fbb65">executive orders</a>&nbsp;issued by President Joe Biden that require all federal employees and contractors to be vaccinated. The universities also established procedures to allow exemptions for religious or medical reasons.Schmidt’s letter was sent two days after the Kansas Legislature&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-business-health-religion-822d31ed5cd6cdca053f21f4a9a965d9">passed a law</a>&nbsp;during a special session that requires employers to grant religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for workers who seeks one in writing. The law prohibits employers from investigating the sincerity of the person’s religious beliefs.Schmidt, a Republican, said procedures initially used by the University of Kansas and Kansas State violate the law. He said the universities had similar forms that require employees to describe the nature of their religious beliefs and to seek third-party documentation to support the sincerity of those beliefs.“None of this information is necessary except to support an inquiry into the sincerity of the employee’s claim, which is no longer relevant,” Schmidt wrote.The attorney general also noted that the University of Kansas has a committee to review each exemption request and that Kansas State contracted with a human resources consulting firm to help evaluate the requests and recommend whether they should be approved, which he said also violates the new law.The attorney general also objected to an “arbitrary” Nov. 15 deadline set by the universities to apply for religious or medical exemptions, earlier than the Jan. 18 deadline set by the federal order.He said any public university using procedures that violate the new state law should stop immediately and inform employees of the changes.

Kan. AG: Universities in Kan. violating state's new COVID law

WASHINGTON (AP) —A panel of U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/Obamacare" target="_blank">health</a>&nbsp;advisers on Tuesday narrowly backed a closely watched COVID-19 pill from Merck, setting the stage for a likely authorization of the first drug that Americans could take at home to treat the coronavirus.

A Food and Drug Administration panel voted 13-10 that the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks, including potential birth defects if used during pregnancy.

The recommendation came after hours of debate about the drug’s modest benefits and potential safety issues. Experts backing the treatment stressed that it should not be used by anyone who is pregnant and called on FDA to recommend extra precautions before the drug is prescribed, including pregnancy tests for women of child-bearing age.

The vote specifically backed the drug for adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who face the greatest risks, including older people and those with conditions like obesity and asthma. Most experts also said the drug shouldn't be used in vaccinated patients, who weren't part of the study and haven't been shown to benefit.

The FDA isn’t bound by the panel’s recommendation and is expected to make its own decision before year’s end. The pill is already authorized in the U.K.

The drug, molnupiravir, could provide a much-needed weapon against the virus as colder weather pushes case counts higher and U.S. officials brace for the arrival of the new omicron variant.

Merck hasn’t specifically tested its drug against the new variant but said it should have some potency based on its effectiveness against other strains of coronavirus.

But that uncertainty frustrated many panelists as they grappled with whether to back the treatment for millions of Americans.

“With no data saying it works with new variants I really think we need to be careful about saying that this is the way to go,” said Dr. David Hardy of Charles Drew University School of Medicine and Science, who ultimately voted to back the drug.

The panel’s narrow-but-positive recommendation came despite new data from Merck that paint a less compelling picture of the drug’s effectiveness than just a few weeks earlier.

Last week, Merck said final study results showed molnupiravir reduced hospitalization and death by 30% among adults infected with the coronavirus, when compared with adults taking a placebo. That effect was significantly less than the 50% reduction it first announced based on incomplete results.

That smaller-than-expected benefit amplified experts' concerns about the drug's toxicity for fetuses.

FDA scientists told the panelists earlier Tuesday that company studies in rats showed the drug caused toxicity and birth defects when given at very high doses. Taken together, FDA staffers concluded the data “suggest that molnupiravir may cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant individuals.”

FDA is weighing a blanket restriction against any use in pregnant women or allowing it in rare cases. Some panelists said the option should be left open for pregnant mothers who have high-risk COVID-19 and may have few other treatment options.

Dr. Janet Cragan, who backed the drug, said that even with tight restrictions some pregnant women would inevitably take the drug.

