LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Police in Lincoln say one of two men shot over the weekend as they rode in a car on U.S. Highway 77 has died. 

Police say in a news release that 24-year-old Goa Dat, of Omaha, died Monday — two days after he was shot. 

Police say the other victim, a 19-year-old Omaha man, remains hospitalized with gunshot wounds to his torso and an arm. Police say the two men were riding in a car on the highway when they were shot around 3 a.m. Saturday. 

Police say both were taken to a Lincoln hospital in a different private vehicle than the one they were in at the time of the shooting. 

Police believe the men were targeted, but have not been able to track down suspects in the shooting.

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Police in Lincoln say one of two men shot over the weekend as they rode in a car on U.S. Highway 77 has died. Police say in a news release that 24-year-old Goa Dat, of Omaha, died Monday — two days after he was shot. Police say the other victim, a 19-year-old Omaha man, remains hospitalized with gunshot wounds to his torso and an arm. Police say the two men were riding in a car on the highway when they were shot around 3 a.m. Saturday. Police say both were taken to a Lincoln hospital in a different private vehicle than the one they were in at the time of the shooting. Police believe the men were targeted, but have not been able to track down suspects in the shooting.

Police: 1 of 2 people shot on highway in Lincoln has died

NORFOLK, Neb. (AP) — Officials are investigating the death of a worker injured in a crane accident at a Norfolk manufacturing plant over the weekend. 

The Madison County Sheriff's Office says deputies and paramedics were called to the Continental Tire plant late Saturday afternoon by a 911 caller who said a 50-year-old man had fallen from a lift. 

Officials say the worker, Keith Polenske, of rural Randolph, was taken to a local hospital, where he later died of his injuries. 

An investigation showed Polenske had been working on a scissor lift when an automated crane hit the lift, causing it to tip over.

Polenske fell several feet to the floor, causing severe injuries.

NORFOLK, Neb. (AP) — Officials are investigating the death of a worker injured in a crane accident at a Norfolk manufacturing plant over the weekend. The Madison County Sheriff's Office says deputies and paramedics were called to the Continental Tire plant late Saturday afternoon by a 911 caller who said a 50-year-old man had fallen from a lift. Officials say the worker, Keith Polenske, of rural Randolph, was taken to a local hospital, where he later died of his injuries. An investigation showed Polenske had been working on a scissor lift when an automated crane hit the lift, causing it to tip over.Polenske fell several feet to the floor, causing severe injuries.

Worker's death at Norfolk manufacturing plant investigated

WASHINGTON (AP) — As deadlines loom for military and defense civilians to get mandated COVID-19 vaccines, senior leaders must now wrestle with the fate of those who flatly refuse the shots or are seeking exemptions, and <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2828791/with-vaccination-deadlines-approaching-commanders-asked-to-use-compassion-in-en/">how to make sure they are treated fairly and equally.</a>

The vast majority of the active duty force has received at least one shot, but tens of thousands have not. For some it may be a career-ending decision. Others could face transfers, travel restrictions, limits on deployments and requirements to repay bonuses.

Exemption decisions for medical, religious and administrative reasons will be made by unit commanders around the world, on what the Pentagon says will be a “case-by-case” basis. That raises a vexing issue for military leaders who are pushing a vaccine mandate seen as critical to maintaining a healthy force, but want to avoid a haphazard, inconsistent approach with those who refuse.

Brig. Gen. Darrin Cox, surgeon general at Army Forces Command, said commanders want to ensure they are following the rules.

“Because of some of the sensitivities of this particular vaccine, I think that we just wanted to ensure that we were consistent and equitable” in meting out a punishment that would be “a repercussion of continuing to refuse a valid order.”

Military vaccination rates are higher than those of the general population in the United States and the reasons for objecting – often based on misinformation – are similar to those heard throughout the country. But unlike most civilians, military personnel are routinely required to get as many as 17 vaccines, and face penalties for refusing.

