United States Attorney Steven Russell announced that Terry A. Poland, 33, of Fremont was arraigned and pleaded guilty today before the Honorable Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge, to Misuse of Public Funds.&nbsp; Poland further agreed that he has or will surrender his law enforcement certification before the date set for sentencing, and that he will not work as a law enforcement officer in the future.&nbsp; Sentencing is scheduled for July 25 before Magistrate Judge Nelson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

During February 2020 to January 2021, Poland purchased about 27 gift cards in four transactions from a sporting goods store operating in Nebraska, using the charge account that the City of Oakland had at the store.&nbsp; The total value of the gift cards that Poland acquired with Oakland’s funds was $14,631.00.

Poland used the gift cards to acquire items for the use of himself and family members.&nbsp; Poland purchased among other things women’s and children’s clothing, an ice fishing house, an auger, fishing equipment and a basketball backboard. Poland&nbsp;acquired the basketball backboard on or about March 22, 2020, in the amount of $949.99.&nbsp;&nbsp;Poland made most purchases using the gift cards at store locations in Nebraska but made at least one purchase online.&nbsp;

An outside auditor questioned the acquisition of the gift cards.&nbsp; At the request of the outside auditor, the Oakland City Clerk requested additional receipts from Poland.&nbsp; Poland stated that all the gift cards were used to purchase ammunition for the Oakland Police Department and provided to the City Clerk five purported receipts, each captioned “Purchase Statement.”&nbsp; Each Purchase Statement was purportedly from the store and reflected the purchase of ammunition on a particular date during August 2020 to January 2021. &nbsp;

The Purchase Statements that Poland provided to the City Clerk were phony.&nbsp; They were not issued by the store, and the transactions, item numbers and item descriptions did not match the store’s records.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

U.S. Attorney's OfficeUnited States Attorney Steven Russell announced that Terry A. Poland, 33, of Fremont was arraigned and pleaded guilty today before the Honorable Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge, to Misuse of Public Funds.&nbsp; Poland further agreed that he has or will surrender his law enforcement certification before the date set for sentencing, and that he will not work as a law enforcement officer in the future.&nbsp; Sentencing is scheduled for July 25 before Magistrate Judge Nelson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;During February 2020 to January 2021, Poland purchased about 27 gift cards in four transactions from a sporting goods store operating in Nebraska, using the charge account that the City of Oakland had at the store.&nbsp; The total value of the gift cards that Poland acquired with Oakland’s funds was $14,631.00.Poland used the gift cards to acquire items for the use of himself and family members.&nbsp; Poland purchased among other things women’s and children’s clothing, an ice fishing house, an auger, fishing equipment and a basketball backboard. Poland&nbsp;acquired the basketball backboard on or about March 22, 2020, in the amount of $949.99.&nbsp;&nbsp;Poland made most purchases using the gift cards at store locations in Nebraska but made at least one purchase online.&nbsp;An outside auditor questioned the acquisition of the gift cards.&nbsp; At the request of the outside auditor, the Oakland City Clerk requested additional receipts from Poland.&nbsp; Poland stated that all the gift cards were used to purchase ammunition for the Oakland Police Department and provided to the City Clerk five purported receipts, each captioned “Purchase Statement.”&nbsp; Each Purchase Statement was purportedly from the store and reflected the purchase of ammunition on a particular date during August 2020 to January 2021. &nbsp;The Purchase Statements that Poland provided to the City Clerk were phony.&nbsp; They were not issued by the store, and the transactions, item numbers and item descriptions did not match the store’s records.This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Former Neb. police chief pleads guilty to misusing public funds

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it was temporarily keeping in place federal rules for use of an abortion drug, while it takes time to more fully consider the issues raised in a court challenge.

In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the court put a five-day pause on the fast-moving case so the justices can decide whether lower court rulings restricting the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug, mifepristone, should be allowed to take effect in the short term.

The justices are being asked at this point only to determine what parts of an April 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, as modified by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-pill-appeal-fe13d36218f1fb43590aff29b5ba4e9c">an appellate ruling Wednesday</a>, can be in force while the case continues. The order expires late Wednesday, suggesting the court will decide that issue by then.

The court finds itself immersed in a new fight involving abortion less than a year after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

President Joe Biden's administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, the maker of the pill, asked the justices to intervene.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Friday evening that the administration continues “to stand by FDA’s evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and we will continue to support the FDA’s independent, expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs.”

She added, “The stakes of this fight could not be higher in the face of ongoing attacks on women’s health, and we will continue to fight to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.”

A lawyer for the anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations suing over mifepristone said the court's action Friday was “standard operating procedure” and urged the justices to allow the appeals court-ordered changes to take effect by the middle of next week.

The type of order issued by the court Friday, an administrative stay, ordinarily is not an indication of what the justices will do going forward. It was signed by Alito because he handles emergency filings from Texas. Alito also is the author of last year’s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Justice Department and Danco both warned of “regulatory chaos” and harm to women if the high court doesn't block the lower-court rulings that had the effect of tightening FDA rules under which the drug, mifepristone, can be prescribed and dispensed.

The new limits would have taken effect Saturday if the court hadn't acted.

"This application concerns unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote Friday, less than two days after the appellate ruling.

The Biden administration and Danco now want a more lasting order that would keep the current rules in place as long as the legal fight over mifepristone continues. As a fallback, they asked the court to take up the issue, hear arguments and decide by early summer a legal challenge to mifepristone that anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations filed last year.

The court rarely acts so quickly to grant full review of cases before at least one appeals court has thoroughly examined the legal issues involved.

A ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Wednesday would prevent the pill, used in the most common abortion method, from being mailed or prescribed without an in-person visit to a doctor. It also would withdraw the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone for use beyond the seventh week of pregnancy. The FDA says it’s safe through 10 weeks.

Still, the appeals court did not entirely withdraw FDA approval of mifepristone&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-telehealth-mifepristone-9ba8f3ce130fae246e1d87ce428b74a0">while the fight over it continues</a>. The 5th circuit narrowed an April 7 ruling by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-judge-matthew-kacsmaryk-abortion-pill-fda-75964b777ef09593a1ad948c6cfc0237">U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk</a>, whose far-reaching and virtually unprecedented order would have blocked FDA approval of the pill. He gave the administration a week to appeal.

“To the government’s knowledge, this is the first time any court has abrogated FDA’s conditions on a drug’s approval based on a disagreement with the agency’s judgment about safety — much less done so after those conditions have been in effect for years,” Prelogar wrote.

Erin Hawley, a lawyer for the challengers, said in a statement that the FDA has put politics ahead of health concerns in its actions on medication abortion.

“The 5th Circuit rightly required the agency to prioritize women’s health by restoring critical safeguards, and we’ll urge the Supreme Court to keep that accountability in place,” said Hawley, a senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that also argued to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Mifepristone was approved by the FDA more than two decades ago and is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.

Adding to the uncertainty, a separate federal judge in Washington on Thursday clarified his own order from last week to make clear that the FDA is not to do anything that might block mifepristone’s availability in 17 Democrat-led states suing to keep it on the market.

It’s unclear how the FDA can comply with court orders in both cases, a situation that Prelogar described Friday as untenable.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement Friday night, said the April 7 ruling out of Texas poses “an existential threat to the FDA’s authority to review and approve a wide range of drugs. If it stands, no medicine approved by the FDA would be safe from these attacks.”

Use of medication abortion jumped significantly after the FDA's 2016 rule expansion, according to data gathered by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. In 2017, medication abortion accounted for 39% percent of abortions, but by 2020 it had increased to become the most common method, accounting for 53% of all abortions.

Experts have said the use of medication abortion has increased since the court overturned Roe.

When the drug was initially approved, the FDA limited its use to up to seven weeks of pregnancy. It also required three in-person office visits: the first to administer mifepristone, the next to administer the second drug, misoprostol, and the third to address any complications. It also required a doctor’s supervision and a reporting system for any serious consequences of the drug.

If the appeals court’s action stands, those would again be the terms under which mifepristone could be dispensed for now.

At the core of the Texas lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because the agency did not adequately review safety risks.

Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years. While less drastic than completely overturning the drug’s approval, the latest ruling still represents a stark challenge to the FDA’s authority overseeing how prescription drugs are used in the U.S. The ruling late Wednesday overturned multiple decisions made by FDA regulators after years of scientific review.

Common side effects with mifepristone include cramping, bleeding, nausea, headache and diarrhea. In rare cases, women can experience excess bleeding that requires surgery to stop.

Still, in loosening restrictions on mifepristone, FDA regulators cited “exceedingly low rates of serious adverse events.”