“I don’t think you can ethically tell a woman with COVID-19 that she can’t have the drug if she’s decided that’s what she needs,” a panel member and staffer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “I think the final decision has to come down to the individual woman and her provider.”

Merck's drug uses a novel approach to fight COVID-19: It inserts tiny errors into the coronavirus’ genetic code to stop it from reproducing. That genetic effect has raised concerns that the drug could spur more virulent strains of the virus. But FDA regulators said Tuesday that risk is theoretical and seems unlikely.

While Merck and its partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics were the first to submit their COVID-19 pill to the FDA, rival drugmaker Pfizer is close behind with its own pill under review.

Pfizer’s drug is part of a decades-old family of antiviral pills known as protease inhibitors, a standard treatment for HIV and hepatitis C. They work differently than Merck’s pill and haven’t been linked to the kind of mutation concerns raised with Merck’s drug.

Pfizer said this week that its drug shouldn’t be affected by the omicron variant’s mutations.

The U.S. government has agreed to purchase 10 million treatment courses of Pfizer’s drug, if it’s authorized. That’s more than three times the government’s purchase agreement with Merck for 3.1 million courses of molnupiravir.

Both drugs require patients to take multiple pills, twice a day for five days.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1633958564035.png" alt="photo courtesy Merck" />
 <figcaption>photo courtesy Merck</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) —A panel of U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/Obamacare" target="_blank">health</a>&nbsp;advisers on Tuesday narrowly backed a closely watched COVID-19 pill from Merck, setting the stage for a likely authorization of the first drug that Americans could take at home to treat the coronavirus.A Food and Drug Administration panel voted 13-10 that the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks, including potential birth defects if used during pregnancy.The recommendation came after hours of debate about the drug’s modest benefits and potential safety issues. Experts backing the treatment stressed that it should not be used by anyone who is pregnant and called on FDA to recommend extra precautions before the drug is prescribed, including pregnancy tests for women of child-bearing age.The vote specifically backed the drug for adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who face the greatest risks, including older people and those with conditions like obesity and asthma. Most experts also said the drug shouldn't be used in vaccinated patients, who weren't part of the study and haven't been shown to benefit.The FDA isn’t bound by the panel’s recommendation and is expected to make its own decision before year’s end. The pill is already authorized in the U.K.The drug, molnupiravir, could provide a much-needed weapon against the virus as colder weather pushes case counts higher and U.S. officials brace for the arrival of the new omicron variant.Merck hasn’t specifically tested its drug against the new variant but said it should have some potency based on its effectiveness against other strains of coronavirus.But that uncertainty frustrated many panelists as they grappled with whether to back the treatment for millions of Americans.“With no data saying it works with new variants I really think we need to be careful about saying that this is the way to go,” said Dr. David Hardy of Charles Drew University School of Medicine and Science, who ultimately voted to back the drug.The panel’s narrow-but-positive recommendation came despite new data from Merck that paint a less compelling picture of the drug’s effectiveness than just a few weeks earlier.Last week, Merck said final study results showed molnupiravir reduced hospitalization and death by 30% among adults infected with the coronavirus, when compared with adults taking a placebo. That effect was significantly less than the 50% reduction it first announced based on incomplete results.That smaller-than-expected benefit amplified experts' concerns about the drug's toxicity for fetuses.FDA scientists told the panelists earlier Tuesday that company studies in rats showed the drug caused toxicity and birth defects when given at very high doses. Taken together, FDA staffers concluded the data “suggest that molnupiravir may cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant individuals.”FDA is weighing a blanket restriction against any use in pregnant women or allowing it in rare cases. Some panelists said the option should be left open for pregnant mothers who have high-risk COVID-19 and may have few other treatment options.Dr. Janet Cragan, who backed the drug, said that even with tight restrictions some pregnant women would inevitably take the drug.“I don’t think you can ethically tell a woman with COVID-19 that she can’t have the drug if she’s decided that’s what she needs,” a panel member and staffer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “I think the final decision has to come down to the individual woman and her provider.”Merck's drug uses a novel approach to fight COVID-19: It inserts tiny errors into the coronavirus’ genetic code to stop it from reproducing. That genetic effect has raised concerns that the drug could spur more virulent strains of the virus. But FDA regulators said Tuesday that risk is theoretical and seems unlikely.While Merck and its partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics were the first to submit their COVID-19 pill to the FDA, rival drugmaker Pfizer is close behind with its own pill under review.Pfizer’s drug is part of a decades-old family of antiviral pills known as protease inhibitors, a standard treatment for HIV and hepatitis C. They work differently than Merck’s pill and haven’t been linked to the kind of mutation concerns raised with Merck’s drug.Pfizer said this week that its drug shouldn’t be affected by the omicron variant’s mutations.The U.S. government has agreed to purchase 10 million treatment courses of Pfizer’s drug, if it’s authorized. That’s more than three times the government’s purchase agreement with Merck for 3.1 million courses of molnupiravir.Both drugs require patients to take multiple pills, twice a day for five days.———