The military services are reporting between 1%-7% remain unvaccinated. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has called for compassion in dealings with those troops, which totals nearly 60,000 active duty service members, according to data released last week. Officials say the numbers change daily, and include those who may have gotten or requested an exemption. They have declined to say how many troops are still seeking an exemption or refused the vaccine.

Asked about possible variations in the treatment of those seeking exemptions or refusing the vaccine, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said it’s up to the services. “Each case is going to be treated specifically and individually as it ought to be,” he said.

It unclear how widely religious exemptions will be granted. Under military rules, commanders can take into account the potential impact on a unit’s mission, and reject a religious exemption if it puts performance at risk.

Commanders can also move service members into another job, deny them overseas deployment or limit unit access if they get an exemption or while a request is being reviewed. Those steps may be more common in smaller units such a special operations forces who usually deploy in small numbers.

The Navy has warned that sailors who refuse the shot and don’t get an exemption may have to refund bonuses and other financial payments, based on existing military justice procedures for disobeying a lawful order. The other services are expected to follow similar procedures.

Unvaccinated troops will also be subject to routine testing, distancing guidelines and possibly travel restrictions.

The Air Force may be the test case in some instances, because they are the first to hit a deadline. The more than 335,000 airmen and Space Force guardians must be fully vaccinated by Tuesday, and the Air Guard and Reserve by Dec. 2. According to Air Force data, as many as 12,000 active duty airmen and guardians were still unvaccinated as of late last week. Some have requested or gotten exemptions, others have refused outright. They have until Monday to request exemptions.

Air Force Col. Robert Corby, commander of the 28th Medical Group at Ellsworth Air Force Base, said that after the vaccine became mandatory in late August, appointments for shots at the base clinic doubled. He said troops have an array of questions and concerns, and commanders, chaplains and medical personnel are providing information.

“I think you also have a segment of the population that probably does not feel that they are really at risk for COVID-19,” he added.

Air Force Capt. Molly Lawlor, 28th Bomb Wing chaplain, said a “very small percentage” are seeking a religious exemption at the base. “People are just trying to figure out how this new requirement fits into their belief system and the decisions that they want to make,” she said.

The more than 765,000 Defense Department civilians will be close behind the Air Force, with a mandated vaccine date of Nov. 22. Supervisors are grappling with the complex task of checking and recording the vaccine status of their workers, and determining who will be the final exemption arbiter.

Civilians have until Nov. 8 to seek an exemption, and as of last week, fewer than half had provided vaccination proof. Those who refuse the vaccine and don’t get an exemption will get five days for counseling. If they still refuse, they will be suspended for up to 14 days without pay, and could then be fired.

Vaccination numbers fluctuate for the military services, and drop off considerably for the National Guard and Reserve.

A bit more than half of the Army National Guard has gotten at least one shot, while the Air Guard is at 87%. Air Guard members must be fully vaccinated by early December, while the Army Guard, which is much larger and more widely scattered around the country, has until June,.

The most successful service has been the Navy, which says that only 1% of the force is unvaccinated as of last week — or about 3,500 sailors. The Air Force and Space Force was second, with 3.6% unvaccinated, followed by the Army and Marine Corps at about 7%.

Adm. Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, told The Associated Press that even before the shots were mandated, some warships were seeing vaccination rates of 98%-99%.

“We feel like we’ve been leading the way across the services,” he said. “We’ve been promoting the vaccines since we started vaccinating last December, January timeframe.” For those who don’t want the vaccine, “we’ll deal with those on an individual basis as those challenges come up,” he said.

Marine Col. Speros Koumparakis, commander of Marine Corps Base Hawaii, said that the number of Marines who have requested exemptions at the base is fewer than two dozen, and most of those are seeking religious exemptions.

He said chaplains and pastors have been made available to discuss the religious issues, and he does the initial review of any request. But ultimately, decisions may be made by personnel leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.