More than 5.6 million women in the U.S. had used the drug as of June 2022, according to the FDA. In that period, the agency received 4,200 reports of complications in women, or less than one tenth of 1% of women who took the drug.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/4/1680967457500.png" alt="About 60% of abortions in Kansas involve the abortion pill. photo Associated Press" />
 <figcaption>About 60% of abortions in Kansas involve the abortion pill. photo Associated Press</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it was temporarily keeping in place federal rules for use of an abortion drug, while it takes time to more fully consider the issues raised in a court challenge.In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the court put a five-day pause on the fast-moving case so the justices can decide whether lower court rulings restricting the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug, mifepristone, should be allowed to take effect in the short term.The justices are being asked at this point only to determine what parts of an April 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, as modified by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-pill-appeal-fe13d36218f1fb43590aff29b5ba4e9c">an appellate ruling Wednesday</a>, can be in force while the case continues. The order expires late Wednesday, suggesting the court will decide that issue by then.The court finds itself immersed in a new fight involving abortion less than a year after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.President Joe Biden's administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, the maker of the pill, asked the justices to intervene.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Friday evening that the administration continues “to stand by FDA’s evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and we will continue to support the FDA’s independent, expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs.”She added, “The stakes of this fight could not be higher in the face of ongoing attacks on women’s health, and we will continue to fight to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.”A lawyer for the anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations suing over mifepristone said the court's action Friday was “standard operating procedure” and urged the justices to allow the appeals court-ordered changes to take effect by the middle of next week.The type of order issued by the court Friday, an administrative stay, ordinarily is not an indication of what the justices will do going forward. It was signed by Alito because he handles emergency filings from Texas. Alito also is the author of last year’s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.The Justice Department and Danco both warned of “regulatory chaos” and harm to women if the high court doesn't block the lower-court rulings that had the effect of tightening FDA rules under which the drug, mifepristone, can be prescribed and dispensed.The new limits would have taken effect Saturday if the court hadn't acted."This application concerns unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote Friday, less than two days after the appellate ruling.The Biden administration and Danco now want a more lasting order that would keep the current rules in place as long as the legal fight over mifepristone continues. As a fallback, they asked the court to take up the issue, hear arguments and decide by early summer a legal challenge to mifepristone that anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations filed last year.The court rarely acts so quickly to grant full review of cases before at least one appeals court has thoroughly examined the legal issues involved.A ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Wednesday would prevent the pill, used in the most common abortion method, from being mailed or prescribed without an in-person visit to a doctor. It also would withdraw the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone for use beyond the seventh week of pregnancy. The FDA says it’s safe through 10 weeks.Still, the appeals court did not entirely withdraw FDA approval of mifepristone&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-telehealth-mifepristone-9ba8f3ce130fae246e1d87ce428b74a0">while the fight over it continues</a>. The 5th circuit narrowed an April 7 ruling by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-judge-matthew-kacsmaryk-abortion-pill-fda-75964b777ef09593a1ad948c6cfc0237">U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk</a>, whose far-reaching and virtually unprecedented order would have blocked FDA approval of the pill. He gave the administration a week to appeal.“To the government’s knowledge, this is the first time any court has abrogated FDA’s conditions on a drug’s approval based on a disagreement with the agency’s judgment about safety — much less done so after those conditions have been in effect for years,” Prelogar wrote.Erin Hawley, a lawyer for the challengers, said in a statement that the FDA has put politics ahead of health concerns in its actions on medication abortion.“The 5th Circuit rightly required the agency to prioritize women’s health by restoring critical safeguards, and we’ll urge the Supreme Court to keep that accountability in place,” said Hawley, a senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that also argued to overturn Roe v. Wade.Mifepristone was approved by the FDA more than two decades ago and is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.Adding to the uncertainty, a separate federal judge in Washington on Thursday clarified his own order from last week to make clear that the FDA is not to do anything that might block mifepristone’s availability in 17 Democrat-led states suing to keep it on the market.It’s unclear how the FDA can comply with court orders in both cases, a situation that Prelogar described Friday as untenable.Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement Friday night, said the April 7 ruling out of Texas poses “an existential threat to the FDA’s authority to review and approve a wide range of drugs. If it stands, no medicine approved by the FDA would be safe from these attacks.”Use of medication abortion jumped significantly after the FDA's 2016 rule expansion, according to data gathered by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. In 2017, medication abortion accounted for 39% percent of abortions, but by 2020 it had increased to become the most common method, accounting for 53% of all abortions.Experts have said the use of medication abortion has increased since the court overturned Roe.When the drug was initially approved, the FDA limited its use to up to seven weeks of pregnancy. It also required three in-person office visits: the first to administer mifepristone, the next to administer the second drug, misoprostol, and the third to address any complications. It also required a doctor’s supervision and a reporting system for any serious consequences of the drug.If the appeals court’s action stands, those would again be the terms under which mifepristone could be dispensed for now.At the core of the Texas lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because the agency did not adequately review safety risks.Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years. While less drastic than completely overturning the drug’s approval, the latest ruling still represents a stark challenge to the FDA’s authority overseeing how prescription drugs are used in the U.S. The ruling late Wednesday overturned multiple decisions made by FDA regulators after years of scientific review.Common side effects with mifepristone include cramping, bleeding, nausea, headache and diarrhea. In rare cases, women can experience excess bleeding that requires surgery to stop.Still, in loosening restrictions on mifepristone, FDA regulators cited “exceedingly low rates of serious adverse events.”More than 5.6 million women in the U.S. had used the drug as of June 2022, according to the FDA. In that period, the agency received 4,200 reports of complications in women, or less than one tenth of 1% of women who took the drug.-------------

High court temporarily restores broad availability of abortion pill

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas on Wednesday became the second state to restrict social media use by children, as Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved legislation requiring minors to get their parents’ permission to create a new account.

The bill signed by the Republican governor requires social media companies to contract with third-party vendors to perform age verification checks on new users. The law will apply to new accounts created starting in September.

“While social media can be a great tool and a wonderful resource, it can have a massive negative impact on our kids,” Sanders said before signing the legislation.

The proposal is similar to a first-in-the-nation law that Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed last month. Utah’s law takes effect in March 2024. Several other states are considering similar measures, touted by supporters as a way to protect children. California last year enacted a law requiring tech companies to put kids’ safety first by barring them from profiling children or using personal information in ways that could harm children physically or mentally.

Sanders last month announced the state had filed lawsuits against TikTok and Facebook parent Meta, claiming the social media companies misled consumers about the safety of children on their platforms and the protection of users’ private data.

The legislation has drawn criticism from opponents who said restrictions could raise new privacy concerns and exacerbate the mental health crisis among young people. Experts have also questioned how and if the restrictions could be enforced.

“The governor and the legislators who voted for this bill must not understand the harm it will cause to the privacy and free speech rights of the people they represent, because if they did, I don’t think they could pass it in good conscience,” Jason Kelley, acting director of activism for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.

The restrictions would only apply to social media platforms that generate more than $100 million in annual revenue. It also wouldn’t apply to certain platforms, including LinkedIn, Google and YouTube.

Social media companies that knowingly violate the age verification requirement could face a $2,500 fine for each violation under the new law. The law also prohibits third party vendors from retaining identifying information of users after they’ve been granted access to the social media site.

Republican Sen. Tyler Dees, the Arkansas bill’s sponsor, said the new law “sends a clear message that we want to partner with parents and empower them to protect our children.”

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas on Wednesday became the second state to restrict social media use by children, as Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved legislation requiring minors to get their parents’ permission to create a new account.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">For years, social media companies have gotten away with exploiting kids for profit. Not anymore. I signed a new law today requiring social media companies to verify the age of all new Arkansas users — and if an account holder is under 18, they’ll need parental permission. <a href="https://t.co/k0WO8438wM">pic.twitter.com/k0WO8438wM</a>&mdash; Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) <a href="https://twitter.com/SarahHuckabee/status/1646320020702601216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The bill signed by the Republican governor requires social media companies to contract with third-party vendors to perform age verification checks on new users. The law will apply to new accounts created starting in September.“While social media can be a great tool and a wonderful resource, it can have a massive negative impact on our kids,” Sanders said before signing the legislation.The proposal is similar to a first-in-the-nation law that Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed last month. Utah’s law takes effect in March 2024. Several other states are considering similar measures, touted by supporters as a way to protect children. California last year enacted a law requiring tech companies to put kids’ safety first by barring them from profiling children or using personal information in ways that could harm children physically or mentally.Sanders last month announced the state had filed lawsuits against TikTok and Facebook parent Meta, claiming the social media companies misled consumers about the safety of children on their platforms and the protection of users’ private data.The legislation has drawn criticism from opponents who said restrictions could raise new privacy concerns and exacerbate the mental health crisis among young people. Experts have also questioned how and if the restrictions could be enforced.“The governor and the legislators who voted for this bill must not understand the harm it will cause to the privacy and free speech rights of the people they represent, because if they did, I don’t think they could pass it in good conscience,” Jason Kelley, acting director of activism for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.The restrictions would only apply to social media platforms that generate more than $100 million in annual revenue. It also wouldn’t apply to certain platforms, including LinkedIn, Google and YouTube.Social media companies that knowingly violate the age verification requirement could face a $2,500 fine for each violation under the new law. The law also prohibits third party vendors from retaining identifying information of users after they’ve been granted access to the social media site.Republican Sen. Tyler Dees, the Arkansas bill’s sponsor, said the new law “sends a clear message that we want to partner with parents and empower them to protect our children.”

Another state will require parents OK for kids on social media

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Last year it was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/uvalde-school-shooting">Uvalde</a>. Now it's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nashville-school-shooting-covenant-school-5da45b469ccb6c9533bbddf20c1bfe16">Nashville</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/louisville-bank-shooting-9826ea39f24ff9dcf3cb5390c04be47b">Louisville</a>. For the second year in a row, the National Rifle Association is holding its annual convention within days of mass shootings that shook the nation.

The three-day gathering kicked off Friday with thousands of the organization’s most active members at Indianapolis’ convention center attracting a bevy of top Republican presidential candidates — enough that it could help shape the early part of next year’s GOP primary race.

It illustrates the stark reality that such shootings have become enough of the fabric of American life that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-school-shooting-nra-convention-212dfd1b57474f1ab208d4a72521a010">the NRA can no longer schedule around them</a>. Nor does it really want to: The convention falls on the second anniversary of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/fedex-indianapolis-mass-shooting-e92ad3117c56357b3b2c71a2903e68a8">mass shooting at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis</a>&nbsp;that killed nine people.

In brief remarks, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre didn’t mention the recent mass shootings.

“Gun-hating politicians should never go to bed unafraid of what this association and all of our millions of members can do to their political careers,” LaPierre said.

But Randy Conner, a pistol and rifle instructor for the NRA from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, expressed the sentiment of many attendees when he said in an interview that blaming firearms for mass shootings is misguided: “A gun is not dangerous until somebody picks it up,” he said.

“No one wants to see the violence you see in schools and stuff today,” Conner said. “But I don’t think taking the guns away from ordinary citizens is going to change any of that at all.”

Former President Donald Trump will be speaking at the gathering, his first public appearance since being&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arraignment-hush-money-81225510ef7638494852816878f612f0#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,his%20first%20White%20House%20campaign.">arrested and arraigned in New York last week</a>&nbsp;on felony charges stemming from a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. His Secret Service protection means attendees can't have guns at the convention.

Also speaking Friday was Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, who is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pence-trump-republican-2024-election-ffc7babf74068ab6071a19e897e780b9">considering his own 2024 White House bid</a>&nbsp;— the first time they have addressed the same campaign event on the same day since their estrangement following the Jan. 6, 2021,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">insurrection at the U.S. Capitol</a>.

Pence, who was met by scattered boos before his NRA speech, has skipped a number of conservative gatherings in recent years, including the Conservative Political Action Conference as well as the Faith &amp; Freedom Coalition’s annual gathering after he was booed and heckled there in 2021.

The former vice president noted shootings at a Louisville, Kentucky, bank that killed five people this week and at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee, on March 27 that killed three 9-year-olds and three staff members. But he said, “We don’t need gun control. We need crime control.”

“We don’t need lectures about the liberties of law-abiding citizens," Pence said. “We need solutions to protect our kids.”

Instead of fewer guns, Pence called for more institutions for the mentally ill and federal funding for armed school officers. He also called for a federal death penalty statute with expedited appeal to punish the perpetrators of mass shootings more quickly.

“To Joe Biden and the gun control extremists, I say: Give up on your pipe dreams of gun confiscation. Stop endangering our lives with gun bans," Pence said.

Two GOP Trump critics — former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/asa-hutchinson-president-2024-election-3a55855b1914d6e61338d1c8576a817f">announced his 2024 campaign</a>&nbsp;after news of the former president's indictment broke, and New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who may launch his own White House bid — are also speaking.