FDA narrowly backs first-of-a-kind COVID pill from Merck

DOUGLAS COUNTY—The Kansas Highway Patrol investigating the weekend arrest of Kansas Representative Aaron Coleman issued a statement on the incident Tuesday.

According to the KHP,&nbsp; just after 1a.m. on Saturday, a State Trooper attempted to stop a speeding motorist on the Kansas Turnpike near the U.S. 59 South Lawrence exit in Douglas County.

The driver failed to yield and proceeded to take the exit before pulling into a parking lot near Plaza 202. During the traffic stop, the Trooper observed signs of possible impairment, according to the release. The agency did not indicate the signs of impairment or if they used a sobriety test on the driver identified as 21-year-old Aaron Coleman of Kansas City, Kansas.&nbsp;

A DUI investigation led the Trooper to take Coleman into custody for DUI. Coleman was released to the Douglas County Jail on requested charges of DUI, speed and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Authorities will present the case to the Douglas County Attorney.

At the time of the arrest, Coleman was already out on bond from an Oct. 30 domestic battery arrest. In that case, he allegedly pushed, hit and spit on his 18-year-old brother in a fight that erupted because the brother was going to get baptized, according to court documents.

The Kansas City, Kansas, Democrat has been embroiled in controversy since before he took office after being elected in 2020 and has acknowledged past abuses against girls and young women. A legislative committee reprimanded Coleman in writing in February over those abuses.

Last month, Coleman also was banned from the Kansas Department of Labor’s offices over allegations of disruptive behavior. Coleman said he was trying to help constituents.

On Monday, six freshman Democratic House members filed a formal complaint with House leadership alleging that Coleman had failed to comply with terms outlined in the February warning, The Kansas City Star reported. The complaint triggers the appointment of a House committee to investigate. That panel can recommend disciplinary action, including censure or expulsion from the Legislature. Both would require a two-thirds vote of the House.

Both Kansas House Speaker Ron Ryckman, a Republican, and Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly have joined the chorus of those calling for Coleman to resign. If he refuses to resign, Kelly said, the Legislature should remove his from office, saying his latest arrest “is further evidence that he is not fit to serve in the Kansas House of Representatives.”