The nearly 350,000 Navy sailors and more than 179,000 Marines must be fully vaccinated by Nov. 28, and the reserves by Dec. 28. The Army, the military’s largest service at nearly 490,000, has given active duty soldiers until Dec. 15 to be fully vaccinated. Army National Guard and Reserve have until June 30, 2022. There are a total of almost 800,000 Guard and Reserve troops, with the Army accounting for more than 520,000 of them.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1635861962000.png" alt="Photo U.S. Department of Defense" />
 <figcaption>Photo U.S. Department of Defense</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — As deadlines loom for military and defense civilians to get mandated COVID-19 vaccines, senior leaders must now wrestle with the fate of those who flatly refuse the shots or are seeking exemptions, and <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2828791/with-vaccination-deadlines-approaching-commanders-asked-to-use-compassion-in-en/">how to make sure they are treated fairly and equally.</a>The vast majority of the active duty force has received at least one shot, but tens of thousands have not. For some it may be a career-ending decision. Others could face transfers, travel restrictions, limits on deployments and requirements to repay bonuses.Exemption decisions for medical, religious and administrative reasons will be made by unit commanders around the world, on what the Pentagon says will be a “case-by-case” basis. That raises a vexing issue for military leaders who are pushing a vaccine mandate seen as critical to maintaining a healthy force, but want to avoid a haphazard, inconsistent approach with those who refuse.Brig. Gen. Darrin Cox, surgeon general at Army Forces Command, said commanders want to ensure they are following the rules.“Because of some of the sensitivities of this particular vaccine, I think that we just wanted to ensure that we were consistent and equitable” in meting out a punishment that would be “a repercussion of continuing to refuse a valid order.”Military vaccination rates are higher than those of the general population in the United States and the reasons for objecting – often based on misinformation – are similar to those heard throughout the country. But unlike most civilians, military personnel are routinely required to get as many as 17 vaccines, and face penalties for refusing.The military services are reporting between 1%-7% remain unvaccinated. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has called for compassion in dealings with those troops, which totals nearly 60,000 active duty service members, according to data released last week. Officials say the numbers change daily, and include those who may have gotten or requested an exemption. They have declined to say how many troops are still seeking an exemption or refused the vaccine.Asked about possible variations in the treatment of those seeking exemptions or refusing the vaccine, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said it’s up to the services. “Each case is going to be treated specifically and individually as it ought to be,” he said.It unclear how widely religious exemptions will be granted. Under military rules, commanders can take into account the potential impact on a unit’s mission, and reject a religious exemption if it puts performance at risk.Commanders can also move service members into another job, deny them overseas deployment or limit unit access if they get an exemption or while a request is being reviewed. Those steps may be more common in smaller units such a special operations forces who usually deploy in small numbers.The Navy has warned that sailors who refuse the shot and don’t get an exemption may have to refund bonuses and other financial payments, based on existing military justice procedures for disobeying a lawful order. The other services are expected to follow similar procedures.Unvaccinated troops will also be subject to routine testing, distancing guidelines and possibly travel restrictions.The Air Force may be the test case in some instances, because they are the first to hit a deadline. The more than 335,000 airmen and Space Force guardians must be fully vaccinated by Tuesday, and the Air Guard and Reserve by Dec. 2. According to Air Force data, as many as 12,000 active duty airmen and guardians were still unvaccinated as of late last week. Some have requested or gotten exemptions, others have refused outright. They have until Monday to request exemptions.Air Force Col. Robert Corby, commander of the 28th Medical Group at Ellsworth Air Force Base, said that after the vaccine became mandatory in late August, appointments for shots at the base clinic doubled. He said troops have an array of questions and concerns, and commanders, chaplains and medical personnel are providing information.“I think you also have a segment of the population that probably does not feel that they are really at risk for COVID-19,” he added.Air Force Capt. Molly Lawlor, 28th Bomb Wing chaplain, said a “very small percentage” are seeking a religious exemption at the base. “People are just trying to figure out how this new requirement fits into their belief system and the decisions that they want to make,” she said.The more than 765,000 Defense Department civilians will be close behind the Air Force, with a mandated vaccine date of Nov. 22. Supervisors are grappling with the complex task of checking and recording the vaccine status of their workers, and determining who will be the final exemption arbiter.Civilians have until Nov. 8 to seek an exemption, and as of last week, fewer than half had provided vaccination proof. Those who refuse the vaccine and don’t get an exemption will get five days for counseling. If they still refuse, they will be suspended for up to 14 days without pay, and could then be fired.Vaccination numbers fluctuate for the military services, and drop off considerably for the National Guard and Reserve.A bit more than half of the Army National Guard has gotten at least one shot, while the Air Guard is at 87%. Air Guard members must be fully vaccinated by early December, while the Army Guard, which is much larger and more widely scattered around the country, has until June,.The most successful service has been the Navy, which says that only 1% of the force is unvaccinated as of last week — or about 3,500 sailors. The Air Force and Space Force was second, with 3.6% unvaccinated, followed by the Army and Marine Corps at about 7%.Adm. Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, told The Associated Press that even before the shots were mandated, some warships were seeing vaccination rates of 98%-99%.“We feel like we’ve been leading the way across the services,” he said. “We’ve been promoting the vaccines since we started vaccinating last December, January timeframe.” For those who don’t want the vaccine, “we’ll deal with those on an individual basis as those challenges come up,” he said.Marine Col. Speros Koumparakis, commander of Marine Corps Base Hawaii, said that the number of Marines who have requested exemptions at the base is fewer than two dozen, and most of those are seeking religious exemptions.He said chaplains and pastors have been made available to discuss the religious issues, and he does the initial review of any request. But ultimately, decisions may be made by personnel leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.The nearly 350,000 Navy sailors and more than 179,000 Marines must be fully vaccinated by Nov. 28, and the reserves by Dec. 28. The Army, the military’s largest service at nearly 490,000, has given active duty soldiers until Dec. 15 to be fully vaccinated. Army National Guard and Reserve have until June 30, 2022. There are a total of almost 800,000 Guard and Reserve troops, with the Army accounting for more than 520,000 of them.