Offering video messages are former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-running-for-president-f28052019e8ac3846cd125b3d9614d4f">began her 2024 campaign in February</a>; South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who announced a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/exploratory-committee-president-tim-scott-2024-b129664cb44862100e43e2930e75efb3">presidential exploratory committee</a>&nbsp;this week, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is seen as a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/desantis-florida-trump-president-2024-election-00b8335b1a2dd4d08fb216e4b609f6a3">top rival to Trump</a>&nbsp;even though he’s yet to jump into the race.

Pain over the Louisville and Nashville shooting rampages has crossed party lines. Kentucky Democratic Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-health-covid-kentucky-steve-beshear-e6dd4d00c92502d4814451d6e9995ed8">Andy Beshear</a>&nbsp;talked about having a friend killed in the Louisville shooting, while Republican Tennessee Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-abortion-health-covid-6e6d211ca65d625eef90d91ee8f4567d">Bill Lee</a>&nbsp;said he had friends killed during the Nashville school attack.

The NRA convention's tone was as defiant as last year, when the group held its convention in Houston just three days after the massacre of 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school across Texas in the town of Uvalde.

Further overlapping with recent tragedy, Pence and some of the other speakers plan to follow up their NRA speeches by traveling to Nashville to meet with top GOP donors gathered there.

“Every significant national Republican, every Republican that’s thrown their hat in the ring to run for president, is showing up this weekend to pledge their undying loyalty to the NRA and the gun lobby,” said Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who championed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-signs-gun-violence-bill-c21249287f976c2c164d8753205c2e6d">bipartisan legislation</a>&nbsp;that passed last year and imposed some new federal gun restrictions after the Uvalde shooting. “Our kids are being hunted, and the NRA’s business model is to give aid to the hunters.”

Indeed, support for gun rights among Republican voters remains higher than for voters overall. Some 56% of voters in last fall’s midterm elections said they want to see stricter nationwide gun laws, compared with just 28% of Republicans, according to AP VoteCast, a wide-ranging survey of the electorate.

About half of Republicans said gun laws should be left as they are.

Also on display Friday was the resurgence of the NRA and the key role it is poised to play in next year's presidential race — in a stark departure from 2020. Back then, the organization was trying to regroup and saw its membership and political spending decline following serious legal and financial turmoil — including&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nra-bankruptcy-dismissed-a281b888b64d391374f24539a820d60f">a failed bankruptcy effort</a>, a class action lawsuit and a fraud investigation.

Trump, meanwhile, has a contradictory history on guns. The NRA was a key backer of his 2016 campaign, spending some $30 million to support a candidate who sometimes mentioned carrying his own gun and vowed to eliminate gun-free zones in schools and on military bases. Trump also pledged to establish a national right to carry.

But, as the country reeled from a series of mass shootings,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/shootings-north-america-us-news-ap-top-news-las-vegas-6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af">Trump’s administration banned bump stocks</a>, which were used in a 2017 attack on a Las Vegas country music concert that killed 60 people. After the Parkland school shooting in Florida the following year,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-donald-trump-violence-gun-politics-politics-75db363bc4fb4779b92d4582f5d5bb70">Trump urged congressional Republicans to expand background checks</a>&nbsp;and proposed seizing guns from mentally ill people.

He also suggested raising the minimum age to buy assault rifles from 18 to 21, and suggested he was open to a conversation about reviving assault weapons bans. After later meeting with the NRA, however, Trump abandoned his push, instead focusing on arming teachers and making schools more secure.

Donna Alberts, who traveled around 600 miles (965 kilometers) from Greenbriar, Arkansas, for the convention, said nothing could sway her vote for Trump in 2024.

“He’s a good man," Alberts said, “and he does what he says he’s going to do, and he loves this country.”

Gun rights advocates continue to celebrate&nbsp;<a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/Americans%20have%20a%20right%20to%20carry%20firearms%20in%20public%20for%20self-defense">a Supreme Court decision last June</a>&nbsp;that said&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8">Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense</a>. That opened the door to a wave of challenges to firearm restrictions across the country by changing the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions.

Amid upheaval in the wake of the ruling, courts have declared unconstitutional laws including federal measures designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and defendants under felony indictment, as well as a ban on possessing guns with the serial number removed. Courts are also considering challenges to state bans on AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles.

Attempting to counter gun rights advocates has been an ascendant gun safety movement that has poured tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns. That includes Moms Demand Action, which was among a coalition of groups that derided Friday’s speeches as “a cattle call of far-right" presidential candidates.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/4/1681497492227.png" alt="The NRA calls the convention “one of the most politically significant and popular events in the country, featuring our nation’s top Second Amendment leaders.-image courtesy NRA" />
 <figcaption>The NRA calls the convention “one of the most politically significant and popular events in the country, featuring our nation’s top Second Amendment leaders.-image courtesy NRA</figcaption>
 </figure>INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Last year it was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/uvalde-school-shooting">Uvalde</a>. Now it's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nashville-school-shooting-covenant-school-5da45b469ccb6c9533bbddf20c1bfe16">Nashville</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/louisville-bank-shooting-9826ea39f24ff9dcf3cb5390c04be47b">Louisville</a>. For the second year in a row, the National Rifle Association is holding its annual convention within days of mass shootings that shook the nation.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Former Vice President and Indiana Governor closes out his speech STRONG at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NRAConvention?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NRAConvention</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ge7f1H8l3A">pic.twitter.com/Ge7f1H8l3A</a>&mdash; NRA (@NRA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1646949679492374564?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 14, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The three-day gathering kicked off Friday with thousands of the organization’s most active members at Indianapolis’ convention center attracting a bevy of top Republican presidential candidates — enough that it could help shape the early part of next year’s GOP primary race.It illustrates the stark reality that such shootings have become enough of the fabric of American life that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-school-shooting-nra-convention-212dfd1b57474f1ab208d4a72521a010">the NRA can no longer schedule around them</a>. Nor does it really want to: The convention falls on the second anniversary of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/fedex-indianapolis-mass-shooting-e92ad3117c56357b3b2c71a2903e68a8">mass shooting at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis</a>&nbsp;that killed nine people.In brief remarks, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre didn’t mention the recent mass shootings.“Gun-hating politicians should never go to bed unafraid of what this association and all of our millions of members can do to their political careers,” LaPierre said.But Randy Conner, a pistol and rifle instructor for the NRA from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, expressed the sentiment of many attendees when he said in an interview that blaming firearms for mass shootings is misguided: “A gun is not dangerous until somebody picks it up,” he said.“No one wants to see the violence you see in schools and stuff today,” Conner said. “But I don’t think taking the guns away from ordinary citizens is going to change any of that at all.”Former President Donald Trump will be speaking at the gathering, his first public appearance since being&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arraignment-hush-money-81225510ef7638494852816878f612f0#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,his%20first%20White%20House%20campaign.">arrested and arraigned in New York last week</a>&nbsp;on felony charges stemming from a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. His Secret Service protection means attendees can't have guns at the convention.Also speaking Friday was Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, who is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pence-trump-republican-2024-election-ffc7babf74068ab6071a19e897e780b9">considering his own 2024 White House bid</a>&nbsp;— the first time they have addressed the same campaign event on the same day since their estrangement following the Jan. 6, 2021,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">insurrection at the U.S. Capitol</a>.Pence, who was met by scattered boos before his NRA speech, has skipped a number of conservative gatherings in recent years, including the Conservative Political Action Conference as well as the Faith &amp; Freedom Coalition’s annual gathering after he was booed and heckled there in 2021.The former vice president noted shootings at a Louisville, Kentucky, bank that killed five people this week and at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee, on March 27 that killed three 9-year-olds and three staff members. But he said, “We don’t need gun control. We need crime control.”“We don’t need lectures about the liberties of law-abiding citizens," Pence said. “We need solutions to protect our kids.”Instead of fewer guns, Pence called for more institutions for the mentally ill and federal funding for armed school officers. He also called for a federal death penalty statute with expedited appeal to punish the perpetrators of mass shootings more quickly.“To Joe Biden and the gun control extremists, I say: Give up on your pipe dreams of gun confiscation. Stop endangering our lives with gun bans," Pence said.Two GOP Trump critics — former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/asa-hutchinson-president-2024-election-3a55855b1914d6e61338d1c8576a817f">announced his 2024 campaign</a>&nbsp;after news of the former president's indictment broke, and New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who may launch his own White House bid — are also speaking.Offering video messages are former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-running-for-president-f28052019e8ac3846cd125b3d9614d4f">began her 2024 campaign in February</a>; South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who announced a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/exploratory-committee-president-tim-scott-2024-b129664cb44862100e43e2930e75efb3">presidential exploratory committee</a>&nbsp;this week, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is seen as a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/desantis-florida-trump-president-2024-election-00b8335b1a2dd4d08fb216e4b609f6a3">top rival to Trump</a>&nbsp;even though he’s yet to jump into the race.Pain over the Louisville and Nashville shooting rampages has crossed party lines. Kentucky Democratic Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-health-covid-kentucky-steve-beshear-e6dd4d00c92502d4814451d6e9995ed8">Andy Beshear</a>&nbsp;talked about having a friend killed in the Louisville shooting, while Republican Tennessee Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-abortion-health-covid-6e6d211ca65d625eef90d91ee8f4567d">Bill Lee</a>&nbsp;said he had friends killed during the Nashville school attack.The NRA convention's tone was as defiant as last year, when the group held its convention in Houston just three days after the massacre of 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school across Texas in the town of Uvalde.Further overlapping with recent tragedy, Pence and some of the other speakers plan to follow up their NRA speeches by traveling to Nashville to meet with top GOP donors gathered there.“Every significant national Republican, every Republican that’s thrown their hat in the ring to run for president, is showing up this weekend to pledge their undying loyalty to the NRA and the gun lobby,” said Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who championed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-signs-gun-violence-bill-c21249287f976c2c164d8753205c2e6d">bipartisan legislation</a>&nbsp;that passed last year and imposed some new federal gun restrictions after the Uvalde shooting. “Our kids are being hunted, and the NRA’s business model is to give aid to the hunters.”Indeed, support for gun rights among Republican voters remains higher than for voters overall. Some 56% of voters in last fall’s midterm elections said they want to see stricter nationwide gun laws, compared with just 28% of Republicans, according to AP VoteCast, a wide-ranging survey of the electorate.About half of Republicans said gun laws should be left as they are.Also on display Friday was the resurgence of the NRA and the key role it is poised to play in next year's presidential race — in a stark departure from 2020. Back then, the organization was trying to regroup and saw its membership and political spending decline following serious legal and financial turmoil — including&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nra-bankruptcy-dismissed-a281b888b64d391374f24539a820d60f">a failed bankruptcy effort</a>, a class action lawsuit and a fraud investigation.Trump, meanwhile, has a contradictory history on guns. The NRA was a key backer of his 2016 campaign, spending some $30 million to support a candidate who sometimes mentioned carrying his own gun and vowed to eliminate gun-free zones in schools and on military bases. Trump also pledged to establish a national right to carry.But, as the country reeled from a series of mass shootings,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/shootings-north-america-us-news-ap-top-news-las-vegas-6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af">Trump’s administration banned bump stocks</a>, which were used in a 2017 attack on a Las Vegas country music concert that killed 60 people. After the Parkland school shooting in Florida the following year,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-donald-trump-violence-gun-politics-politics-75db363bc4fb4779b92d4582f5d5bb70">Trump urged congressional Republicans to expand background checks</a>&nbsp;and proposed seizing guns from mentally ill people.He also suggested raising the minimum age to buy assault rifles from 18 to 21, and suggested he was open to a conversation about reviving assault weapons bans. After later meeting with the NRA, however, Trump abandoned his push, instead focusing on arming teachers and making schools more secure.Donna Alberts, who traveled around 600 miles (965 kilometers) from Greenbriar, Arkansas, for the convention, said nothing could sway her vote for Trump in 2024.“He’s a good man," Alberts said, “and he does what he says he’s going to do, and he loves this country.”Gun rights advocates continue to celebrate&nbsp;<a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/Americans%20have%20a%20right%20to%20carry%20firearms%20in%20public%20for%20self-defense">a Supreme Court decision last June</a>&nbsp;that said&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8">Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense</a>. That opened the door to a wave of challenges to firearm restrictions across the country by changing the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions.Amid upheaval in the wake of the ruling, courts have declared unconstitutional laws including federal measures designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and defendants under felony indictment, as well as a ban on possessing guns with the serial number removed. Courts are also considering challenges to state bans on AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles.Attempting to counter gun rights advocates has been an ascendant gun safety movement that has poured tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns. That includes Moms Demand Action, which was among a coalition of groups that derided Friday’s speeches as “a cattle call of far-right" presidential candidates.___