-The Associated Press contributed to this report.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1635804497310.png" alt="Rep. Aaron Coleman following his domestic battery arrest in Johnson County Oct. 30.&nbsp; He represents the 37th District in the Kansas House of Representatives" />
 <figcaption>Rep. Aaron Coleman following his domestic battery arrest in Johnson County Oct. 30.&nbsp; He represents the 37th District in the Kansas House of Representatives</figcaption>
 </figure>DOUGLAS COUNTY—The Kansas Highway Patrol investigating the weekend arrest of Kansas Representative Aaron Coleman issued a statement on the incident Tuesday.According to the KHP,&nbsp; just after 1a.m. on Saturday, a State Trooper attempted to stop a speeding motorist on the Kansas Turnpike near the U.S. 59 South Lawrence exit in Douglas County.The driver failed to yield and proceeded to take the exit before pulling into a parking lot near Plaza 202. During the traffic stop, the Trooper observed signs of possible impairment, according to the release. The agency did not indicate the signs of impairment or if they used a sobriety test on the driver identified as 21-year-old Aaron Coleman of Kansas City, Kansas.&nbsp;A DUI investigation led the Trooper to take Coleman into custody for DUI. Coleman was released to the Douglas County Jail on requested charges of DUI, speed and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Authorities will present the case to the Douglas County Attorney.At the time of the arrest, Coleman was already out on bond from an Oct. 30 domestic battery arrest. In that case, he allegedly pushed, hit and spit on his 18-year-old brother in a fight that erupted because the brother was going to get baptized, according to court documents.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Vic Miller. DUI while In office?... Very intrigued Does <a href="https://twitter.com/RepTomSawyer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepTomSawyer</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/KSHouseDems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KSHouseDems</a> have any remarks on my motion to expel? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ksleg?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ksleg</a> <a href="https://t.co/2uEL6JGKPq">https://t.co/2uEL6JGKPq</a>&mdash; Rep. Aaron Coleman 🌹✡️ (@Aaron4KS37) <a href="https://twitter.com/Aaron4KS37/status/1464400540209664000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The Kansas City, Kansas, Democrat has been embroiled in controversy since before he took office after being elected in 2020 and has acknowledged past abuses against girls and young women. A legislative committee reprimanded Coleman in writing in February over those abuses.Last month, Coleman also was banned from the Kansas Department of Labor’s offices over allegations of disruptive behavior. Coleman said he was trying to help constituents.On Monday, six freshman Democratic House members filed a formal complaint with House leadership alleging that Coleman had failed to comply with terms outlined in the February warning, The Kansas City Star reported. The complaint triggers the appointment of a House committee to investigate. That panel can recommend disciplinary action, including censure or expulsion from the Legislature. Both would require a two-thirds vote of the House.Both Kansas House Speaker Ron Ryckman, a Republican, and Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly have joined the chorus of those calling for Coleman to resign. If he refuses to resign, Kelly said, the Legislature should remove his from office, saying his latest arrest “is further evidence that he is not fit to serve in the Kansas House of Representatives.”-The Associated Press contributed to this report.

KHP releases details of State Rep. Coleman's DUI arrest

SEDGWICK COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities investigating a reported accidental shooting say that&nbsp; 13-year-old Waylon Treat of Wichita who was critically injured&nbsp; has died, according to officer Trevor Macy.

Just after 6:00 p.m., Monday, police were dispatched to a shooting at a home in the 4300 block of S.Bernita in Wichita, according to Macy. 

SEDGWICK COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities investigating a reported accidental shooting say that&nbsp; 13-year-old Waylon Treat of Wichita who was critically injured&nbsp; has died, according to officer Trevor Macy.Just after 6:00 p.m., Monday, police were dispatched to a shooting at a home in the 4300 block of S.Bernita in Wichita, according to Macy. At the home, first responders located the boy with a single gunshot wound to the head. EMS transported him to an area hospital in critical condition and he was later pronounced deceased.Investigators learned that a 16-year-old brother had brought a handgun home, and both he and the 13-year-old were handling the firearm inside the home.&nbsp; At some point in the handling of the firearm, the gun went off – striking Waylon and causing the fatal injury.Adults were home at the time of the shooting but were unaware of the gun, according to Macy. This tragic incident was reported to be an accident, but police are still investigating the circumstances, according to Macy. Once the investigation has concluded, it will be presented to the District Attorney's office.

Police: Kan. boy injured in accidental shooting has died

Kansas’ work force participation rate surpasses pre-pandemic level

By TIM CARPENTER <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/11/30/gop-members-on-tax-panel-wary-of-statistics-on-economic-recovery-from-covid-19/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — The labor force 
participation rate in Kansas fully recovered from the rapid descent at 
outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the number of people receiving 
unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level since the global health 
crisis began, state officials said.