Military weighs penalties for those who refuse COVID vaccine

MISSION, Kan. (AP) — School board races, once sleepy and localized, have become&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-education-coronavirus-pandemic-school-boards-e41350b7d9e3662d279c2dad287f7009">the new front in a culture war</a>&nbsp;raging across the nation as resentments over COVID-19 restrictions and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-elections-education-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-f3e0a8198edae71980f942f2eb5ea172">anti-racism curriculum</a>&nbsp;reach a boiling point.

On Tuesday, voters weigh in on dozens of races that have been dominated by debates over masks, vaccines, race and history. The outcomes will decide not just districts’ policies but also whether the education fight has staying power as part of the national discourse and becomes a rallying issue for Republicans in the 2022 midterms.

Conservatives have eagerly taken up the cause as they look to move past&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus pandemic</a>&nbsp;and to reframe the discussion on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/racial-injustice">racial injustice in America</a>&nbsp;as a rewriting of history.

The political tracking website Ballotpedia has identified 76 school districts in 22 states where candidates took a stance on race in education or critical race theory, which holds that racism is systemic in America’s institutions and which the National School Boards Association says is not taught in K-12 public schools.

1776 Action, a group inspired by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-media-slavery-cultures-donald-trump-afdfa0b3454d5a7fdf544158ee1f5e1f">former President Donald Trump’s now-disbanded 1776 Commission</a>&nbsp;that played down America’s role in slavery, has been urging candidates to sign a pledge calling for the restoration of “honest, patriotic education.” At least 300 candidates and elected officials have done so, said Adam Waldeck, the group’s president.

“2021 is really going to sort of be seen as kind of a canary in the coal mine of what’s coming down the pike next year and into the future,” Waldeck said. “This will be the year that I think primarily parents stand up and say, ‘You know, we have a voice, too.’ And I think it’s going to be overwhelming.”

Board meetings have grown so contentious that they are being mocked in “Saturday Night Live” skits. Some board members have been called Nazis and child abusers. The National School Boards Association even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-health-education-school-boards-940da42fac771366929fc2150c8acf4d">likened some of what is happening to “domestic terrorism”</a>&nbsp;before apologizing.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, accused the right wing of orchestrating protests to “turn schools into battlegrounds with the goal of winning elections by politicizing both public health and history.” She noted&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-campaigns-virginia-election-2020-a84bf1d7f2113c77197bca103fd0e81b">the Virginia governor’s race</a>, in which Republican newcomer Glenn Youngkin has seized on conservatives’ frustrations with schools over pandemic policies and diversity education.