NRA convention draws top GOP 2024 hopefuls after shootings

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden announced Thursday that hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-access-to-care-business-ca0fad2cc4af777044c1e61b5ec5372e">illegally as children</a>&nbsp;will be able to apply for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-access-to-care-business-ca0fad2cc4af777044c1e61b5ec5372e">health insurance exchanges</a>.

The action will allow participants in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, to access government-funded health insurance programs.

“They’re American in every way except for on paper,” Biden said in a video released on his Twitter page. “We need to give Dreamers the opportunities and support they deserve.”

The action is likely to generate significant pushback from conservative leaders of states that have been reluctant to expand Medicaid and critical of the Biden administration's response to migrants who enter the U.S. illegally. While the federal government provides funding and guidelines for Medicaid, the program is administered by the states.

Then-President Barack Obama launched the 2012 DACA initiative to shield from deportation immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents as children and to allow them to work legally in the country. However, the immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” were still ineligible for government-subsidized health insurance programs because they did not meet the definition for having “lawful presence” in the U.S. Biden's Department of Health and Human Services will aim to change that by the end of the month.

The White House action comes as the DACA program is in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-united-states-immigration-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-program-congress-6108ffa1d6e77c65e88438cdc1d6552e">legal peril</a>&nbsp;and the number of people eligible is shrinking.

An estimated 580,000 people were still enrolled in DACA at the end of last year, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. That number is down from previous years. Court orders currently prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from processing new applications. The DACA program has been mired in legal challenges for years, while Congress has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-asylum-trump-biden-gang-of-eight-3d8007e72928665b66d8648be0e3e31f">unable to reach consensus</a>&nbsp;on broader immigration reforms.

DACA recipients can work legally and must pay taxes, but they don’t have full legal status and are denied many benefits, including access to federally funded health insurance, available to U.S. citizens and foreigners living in the U.S.

Paloma Bouhid, 26, a DACA recipient originally from Brazil and small business owner in Orlando, Florida, where she grew up, said the announcement was a “huge sigh of relief.” Bouhid said she began her business in 2021 after losing her job with the Walt Disney company in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but being self-employed meant she had to pay $500 a month for private insurance following a health scare last year.

“This past year I have really been scrambling to just get all of my doctors appointments in,” Bouhid said. “Any doctor’s visits due, everything that I possibly can, because prior to today’s announcement, I really couldn’t afford to keep it any more than the year I have had it.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people signed up for Medicaid, the program that provides health care coverage for the poorest Americans. And the government increased federal subsidies to drive down the cost of insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace. As of last year, just 8% of Americans were without health insurance, according to Health and Human Services.

But immigrants living in the U.S. without documentation are far more likely than others to not have health insurance. More than a third of DACA recipients are estimated to be without health care coverage, HHS said. About half of the roughly 20 million immigrants who are living in the U.S. without documentation are uninsured, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/fact-sheet/health-coverage-and-care-of-immigrants/amp/">research from the Kaiser Family Foundation</a>.

Providing more people with insurance could have a positive impact on the entire health care system because it would give more people access to routine checkups and avoid emergency visits, said Jamila Michener, associate professor of government and policy at Cornell University.

“Having sizeable groups of people who live, work, go to school and make their home in the U.S. but cannot access vital health benefits is bad for everyone," Michener said in an email. “It makes preventive care less accessible thus driving up the cost of emergency care.”

Jose Muñoz, national communications manager for immigration advocacy organization United We Dream, said the announcement was a “major victory.” He said that until today, hundreds of thousands of people who benefit from DACA have been obligated to pay higher quantities for private insurance if their employers did not offer insurance or they were self-employed, or go uninsured.

“When you are thinking about going to the doctor for an annual checkup or like when you’re sick, those are a part of life and it is such a human need,” Muñoz said. “Unfortunately for far too many people, especially for undocumented people, getting affordable health insurance is often inaccessible.”

Jose Magaña-Salgado, founder of the Masa consulting group and a DACA recipient, said that growing up he witnessed his cousin, who was undocumented, be put in hospice and pass away after being diagnosed with cancer because she did not have insurance to help her pay for treatment. Magaña-Salgado has spent years advocating for health insurance for his fellow recipients and all immigrants.

“I went for several years without health insurance wondering if a medical bill was going to send me to bankruptcy or, even worse, lead to passing away early,” Magaña-Salgado said.

While there’s bipartisan support to enact some sort of protections for the immigrants, negotiations have often broken down over in debates about border security and whether an expansion of protections might induce others to try to enter the U.S. without permission. Biden, a Democrat, has repeatedly called on Congress to provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Other classes of immigrants — including asylum seekers and people with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigrants-temporary-protected-status-775e2b0ae18d32478db1124efb88a4be">temporary protected status</a>&nbsp;— are already eligible to purchase insurance through the marketplaces of the ACA, Obama’s 2010 health care law, often called “Obamacare.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/6/1592490581956.png" alt="The action will allow participants in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, to access government-funded health insurance programs.-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>The action will allow participants in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, to access government-funded health insurance programs.-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden announced Thursday that hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-access-to-care-business-ca0fad2cc4af777044c1e61b5ec5372e">illegally as children</a>&nbsp;will be able to apply for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-access-to-care-business-ca0fad2cc4af777044c1e61b5ec5372e">health insurance exchanges</a>.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Today, my Administration is announcing our plan to expand health coverage for Dreamers, the thousands of young people brought to the U.S. as kids. We’re not done fighting for their pathway to citizenship, but we&#39;re getting them the opportunities they deserve in the meantime. <a href="https://t.co/4eqNMMNxtt">pic.twitter.com/4eqNMMNxtt</a>&mdash; President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1646514773042032640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The action will allow participants in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, to access government-funded health insurance programs.“They’re American in every way except for on paper,” Biden said in a video released on his Twitter page. “We need to give Dreamers the opportunities and support they deserve.”The action is likely to generate significant pushback from conservative leaders of states that have been reluctant to expand Medicaid and critical of the Biden administration's response to migrants who enter the U.S. illegally. While the federal government provides funding and guidelines for Medicaid, the program is administered by the states.Then-President Barack Obama launched the 2012 DACA initiative to shield from deportation immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents as children and to allow them to work legally in the country. However, the immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” were still ineligible for government-subsidized health insurance programs because they did not meet the definition for having “lawful presence” in the U.S. Biden's Department of Health and Human Services will aim to change that by the end of the month.The White House action comes as the DACA program is in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-united-states-immigration-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-program-congress-6108ffa1d6e77c65e88438cdc1d6552e">legal peril</a>&nbsp;and the number of people eligible is shrinking.An estimated 580,000 people were still enrolled in DACA at the end of last year, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. That number is down from previous years. Court orders currently prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from processing new applications. The DACA program has been mired in legal challenges for years, while Congress has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-asylum-trump-biden-gang-of-eight-3d8007e72928665b66d8648be0e3e31f">unable to reach consensus</a>&nbsp;on broader immigration reforms.DACA recipients can work legally and must pay taxes, but they don’t have full legal status and are denied many benefits, including access to federally funded health insurance, available to U.S. citizens and foreigners living in the U.S.Paloma Bouhid, 26, a DACA recipient originally from Brazil and small business owner in Orlando, Florida, where she grew up, said the announcement was a “huge sigh of relief.” Bouhid said she began her business in 2021 after losing her job with the Walt Disney company in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but being self-employed meant she had to pay $500 a month for private insurance following a health scare last year.“This past year I have really been scrambling to just get all of my doctors appointments in,” Bouhid said. “Any doctor’s visits due, everything that I possibly can, because prior to today’s announcement, I really couldn’t afford to keep it any more than the year I have had it.”During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people signed up for Medicaid, the program that provides health care coverage for the poorest Americans. And the government increased federal subsidies to drive down the cost of insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace. As of last year, just 8% of Americans were without health insurance, according to Health and Human Services.But immigrants living in the U.S. without documentation are far more likely than others to not have health insurance. More than a third of DACA recipients are estimated to be without health care coverage, HHS said. About half of the roughly 20 million immigrants who are living in the U.S. without documentation are uninsured, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/fact-sheet/health-coverage-and-care-of-immigrants/amp/">research from the Kaiser Family Foundation</a>.Providing more people with insurance could have a positive impact on the entire health care system because it would give more people access to routine checkups and avoid emergency visits, said Jamila Michener, associate professor of government and policy at Cornell University.“Having sizeable groups of people who live, work, go to school and make their home in the U.S. but cannot access vital health benefits is bad for everyone," Michener said in an email. “It makes preventive care less accessible thus driving up the cost of emergency care.”Jose Muñoz, national communications manager for immigration advocacy organization United We Dream, said the announcement was a “major victory.” He said that until today, hundreds of thousands of people who benefit from DACA have been obligated to pay higher quantities for private insurance if their employers did not offer insurance or they were self-employed, or go uninsured.“When you are thinking about going to the doctor for an annual checkup or like when you’re sick, those are a part of life and it is such a human need,” Muñoz said. “Unfortunately for far too many people, especially for undocumented people, getting affordable health insurance is often inaccessible.”Jose Magaña-Salgado, founder of the Masa consulting group and a DACA recipient, said that growing up he witnessed his cousin, who was undocumented, be put in hospice and pass away after being diagnosed with cancer because she did not have insurance to help her pay for treatment. Magaña-Salgado has spent years advocating for health insurance for his fellow recipients and all immigrants.“I went for several years without health insurance wondering if a medical bill was going to send me to bankruptcy or, even worse, lead to passing away early,” Magaña-Salgado said.While there’s bipartisan support to enact some sort of protections for the immigrants, negotiations have often broken down over in debates about border security and whether an expansion of protections might induce others to try to enter the U.S. without permission. Biden, a Democrat, has repeatedly called on Congress to provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children.Other classes of immigrants — including asylum seekers and people with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigrants-temporary-protected-status-775e2b0ae18d32478db1124efb88a4be">temporary protected status</a>&nbsp;— are already eligible to purchase insurance through the marketplaces of the ACA, Obama’s 2010 health care law, often called “Obamacare.”