The percentage of the Kansas population either working or actively 
looking for work stood at 67.2% in January 2020, slumped to 66.5% by 
June 2020 and climbed to 67.5% in September.

Edward Penner, senior economist with the Kansas Legislative Research 
Department, outlined the figures and a series of other economic 
indicators Monday for a joint House and Senate committee examining 
opportunities to adjust state tax policy.

“At this point,” Penner said, “all of those people are back in the 
labor force and then some. This has been one of those stories where 
Kansas has been different from the nation. Kansas workers have kind of 
come back into the labor force and returned to their jobs at a rate that
 exceeds that of what national workers have done.”

The number of individuals receiving unemployment insurance benefits 
in Kansas stood at 10,320 in October, the lowest number since the 
COVID-19 pandemic began.

At the same time, state tax revenue surpassed estimates by $750 
million in the fiscal year that ended in June. The updated revenue 
estimate for the current fiscal year was increased by $1.3 billion, 
which prompted Gov. Laura Kelly and a bipartisan contingent of 
legislators to promote the possibility of slashing the state’s 6.5% 
sales tax on food.

Sen. Mark Steffen, a Republican from Hutchinson, said he was curious 
whether there was sharp improvement in work force participation after 
enhanced federal unemployment benefits expired in early September. Many 
GOP lawmakers pressured Kelly to cut off that congressional aid before 
the scheduled conclusion of federal programs, arguing the extra 
assistance was incentive for people to delay a return to their jobs. She
 declined to order cuts to jobless aid.

Penner said much of the labor force came back into the fold in the 
initial five months of the pandemic. Demise of supplemental unemployment
 payments didn’t substantially improve participation in the Kansas work 
force, he said.

Rep. Adam Smith, the Weskan Republican and chairman of the House 
Taxation Committee, said he was convinced businesses were still 
suffering labor shortages in northwest Kansas. He urged legislative 
staff to craft an estimate of unfilled jobs statewide in Kansas.

“I still see a lot of businesses that are hiring,” he said.

From February to April 2020, Kansas lost 158,000 non-farm jobs as the
 economy unraveled amid spread of the virus. The latest statistics 
indicated 73.5% of that job crater had been filled by September. The 
remaining gap might be linked to people who retired early or workers 
uneasy about accepting a job with a shortage of child care providers and
 uncertainty about influence of COVID-19 on schools, Penner said.

Sen. Tom Holland, a Baldwin City Democrat, said he had heartburn 
about the manner in which businesses responded to economic disruption 
associated with the pandemic. He said it appeared some employers focused
 on dropping older personnel at the upper end of the pay scale.