🎥Biden to give DACA illegals healthcare not U.S. citizenship

By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/13/opportunity-scholarship-bill-advances-to-provide-tax-credits-for-private-school-scholarships/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — Nebraska would no longer be the only state in the union 
that doesn’t provide some sort of “school choice” under a bill sent to 
final-round approval Thursday.

Legislative Bill 753 would permit state tax credits for donations to 
organizations that provide scholarships to kids to attend private and 
parochial schools. An estimated 5,000 students could switch to private 
schools, a legislative fiscal note says, and some senators predict it 
would lead to opening of more private and religious schools.

Initially, $25 million a year would be allowed for the credits, but 
the credits could eventually rise to $100 million a year. That would be 
more than the state spends a year on the State Patrol ($80 million a 
year) but about 10% of what Nebraska spends each year on state aid to 
K-12 public schools.

Advocates portrayed the bill as a way to allow students, particularly
 low-income kids, the opportunity to attend a private school if they 
aren’t thriving in a public institution.

They cited three inner-city Catholic schools in Omaha where almost 
all students qualify for free school lunches, where very few are 
Catholic and where 94% graduate from high school on time, compared to 
78% in the Omaha Public Schools.

“This bill allows children to find the best school that fits their 
needs, even if they can’t afford tuition,” said State Sen. Lou Ann 
Linehan of Elkhorn, who has worked seven years to pass a school choice 
measure.

LB 753, which has the support of Gov. Jim Pillen, advanced from second-round debate on a 33-11 vote.

Four hours of debate on the bill focused mainly on its fiscal impact 
on public school funding and whether the measure was a “workaround” to 
provide public funds to private schools.

Two attorneys opposed to the bill, Sens. George Dungan of Lincoln and
 John Cavanaugh of Omaha, questioned whether LB 753 violated a state 
constitutional prohibition on providing public aid to religious 
institutions.

Dungan cited a <a target="_blank" href="https://lawreview.unl.edu/uncertain-fate-lb-753-under-article-vii-section-11-nebraska-constitution%E2%80%99s-no-aid-provision">Nebraska Law Review article</a> in February by Anthony Schutz of the University of Nebraska College of Law that questioned whether the bill was constitutional.

It’s not “cut and dried,” the senator said, adding that LB 753 appeared to be a “workaround” to make it constitutional.

But Linehan disputed that, citing Nebraska Supreme Court rulings that
 stated that it was OK to provide public funds to private schools.

She said LB 753 would not be an “appropriation” of state funds because it’s a tax credit.

“It’s not an appropriation if we never collect the money,” Linehan said.

The tax credits, under the bill, would not go directly to schools but
 to “scholarship granting organizations,” which would provide 
scholarships, estimated to average $5,000 a year, to students.

Critics said that providing tax credits to private schools would 
reduce funds for public schools and might stress the state budget 
eventually.

A<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/FN/LB753_20230404-105929.pdf"> new fiscal note on the bill</a>,
 prepared earlier this month, stated that if 5,000 students, as 
projected, switch from public to private schools in the state’s 11 
largest school districts, it would reduce state aid to those schools by 
nearly $12 million due to the loss of students. But if the switches 
happened in a broader group of districts, there would be a mix of school
 aid winners and losers, with a projected overall hike in school aid of 
$92,000.

Nebraska and North Dakota have been the only states that didn’t 
provide some government funds for private/parochial education, but on 
Thursday, the North Dakota House gave final approval for a bill that 
provides funds for students to attend private schools.

A representative of the powerful state teachers union, the Nebraska 
State Education Association, has pledged to launch an initiative 
petition drive and put the issue before state voters if LB 753 passes.

Opponents of school choice say that once a state provides school 
choice, the programs get more expensive and expand into charter schools 
and vouchers — something supporters of LB 753 discount.

Two senators who represent North Omaha, Justin Wayne and Terrell 
McKinney, have supported the bill as giving children in their districts 
an option to public schools.

Another supporter of the bill, Omaha Sen. Brad von Gillern, said he 
expected that passage of the measure would aid in the construction of 
more private schools.

Von Gillern, who said he served as an elder at West Omaha’s Lifegate 
Church until October, said a coalition of groups, including Lifegate, is
 talking about opening a Christian high school in Omaha. The elementary 
school at Lifegate, he added, has a waiting list.

“There’s definitely a need,” von Gillern said.

The senator said he didn’t consider his former post with the church 
and voting on LB 753 as any kind of conflict of interest. The 
Opportunity Scholarships would go to students, not the church or school,
 von Gillern said, and the success of a Christian school would be 
determined by how well it educates students.

Lawmakers did adopt one amendment to LB 753 on Thursday that had been
 suggested by Sens. Jana Hughes of Seward and Barry DeKay of Niobrara.

Hughes said she was concerned that funds given to scholarship 
granting organizations (SGOs) didn’t create a “tax shelter.” Her 
amendment requires that unused scholarship funds would be transferred to
 other SGOs or given to the state general fund.

DeKay said his part of the amendment would insure that there was a 
re-evaluation of the opportunity scholarship program after three years 
to ensure it was improving educational outcomes.

A similar opportunity scholarship bill failed to pass last year, but a national school choice group, <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/02/27/betsy-devos-two-others-spent-big-on-nebraska-legislative-races/">funded by former U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos</a>, spent heavily last fall to get state senators elected who support the idea.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/4/1681479175566.png" alt="State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan of Elkhorn. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska News Service)" />
 <figcaption>State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan of Elkhorn. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska News Service)</figcaption>
 </figure>By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/13/opportunity-scholarship-bill-advances-to-provide-tax-credits-for-private-school-scholarships/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — Nebraska would no longer be the only state in the union 
that doesn’t provide some sort of “school choice” under a bill sent to 
final-round approval Thursday.Legislative Bill 753 would permit state tax credits for donations to 
organizations that provide scholarships to kids to attend private and 
parochial schools. An estimated 5,000 students could switch to private 
schools, a legislative fiscal note says, and some senators predict it 
would lead to opening of more private and religious schools.Initially, $25 million a year would be allowed for the credits, but 
the credits could eventually rise to $100 million a year. That would be 
more than the state spends a year on the State Patrol ($80 million a 
year) but about 10% of what Nebraska spends each year on state aid to 
K-12 public schools.<h2>Advocates: Lets students have a choice</h2>Advocates portrayed the bill as a way to allow students, particularly
 low-income kids, the opportunity to attend a private school if they 
aren’t thriving in a public institution.They cited three inner-city Catholic schools in Omaha where almost 
all students qualify for free school lunches, where very few are 
Catholic and where 94% graduate from high school on time, compared to 
78% in the Omaha Public Schools.“This bill allows children to find the best school that fits their 
needs, even if they can’t afford tuition,” said State Sen. Lou Ann 
Linehan of Elkhorn, who has worked seven years to pass a school choice 
measure.LB 753, which has the support of Gov. Jim Pillen, advanced from second-round debate on a 33-11 vote.<h2>A legal ‘workaround’</h2>Four hours of debate on the bill focused mainly on its fiscal impact 
on public school funding and whether the measure was a “workaround” to 
provide public funds to private schools.Two attorneys opposed to the bill, Sens. George Dungan of Lincoln and
 John Cavanaugh of Omaha, questioned whether LB 753 violated a state 
constitutional prohibition on providing public aid to religious 
institutions.Dungan cited a <a target="_blank" href="https://lawreview.unl.edu/uncertain-fate-lb-753-under-article-vii-section-11-nebraska-constitution%E2%80%99s-no-aid-provision">Nebraska Law Review article</a> in February by Anthony Schutz of the University of Nebraska College of Law that questioned whether the bill was constitutional.It’s not “cut and dried,” the senator said, adding that LB 753 appeared to be a “workaround” to make it constitutional.But Linehan disputed that, citing Nebraska Supreme Court rulings that
 stated that it was OK to provide public funds to private schools.<h2>Not an ‘appropriation’</h2>She said LB 753 would not be an “appropriation” of state funds because it’s a tax credit.“It’s not an appropriation if we never collect the money,” Linehan said.The tax credits, under the bill, would not go directly to schools but
 to “scholarship granting organizations,” which would provide 
scholarships, estimated to average $5,000 a year, to students.Critics said that providing tax credits to private schools would 
reduce funds for public schools and might stress the state budget 
eventually.A<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/FN/LB753_20230404-105929.pdf"> new fiscal note on the bill</a>,
 prepared earlier this month, stated that if 5,000 students, as 
projected, switch from public to private schools in the state’s 11 
largest school districts, it would reduce state aid to those schools by 
nearly $12 million due to the loss of students. But if the switches 
happened in a broader group of districts, there would be a mix of school
 aid winners and losers, with a projected overall hike in school aid of 
$92,000.<h2>North Dakota bill awaits signature</h2>Nebraska and North Dakota have been the only states that didn’t 
provide some government funds for private/parochial education, but on 
Thursday, the North Dakota House gave final approval for a bill that 
provides funds for students to attend private schools.A representative of the powerful state teachers union, the Nebraska 
State Education Association, has pledged to launch an initiative 
petition drive and put the issue before state voters if LB 753 passes.Opponents of school choice say that once a state provides school 
choice, the programs get more expensive and expand into charter schools 
and vouchers — something supporters of LB 753 discount.Two senators who represent North Omaha, Justin Wayne and Terrell 
McKinney, have supported the bill as giving children in their districts 
an option to public schools.Another supporter of the bill, Omaha Sen. Brad von Gillern, said he 
expected that passage of the measure would aid in the construction of 
more private schools.Von Gillern, who said he served as an elder at West Omaha’s Lifegate 
Church until October, said a coalition of groups, including Lifegate, is
 talking about opening a Christian high school in Omaha. The elementary 
school at Lifegate, he added, has a waiting list.“There’s definitely a need,” von Gillern said.The senator said he didn’t consider his former post with the church 
and voting on LB 753 as any kind of conflict of interest. The 
Opportunity Scholarships would go to students, not the church or school,
 von Gillern said, and the success of a Christian school would be 
determined by how well it educates students.Lawmakers did adopt one amendment to LB 753 on Thursday that had been
 suggested by Sens. Jana Hughes of Seward and Barry DeKay of Niobrara.<h2>DeVos group spent heavily</h2>Hughes said she was concerned that funds given to scholarship 
granting organizations (SGOs) didn’t create a “tax shelter.” Her 
amendment requires that unused scholarship funds would be transferred to
 other SGOs or given to the state general fund.DeKay said his part of the amendment would insure that there was a 
re-evaluation of the opportunity scholarship program after three years 
to ensure it was improving educational outcomes.A similar opportunity scholarship bill failed to pass last year, but a national school choice group, <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/02/27/betsy-devos-two-others-spent-big-on-nebraska-legislative-races/">funded by former U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos</a>, spent heavily last fall to get state senators elected who support the idea.

Neb. bill to provide tax credits for private school scholarships advances

By ZACH WENDLING <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/13/nebraska-lawmakers-narrowly-advance-trans-health-care-bill-after-internal-chaos/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN
 — Chaos erupted on the floor of the Nebraska Legislature on Thursday 
after a last-minute effort to consider an “olive branch” amendment on a 
bill to restrict some gender-affirming care for minors.

<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=49961">Legislative Bill 574</a>,
 proposed by State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha, would restrict puberty 
blockers, hormone therapies and genital or non-genital surgeries for 
minors with gender dysphoria.&nbsp;

An <a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/AM/AM975.pdf">amendment</a>
 offered by Kauth, which she described as an “olive branch,” would have 
restricted only surgeries. However, senators voted 11-28 against the 
amendment at Kauth’s request.&nbsp;

All 32 Republican legislators and 
State Sen. Mike McDonnell of Omaha, a Democrat, voted 33-16 to end 
debate and to advance LB 574 after Kauth committed to negotiating a 
final reading amendment. The Legislature is officially nonpartisan.

The 2023 legislative session has been defined by LB 574, with senators using the bill as a catalyst to bring the session to a <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/03/28/rules-changes-fail-to-curb-partisan-rancor-in-nebraska-legislature/">near standstill</a>.

Senators were scheduled to debate LB 574 for four hours before Kauth could introduce a motion to end debate.&nbsp;

However, with less than 30 minutes 
remaining, State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha unexpectedly withdrew three 
priority motions that would postpone or kill the bill. This forced 
immediate consideration of Kauth’s amendment.

“Let’s see the olive branch,” Hunt told Kauth.

But Kauth told Hunt, “We have our votes” for the main bill. She said 
supporters would move ahead despite the “all of a sudden” change.

State Sen. John Arch of La Vista, 
speaker of the Legislature, put the Legislature into a 15-minute pause, 
and then State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln called for the 
Legislature to recess for an additional 30 minutes.

This led to confusion, silence and huddles among key senators, casting doubt on the bill’s future. A change in support from <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/10/success-of-nebraska-proposal-to-restrict-gender-affirming-care-might-hinge-upon-amendment/">just one senator</a> would be enough to kill the bill.

State Sens. Jana Hughes of Seward and Tom Brandt of Plymouth, seen as <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/03/23/nebraska-legislature-advances-bill-to-restrict-trans-health-care-for-minors/">possible swing votes</a> on LB 574, were among those called into conversations.

Once senators returned, Arch said he 
thought Kauth might remove the amendment and wanted to pause to counsel 
Kauth, a freshman legislator, on what options she had with the 
legislation.&nbsp;

Arch said he asked Kauth not to withdraw the amendment and to take a vote.

“I do appreciate your patience with 
this,” Arch told legislators. “This is a difficult time. This is a 
complex problem. And as they say, it impacts not only the public but 
also proceedings of the Legislature.”

Kauth said the change from opponents 
was a “welcome surprise.” Throughout the first round of debate, 
opponents blocked consideration of any amendments.

She encouraged senators to vote 
against her amendment Thursday. In exchange, she promised to negotiate 
perhaps a different amendment for the third and final stage of debate.

State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha 
said the change is “better late than never” and better than nothing, but
 he cautioned senators that any amendment on final reading will include 
additional procedural steps and additional time.

Seven Democrats, who all oppose LB 
574, took the olive branch, voting for Kauth’s amendment: State Sens. 
Carol Blood of Bellevue, Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, Jen Day of Omaha, 
Jane Raybould of Lincoln, Tony Vargas of Omaha, Lynne Walz of Fremont 
and Anna Wishart of Lincoln.

our senators who have cast pivotal 
votes for cloture indicated support for an amendment: State Sen. Myron 
Dorn of Adams, Brandt, Hughes and McDonnell.

Brandt, <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/03/22/second-day-of-debate-on-trans-health-care-bill-brings-personal-stories-to-forefront/">Dorn</a>
 and McDonnell were among 11 who voted for the amendment Thursday. They 
also said they are open to considering a future amendment.

Hughes voted against the amendment in hopes of a different, “better” 
measure. She said this could include a greater focus on mental health.

“I think we can come together and 
make it better,” Hughes said. “You can just take out surgeries but 
you’re still not addressing the problem.”

State Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand 
Island also voted for the amendment but told the Nebraska Examiner he 
mistakenly thought Kauth was in favor of the measure. He said he will 
consider a future negotiated amendment.

Supporters and opponents made their pitches earlier in the day on LB 574.

Kauth said the bill is designed to 
prohibit “experimental” and “irreversible” procedures for minors whose 
brains are still growing. She said there are also restrictions for 
minors regarding tattoos, car seats, alcohol, smoking, helmets and 
certain movies, and the procedures outlined in LB 574 should fall into 
the same category.

Doctors who provide gender-affirming care have <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/10/success-of-nebraska-proposal-to-restrict-gender-affirming-care-might-hinge-upon-amendment/">pushed back</a> on the notion the procedures are “experimental” and “irreversible.”

State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North 
Platte criticized opponents for using LB 574 as the catalyst to 
filibuster all legislation. As of Thursday, the 61st day of the session,
 no bills have passed final reading.

“Frankly, we’re sick of it,” Jacobson said.

State Sen. Christy Armendariz of 
Omaha, who voted for cloture but against the bill in the first round of 
debate, told the Examiner that she holds off on deciding how to vote 
until after debate ends.

She said that supporters, in this 
round of debate, came with a “better story” that was “more convincing.” 
She said she lost trust in some opponents’ language a couple of weeks 
ago and was unable to decipher arguments they were making.

“When I’m trying to evaluate the 
truth, because I don’t have a dog in this fight, I have to go with my 
gut as a parent,” Armendariz said. “As a parent, I’ve always told my 
kids, ‘Don’t do anything permanent to your body, no matter what it is, 
until you’re old enough to make that decision and your brain is fully 
developed.’”

Armendariz said she would not commit to voting one way or another in future debate.&nbsp;

State Sens. George Dungan of Lincoln 
and John Cavanaugh said the bill could be in legal jeopardy if passed, 
on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, for discriminating on the 
basis of sex.

John Cavanaugh said a similar law in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-upholds-preliminary-injunction-against-arkansas-ban-gender-affirming">Arkansas</a>, which is in the same federal court circuit as Nebraska, is currently held up in court.

“[LB 574] will fail the same test as 
the underlying law on the constitutional basis of discrimination in the 
federal court,” he said.

He said certain procedures would be 
prohibited for children with gender dysphoria but not for cisgender 
children. For example, breast augmentation would be allowed for 
cisgender girls but not transgender girls.

Dungan, regarding a future amendment,
 said he accepts the idea of moving forward but that doing so “cannot 
include harming people’s physical person or infringing upon their 
rights.”