“My fear is that you had companies that laid off their more senior 
work force,” Holland said. “Basically, they’re dumping those jobs.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1638302239975.png" alt="Parker Sen. Caryn Tyson, Republican candidate for state treasurer, led a special committee Monday on the first of two days of hearings about economic ramifications of COVID-19 and options for tax reform during the 2022 legislative session. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Parker Sen. Caryn Tyson, Republican candidate for state treasurer, led a special committee Monday on the first of two days of hearings about economic ramifications of COVID-19 and options for tax reform during the 2022 legislative session. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Kansas’ work force participation rate surpasses pre-pandemic level</h2>By TIM CARPENTER <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/11/30/gop-members-on-tax-panel-wary-of-statistics-on-economic-recovery-from-covid-19/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — The labor force 
participation rate in Kansas fully recovered from the rapid descent at 
outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the number of people receiving 
unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level since the global health 
crisis began, state officials said.The percentage of the Kansas population either working or actively 
looking for work stood at 67.2% in January 2020, slumped to 66.5% by 
June 2020 and climbed to 67.5% in September.Edward Penner, senior economist with the Kansas Legislative Research 
Department, outlined the figures and a series of other economic 
indicators Monday for a joint House and Senate committee examining 
opportunities to adjust state tax policy.“At this point,” Penner said, “all of those people are back in the 
labor force and then some. This has been one of those stories where 
Kansas has been different from the nation. Kansas workers have kind of 
come back into the labor force and returned to their jobs at a rate that
 exceeds that of what national workers have done.”The number of individuals receiving unemployment insurance benefits 
in Kansas stood at 10,320 in October, the lowest number since the 
COVID-19 pandemic began.At the same time, state tax revenue surpassed estimates by $750 
million in the fiscal year that ended in June. The updated revenue 
estimate for the current fiscal year was increased by $1.3 billion, 
which prompted Gov. Laura Kelly and a bipartisan contingent of 
legislators to promote the possibility of slashing the state’s 6.5% 
sales tax on food.<h2>GOP statistical pushback</h2>Sen. Mark Steffen, a Republican from Hutchinson, said he was curious 
whether there was sharp improvement in work force participation after 
enhanced federal unemployment benefits expired in early September. Many 
GOP lawmakers pressured Kelly to cut off that congressional aid before 
the scheduled conclusion of federal programs, arguing the extra 
assistance was incentive for people to delay a return to their jobs. She
 declined to order cuts to jobless aid.Penner said much of the labor force came back into the fold in the 
initial five months of the pandemic. Demise of supplemental unemployment
 payments didn’t substantially improve participation in the Kansas work 
force, he said.Rep. Adam Smith, the Weskan Republican and chairman of the House 
Taxation Committee, said he was convinced businesses were still 
suffering labor shortages in northwest Kansas. He urged legislative 
staff to craft an estimate of unfilled jobs statewide in Kansas.“I still see a lot of businesses that are hiring,” he said.From February to April 2020, Kansas lost 158,000 non-farm jobs as the
 economy unraveled amid spread of the virus. The latest statistics 
indicated 73.5% of that job crater had been filled by September. The 
remaining gap might be linked to people who retired early or workers 
uneasy about accepting a job with a shortage of child care providers and
 uncertainty about influence of COVID-19 on schools, Penner said.Sen. Tom Holland, a Baldwin City Democrat, said he had heartburn 
about the manner in which businesses responded to economic disruption 
associated with the pandemic. He said it appeared some employers focused
 on dropping older personnel at the upper end of the pay scale.“My fear is that you had companies that laid off their more senior 
work force,” Holland said. “Basically, they’re dumping those jobs.”Rep. Francis Awerkamp, R-St. Marys, said legislative staff ought to 
balance statistical presentations to the Legislature by including an 
assessment of financial harm caused by government pandemic directives.“Can we also add an estimate on the economic impact of all the 
shutdowns, the lockdowns and the mandates from the government?” he said.<h2>Prep for 2022 session</h2>According to the state’s economic forecasters, the Kansas 
unemployment rate could complete this year at 3.9% before falling to 
3.5% in 2022 and 3.4% in 2023. The national unemployment rate is 
expected to be around 5.5% for 2021, 3.8% in 2022 and 3.5% in 2023.Sen. Caryn Tyson, a Parker Republican who chairs the Senate’s regular
 tax committee, said it was important for people to be cautious when 
weighing unemployment statistics. She said that while working on a 
master’s degree in engineering management at the University of Kansas it
 became evident to her labor estimates lacked precision.“The way they gather the numbers, the data for those unemployment 
numbers, is speculative and not always accurate,” said Tyson, a GOP 
candidate for state treasurer.Work on tax, budget and coronavirus issues in the 2022 legislative 
session could take on an especially partisan tone given desire of 
Republicans and Democrats to influence Kelly’s re-election campaign for 
governor in November 2022.Tyson said she would have preferred to move ahead with significant 
tax reform during the 2021 legislative session, but was sidelined by 
House and Senate leaders who objected to timing of her goal.The two days of hearings scheduled for the interim House-Senate tax 
committee is designed to prepare members of both chambers for 
comprehensive adjustment of state tax law in the upcoming session, she 
said.“We can move forward quickly,” she told other members of the panel. 
“That is the objective of the two-day meeting. To help arm you and get 
us ready for the 2022 session.”