“I do not think that you are 
malicious,” Dungan told supporters of LB 574. “I think you are trying to
 help. Please listen: don’t be sympathetic or pity people. Be empathetic
 and understand where people are coming from.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/4/1681479018015.png" alt="State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha, at center, speaks with State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte during debate on LB 574 on Thursday, April 13, 2023, in Lincoln. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha, at center, speaks with State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte during debate on LB 574 on Thursday, April 13, 2023, in Lincoln. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>By ZACH WENDLING <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/13/nebraska-lawmakers-narrowly-advance-trans-health-care-bill-after-internal-chaos/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN
 — Chaos erupted on the floor of the Nebraska Legislature on Thursday 
after a last-minute effort to consider an “olive branch” amendment on a 
bill to restrict some gender-affirming care for minors.<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=49961">Legislative Bill 574</a>,
 proposed by State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha, would restrict puberty 
blockers, hormone therapies and genital or non-genital surgeries for 
minors with gender dysphoria.&nbsp;An <a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/AM/AM975.pdf">amendment</a>
 offered by Kauth, which she described as an “olive branch,” would have 
restricted only surgeries. However, senators voted 11-28 against the 
amendment at Kauth’s request.&nbsp;All 32 Republican legislators and 
State Sen. Mike McDonnell of Omaha, a Democrat, voted 33-16 to end 
debate and to advance LB 574 after Kauth committed to negotiating a 
final reading amendment. The Legislature is officially nonpartisan.<h2>Chaotic ‘olive branch’ amendment</h2>The 2023 legislative session has been defined by LB 574, with senators using the bill as a catalyst to bring the session to a <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/03/28/rules-changes-fail-to-curb-partisan-rancor-in-nebraska-legislature/">near standstill</a>.Senators were scheduled to debate LB 574 for four hours before Kauth could introduce a motion to end debate.&nbsp;However, with less than 30 minutes 
remaining, State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha unexpectedly withdrew three 
priority motions that would postpone or kill the bill. This forced 
immediate consideration of Kauth’s amendment.“Let’s see the olive branch,” Hunt told Kauth.But Kauth told Hunt, “We have our votes” for the main bill. She said 
supporters would move ahead despite the “all of a sudden” change.State Sen. John Arch of La Vista, 
speaker of the Legislature, put the Legislature into a 15-minute pause, 
and then State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln called for the 
Legislature to recess for an additional 30 minutes.This led to confusion, silence and huddles among key senators, casting doubt on the bill’s future. A change in support from <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/10/success-of-nebraska-proposal-to-restrict-gender-affirming-care-might-hinge-upon-amendment/">just one senator</a> would be enough to kill the bill.State Sens. Jana Hughes of Seward and Tom Brandt of Plymouth, seen as <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/03/23/nebraska-legislature-advances-bill-to-restrict-trans-health-care-for-minors/">possible swing votes</a> on LB 574, were among those called into conversations.Once senators returned, Arch said he 
thought Kauth might remove the amendment and wanted to pause to counsel 
Kauth, a freshman legislator, on what options she had with the 
legislation.&nbsp;Arch said he asked Kauth not to withdraw the amendment and to take a vote.“I do appreciate your patience with 
this,” Arch told legislators. “This is a difficult time. This is a 
complex problem. And as they say, it impacts not only the public but 
also proceedings of the Legislature.”Kauth said the change from opponents 
was a “welcome surprise.” Throughout the first round of debate, 
opponents blocked consideration of any amendments.She encouraged senators to vote 
against her amendment Thursday. In exchange, she promised to negotiate 
perhaps a different amendment for the third and final stage of debate.State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha 
said the change is “better late than never” and better than nothing, but
 he cautioned senators that any amendment on final reading will include 
additional procedural steps and additional time.<h2>Changed votes</h2>Seven Democrats, who all oppose LB 
574, took the olive branch, voting for Kauth’s amendment: State Sens. 
Carol Blood of Bellevue, Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, Jen Day of Omaha, 
Jane Raybould of Lincoln, Tony Vargas of Omaha, Lynne Walz of Fremont 
and Anna Wishart of Lincoln.our senators who have cast pivotal 
votes for cloture indicated support for an amendment: State Sen. Myron 
Dorn of Adams, Brandt, Hughes and McDonnell.Brandt, <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/03/22/second-day-of-debate-on-trans-health-care-bill-brings-personal-stories-to-forefront/">Dorn</a>
 and McDonnell were among 11 who voted for the amendment Thursday. They 
also said they are open to considering a future amendment.Hughes voted against the amendment in hopes of a different, “better” 
measure. She said this could include a greater focus on mental health.“I think we can come together and 
make it better,” Hughes said. “You can just take out surgeries but 
you’re still not addressing the problem.”State Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand 
Island also voted for the amendment but told the Nebraska Examiner he 
mistakenly thought Kauth was in favor of the measure. He said he will 
consider a future negotiated amendment.<h2>‘We’re sick of it’</h2>Supporters and opponents made their pitches earlier in the day on LB 574.Kauth said the bill is designed to 
prohibit “experimental” and “irreversible” procedures for minors whose 
brains are still growing. She said there are also restrictions for 
minors regarding tattoos, car seats, alcohol, smoking, helmets and 
certain movies, and the procedures outlined in LB 574 should fall into 
the same category.Doctors who provide gender-affirming care have <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/04/10/success-of-nebraska-proposal-to-restrict-gender-affirming-care-might-hinge-upon-amendment/">pushed back</a> on the notion the procedures are “experimental” and “irreversible.”State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North 
Platte criticized opponents for using LB 574 as the catalyst to 
filibuster all legislation. As of Thursday, the 61st day of the session,
 no bills have passed final reading.“Frankly, we’re sick of it,” Jacobson said.State Sen. Christy Armendariz of 
Omaha, who voted for cloture but against the bill in the first round of 
debate, told the Examiner that she holds off on deciding how to vote 
until after debate ends.She said that supporters, in this 
round of debate, came with a “better story” that was “more convincing.” 
She said she lost trust in some opponents’ language a couple of weeks 
ago and was unable to decipher arguments they were making.“When I’m trying to evaluate the 
truth, because I don’t have a dog in this fight, I have to go with my 
gut as a parent,” Armendariz said. “As a parent, I’ve always told my 
kids, ‘Don’t do anything permanent to your body, no matter what it is, 
until you’re old enough to make that decision and your brain is fully 
developed.’”Armendariz said she would not commit to voting one way or another in future debate.&nbsp;<h2>Potential legal jeopardy</h2>State Sens. George Dungan of Lincoln 
and John Cavanaugh said the bill could be in legal jeopardy if passed, 
on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, for discriminating on the 
basis of sex.John Cavanaugh said a similar law in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-upholds-preliminary-injunction-against-arkansas-ban-gender-affirming">Arkansas</a>, which is in the same federal court circuit as Nebraska, is currently held up in court.“[LB 574] will fail the same test as 
the underlying law on the constitutional basis of discrimination in the 
federal court,” he said.He said certain procedures would be 
prohibited for children with gender dysphoria but not for cisgender 
children. For example, breast augmentation would be allowed for 
cisgender girls but not transgender girls.Dungan, regarding a future amendment,
 said he accepts the idea of moving forward but that doing so “cannot 
include harming people’s physical person or infringing upon their 
rights.”“I do not think that you are 
malicious,” Dungan told supporters of LB 574. “I think you are trying to
 help. Please listen: don’t be sympathetic or pity people. Be empathetic
 and understand where people are coming from.”

Nebraska lawmakers narrowly advance trans health care bill 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday allowed a roughly $6 billion legal settlement to go forward that will cancel student loans for hundreds of thousands of borrowers who say they were misled by their schools.

The justices did not comment in rejecting an emergency plea from Everglades College, Lincoln Educational Services Corp. and American National University. The schools had argued that they were unfairly included on a list of more than 150 institutions, most of them for-profit, linked with alleged misconduct. Lincoln and American are for-profit institutions; Everglades is a not-for-profit.

The justices’ action comes as the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-hearing-2128da75fc27ff3bcc0c3804ebd98aa7">high court is weighing what to do with the Biden administration’s plan to wipe away $400 billion in student debt</a>&nbsp;held by more than 40 million people. A decision on that plan is expected by late June.

The legal challenges have some similarities but the administration is relying on different laws in the two programs.

The class-action settlement was approved late last year by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in response to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-education-0cabfb66daddbea9e804cb2860531775">complaints that the 150-plus schools had made false recruiting claims and left many students unable to find jobs</a>.

The Justice Department has already begun implementing the agreement and said in court that roughly 3,800 borrowers who are part of the settlement attended the three schools.

Lower courts had previously denied the schools’ efforts to halt the settlement while they appeal.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday allowed a roughly $6 billion legal settlement to go forward that will cancel student loans for hundreds of thousands of borrowers who say they were misled by their schools.The justices did not comment in rejecting an emergency plea from Everglades College, Lincoln Educational Services Corp. and American National University. The schools had argued that they were unfairly included on a list of more than 150 institutions, most of them for-profit, linked with alleged misconduct. Lincoln and American are for-profit institutions; Everglades is a not-for-profit.The justices’ action comes as the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-hearing-2128da75fc27ff3bcc0c3804ebd98aa7">high court is weighing what to do with the Biden administration’s plan to wipe away $400 billion in student debt</a>&nbsp;held by more than 40 million people. A decision on that plan is expected by late June.The legal challenges have some similarities but the administration is relying on different laws in the two programs.The class-action settlement was approved late last year by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in response to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-education-0cabfb66daddbea9e804cb2860531775">complaints that the 150-plus schools had made false recruiting claims and left many students unable to find jobs</a>.The Justice Department has already begun implementing the agreement and said in court that roughly 3,800 borrowers who are part of the settlement attended the three schools.Lower courts had previously denied the schools’ efforts to halt the settlement while they appeal.

Supreme Court issues ruling in first of student debt relief cases

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Justice Department said Thursday that it will again go to the Supreme Court over abortion after a lower court ruling allowed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-lawsuit-mifepristone-misoprostol-kacsmaryk-74cb1c4cfab2c04f6cf2696151bc86ef">the abortion pill mifepristone</a>&nbsp;to remain available in the U.S. but reimposed past restrictions on getting and using the drug.

At stake in the accelerating court battle that began in Texas is widespread access to the most common method of abortion in the U.S., less than a year&nbsp;<a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/ss%20than%20a%20year%20after%20the%20reversal%20of%20Roe%20v.%20Wade%20resulted%20in%20more%20than%20a%20dozen%20states%20effectively%20banning%20abortion%20outright.">after the reversal of Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;prompted more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

In a ruling late Wednesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans temporarily narrowed a ruling by a lower court judge in Texas that had&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-mifepristone-texas-ee181214988044c096757696cf2a5f67">completely blocked</a>&nbsp;the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone. But a divided three-judge panel still reduced the period of pregnancy when the drug can be taken and said it could not be dispensed by mail.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774813-5th-circuit-abortion-pill-stay-order">ruling</a>&nbsp;preventing the pill from being sent by mail amounts to another significant constraint of abortion access that could be felt even in states where abortion remains legal, some of which have already begun stockpiling mifepristone over worries that the drug will become unavailable.

The Justice Department said it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order to stop the lower court ruling from taking effect.

“We are going to continue to fight in the courts, we believe the law is on our side, and we will prevail,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday, speaking from Dublin during a visit by President Joe Biden.

Abortion rights groups expressed both relief over FDA approval remaining in place and outrage over the appeals court reinstating restrictions. Whole Woman's Health, an abortion provider that operates six clinics in five states, said in a tweet it was continuing to offer mifepristone in clinics and through virtual services while reviewing the decision.

In the 2-1 decision, the judges put on hold changes made by the regulator since 2016 that relaxed the rules for prescribing and dispensing mifepristone. Those included extending the period of pregnancy when the drug can be used from seven weeks to 10 and allowing it to be dispensed by mail, without any need to visit a doctor’s office.

The panel's decision came just days after the Justice Department appealed last week's far-reaching ruling out of Texas that blocked the FDA’s approval of the pill. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that also argued to overturn Roe v. Wade, and is representing a group of anti-abortion doctors.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/4/1680967457500.png" alt="-About 60% of abortions in Kansas involve the abortion pill. photo Associated Press" />
 <figcaption>-About 60% of abortions in Kansas involve the abortion pill. photo Associated Press</figcaption>
 </figure>AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Justice Department said Thursday that it will again go to the Supreme Court over abortion after a lower court ruling allowed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-lawsuit-mifepristone-misoprostol-kacsmaryk-74cb1c4cfab2c04f6cf2696151bc86ef">the abortion pill mifepristone</a>&nbsp;to remain available in the U.S. but reimposed past restrictions on getting and using the drug.At stake in the accelerating court battle that began in Texas is widespread access to the most common method of abortion in the U.S., less than a year&nbsp;<a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/ss%20than%20a%20year%20after%20the%20reversal%20of%20Roe%20v.%20Wade%20resulted%20in%20more%20than%20a%20dozen%20states%20effectively%20banning%20abortion%20outright.">after the reversal of Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;prompted more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.In a ruling late Wednesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans temporarily narrowed a ruling by a lower court judge in Texas that had&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-mifepristone-texas-ee181214988044c096757696cf2a5f67">completely blocked</a>&nbsp;the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone. But a divided three-judge panel still reduced the period of pregnancy when the drug can be taken and said it could not be dispensed by mail.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774813-5th-circuit-abortion-pill-stay-order">ruling</a>&nbsp;preventing the pill from being sent by mail amounts to another significant constraint of abortion access that could be felt even in states where abortion remains legal, some of which have already begun stockpiling mifepristone over worries that the drug will become unavailable.The Justice Department said it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order to stop the lower court ruling from taking effect.“We are going to continue to fight in the courts, we believe the law is on our side, and we will prevail,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday, speaking from Dublin during a visit by President Joe Biden.Mifepristone was approved by the FDA more than two decades ago and is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.Abortion rights groups expressed both relief over FDA approval remaining in place and outrage over the appeals court reinstating restrictions. Whole Woman's Health, an abortion provider that operates six clinics in five states, said in a tweet it was continuing to offer mifepristone in clinics and through virtual services while reviewing the decision.In the 2-1 decision, the judges put on hold changes made by the regulator since 2016 that relaxed the rules for prescribing and dispensing mifepristone. Those included extending the period of pregnancy when the drug can be used from seven weeks to 10 and allowing it to be dispensed by mail, without any need to visit a doctor’s office.The panel's decision came just days after the Justice Department appealed last week's far-reaching ruling out of Texas that blocked the FDA’s approval of the pill. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that also argued to overturn Roe v. Wade, and is representing a group of anti-abortion doctors.There is virtually no precedent for a lone judge overturning the regulator's medical decisions.Attorneys for the plaintiffs indicated Thursday that they were content with the court's order and did not plan to seek an appeal that might restore the Texas court's full ruling.“The 5th Circuit’s decision is a significant victory for the doctors we represent, women’s health, and every American who deserves an accountable federal government acting within the bounds of the law,” said Erin Hawley, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom.The two judges who voted to tighten restrictions, Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham, are both appointees of former President Donald Trump. The third judge, Catharina Haynes, is an appointee of former President George W. Bush. She said she would have put the lower court ruling on hold entirely for now to allow oral arguments in the case.Adding to the uncertainty, a separate federal judge in Washington state last week ordered the FDA not to do anything that might block mifepristone’s availability in 17 Democrat-led states suing to keep it on the market. The judge in that case clarified Thursday that his order requires the FDA to keep access the same as it was in January in those states, leaving the agency facing conflicting court orders.“This is just as much of a binding court order as whatever comes out of Texas,” said David S. Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law.The New Orleans appeals court judges in the majority in Wednesday's decision noted that the Biden administration and mifepristone’s manufacturer “warn us of significant public consequences” that would result if mifepristone were withdrawn entirely from the market under the lower court ruling.But the judges suggested FDA changes making mifepristone easier to obtain since 2016 were less consequential than its initial approval of the drug in 2000. It would be “difficult” to argue the changes were “so critical to the public given that the nation operated — and mifepristone was administered to millions of women — without them for 16 years” the judges wrote.When the drug was initially approved, the FDA limited its use to up to seven weeks of pregnancy. It also required three in-person office visits: the first to administer mifepristone, the next to administer the second drug, misoprostol, and the third to address any complications. It also required a doctor’s supervision and a reporting system for any serious consequences of the drug.If the appeals court's action stands, those would again be the terms under which mifepristone could be dispensed for now.Democratic leaders in states where abortion remains legal since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-mifepristone-states-lawsuits-ac6dc09c0dd66a146d3ddfde061fc1a6">say they are preparing</a>&nbsp;in case mifepristone becomes restricted. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Tuesday that her state would stockpile 150,000 doses of misoprostol.The White House also has contingency plans in place, but Jean-Pierre held off detailing them while legal action continued. Instead, she described a proposed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-abortion-pills-ruling-mifepristone-texas-c1f4530d67858f6c95cef99282b8b209">new federal rule</a>&nbsp;to limit how law enforcement and state officials collect medical records if they investigate women who flee their home states to seek abortions elsewhere.At the core of the Texas lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because the agency did not adequately review safety risks.Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years. While less drastic than completely overturning the drug's approval, the latest ruling still represents a stark challenge to the FDA’s authority overseeing how prescription drugs are used in the U.S. The panel overturned multiple decisions made by FDA regulators after years of scientific review.Common side effects with mifepristone include cramping, bleeding, nausea, headache and diarrhea. In rare cases, women can experience excess bleeding that requires surgery to stop.Still, in loosening restrictions on mifepristone, FDA regulators cited “exceedingly low rates of serious adverse events.”More than 5.6 million women in the U.S. had used the drug as of June 2022, according to the FDA. In that period, the agency received 4,200 reports of complications in women, or less than one-tenth of 1% of women who took the drug.___AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-lawsuit-mifepristone-misoprostol-kacsmaryk-74cb1c4cfab2c04f6cf2696151bc86ef">the abortion pill mifepristone</a>&nbsp;can still be used for now but restored restrictions on the drug in a decision that the Justice Department said Thursday it would swiftly challenge at the Supreme Court.At stake in an accelerating legal battle that began in Texas is nationwide access to the most common method of abortion in the U.S., less than a year&nbsp;<a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/ss%20than%20a%20year%20after%20the%20reversal%20of%20Roe%20v.%20Wade%20resulted%20in%20more%20than%20a%20dozen%20states%20effectively%20banning%20abortion%20outright.">after the reversal of Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;prompted more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.In a ruling late Wednesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans temporarily narrowed a ruling by a lower court judge in Texas that had&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-mifepristone-texas-ee181214988044c096757696cf2a5f67">completely blocked</a>&nbsp;the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone. But a divided three-judge panel still reduced the period of pregnancy when the drug can be taken and said it could not be dispensed by mail.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774813-5th-circuit-abortion-pill-stay-order">ruling</a>&nbsp;preventing the pill from being sent by mail amounts to another significant constraint of abortion access and was cheered by opponents of the drug. The Justice Department said it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order to put any action on hold.“We are going to continue to fight in the courts, we believe the law is on our side, and we will prevail,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday, speaking from Dublin during a visit by President Joe Biden.Mifepristone was approved by the FDA more than two decades ago and is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.Abortion rights groups expressed relief that the FDA approval would remain in place for now but criticized the court for reinstating restrictions on the drug. Whole Woman's Health, an abortion provider that operates six clinics in five states, said in a tweet it was continuing to offer mifepristone in clinics and through virtual services while reviewing the decision.In the 2-1 vote, the judges put on hold changes made by the regulator since 2016 that relaxed the rules for prescribing and dispensing mifepristone. Those included extending the period of pregnancy when the drug can be used from seven weeks to 10 and allowing it to be dispensed by mail, without any need to visit a doctor’s office.The panel's decision came just days after the Justice Department swiftly appealed the far-reaching ruling by a federal judge in Texas that blocked the FDA’s approval of the pill in a lawsuit by the drug's opponents. There is virtually no precedent for a lone judge overturning the regulator's medical decisions.The lawsuit challenging the drug’s approval was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which also argued for overturning Roe v. Wade and indicated it was content for now in the mifepristone case. Erin Hawley, an attorney for the group, said it had no plans to seek an appeal that might restore the Texas court's full ruling.“The 5th Circuit’s decision is a significant victory for the doctors we represent, women’s health, and every American who deserves an accountable federal government acting within the bounds of the law,” Hawley said.The two judges who voted to tighten restrictions, Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham, are both appointees of former President Donald Trump. The third judge, Catharina Haynes, is an appointee of former President George W. Bush. She said she would have put the lower court ruling on hold entirely for now to allow oral arguments in the case.Adding to the uncertainty, a separate federal judge in Washington last week ordered the FDA not to do anything that might block mifepristone’s availability in 17 Democrat-led states suing to keep it on the market. The judge in that case has not yet to responded to the Justice Department seeking additional clarity this week.The appeals court judges in the majority in Wednesday's decision noted that the Biden administration and mifepristone’s manufacturer “warn us of significant public consequences” that would result if mifepristone were withdrawn entirely from the market under the lower court ruling.But the judges suggested FDA changes making mifepristone easier to obtain since 2016 were less consequential than its initial approval of the drug in 2000. It would be “difficult” to argue the changes were “so critical to the public given that the nation operated — and mifepristone was administered to millions of women — without them for sixteen years” the judges wrote.When the drug was initially approved, the FDA limited its use to up to seven weeks of pregnancy. It also required three in-person office visits: the first to administer mifepristone, the next to administer the second drug, misoprostol, and the third to address any complications. It also required a doctor’s supervision and a reporting system for any serious consequences of the drug.If the appeals court's action stands, those would again be the terms under which mifepristone could be dispensed for now.Democratic leaders in states where abortion remains legal since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-mifepristone-states-lawsuits-ac6dc09c0dd66a146d3ddfde061fc1a6">say they are preparing</a>&nbsp;in case mifepristone becomes restricted. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Tuesday that her state would stockpile 150,000 doses of misoprostol.The White House also has contingency plans in place, but Jean-Pierre held off detailing them while legal action continued. Instead, she described a proposed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-abortion-pills-ruling-mifepristone-texas-c1f4530d67858f6c95cef99282b8b209">new federal rule</a>&nbsp;to limit how law enforcement and state officials collect medical records if they investigate women who flee their home states to seek abortions elsewhere.Pharmaceutical executives this week&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-pills-4b65ecc66d1b908019bdf3843a428d5a">also signed a letter</a>&nbsp;that condemned the Texas ruling and warned that FDA approval of other drugs could be at risk if U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s decision stands.At the core of the Texas lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because the agency did not adequately review safety risks.Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years. While less drastic than completely overturning the drug's approval, the latest ruling still represents a stark challenge to the FDA’s authority overseeing how prescription drugs are used in the U.S. The panel overturned multiple decisions made by FDA regulators after years of scientific review.Common side effects with mifepristone include cramping, bleeding, nausea, headache and diarrhea. In rare cases, women can experience excess bleeding that requires surgery to stop.Still, in loosening restrictions on mifepristone, FDA regulators cited “exceedingly low rates of serious adverse events.”More than 5.6 million women in the U.S. had used the drug as of June 2022, according to the FDA. In that period, the agency received 4,200 reports of complications in women, or less than one tenth of 1% of women who took the drug.