Even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/elections-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-michael-pence-virginia-a5100eb9c96250d914e8091d7bc51592">former Vice President Mike Pence</a>&nbsp;has gotten into the game, taking a moment during a campaign rally in Ohio on Saturday to urge voters to support conservative school board candidates in Tuesday’s election.

Waldeck said his group also sent out mailers and targeted text messages in races in Johnston, Iowa, where three candidates have signed the pledge, and in West Chester, Pennsylvania, where law enforcement was called to investigate threats against school board president Chris McCune.

The backlash stems from his ordering the removal from a July meeting of a parent who kept demanding information about critical race theory after her two-minute time limit had ended. McCune, who is on the ballot, wrote in a letter to the Daily Local News newspaper in Pennsylvania that it is his duty to “maintain order” and insisted that the district doesn’t even teach critical race theory.

“National and local political forces continue to urge residents to rally against local school boards and CRT, even when board members and administrators have offered to meet to share the district’s curriculum to demonstrate that it is simply not what we teach,” he said.

The 1776 Project PAC, which is separate from 1776 Action and headed by New York political operative and author Ryan Girdusky, has invested in races across the country. It raised $289,544 in the third quarter, according to the latest report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

“I think anybody that’s running was probably to a degree tipped over by COVID,” said Jim McMullen, who is among three candidates the group is backing in the Blue Valley district in suburban Kansas City. The former English teacher and father of five had considered running before the pandemic but finally decided to mount a bid after the district went virtual and hybrid for parts of last year.

In Colorado, Schumé Navarro, who is running for the Cherry Creek School District, went to court last month to win the right to go without a face covering at a district candidate event. The mother of five said she’s unable to wear a mask because of abuse she suffered as a child.

“The environment and the culture that it’s creating is just stealing from our kids,” she said of masks.

In Ohio, former state Republican chair Jane Timken has taken time from her campaign for the U.S. Senate to offer guidance and funding totaling more than $40,000 to more than 40 conservative candidates in hyperlocal school board races.

“We are helping them not just financially, but my team is knocking doors and making calls with them,” said Timken, who said she completed a critical race theory “listening tour” that exposed cases of children being “indoctrinated with leftist policies.”

In Wisconsin, voters in Mequon will decide whether to replace the majority of the Mequon-Thiensville school board. Amber Schroeder, an organizer of the Recall MTSD movement, said that along with slipping academic performance, parents are most concerned with critical race theory, which she sees as evident in the district’s emphasis on equity.

“It’s huge here,” Schroeder said, noting the district’s hiring of diversity consultants. “It’s already infiltrated our curriculum.”

In Minnesota, Erin Shelton has joined two other conservative candidates on a “Vote for Three!” platform that denounces “harmful ideologies like CRT,” political indoctrination and “controversial medical mandates.” If all three are elected, they would hold an ideological majority on the board in Wayzata.

“I don’t believe that the way to academic excellence involves making any group of students feel like victims or any other feel responsible for that victimization,” Shelton said via email.

In Iowa, masking opponent Sarah Barthole received a high-profile endorsement from Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds as she runs for the school board of the Ankeny school district in suburban Des Moines. Barthole worked with Reynolds last year to reopen schools and is credited with inspiring the state’s now-blocked law prohibiting mask mandates in schools.

“The level of involvement in her campaign, I’ve never seen anything like it in a school board race before,” said Barthole’s treasurer, Steve Boal, whose own wife served on the board more than two decades ago. “Usually it’s kind of a pretty low-key thing.”

The governor’s backing in that race is just the beginning, predicted Tina Descovich, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, a Melbourne, Florida-based group, whose 142 chapters in 35 states have fought vaccine and mask mandates.

“Our governor here in Florida has all but said he’s going to be involved in school board races,” said Descovich, who is a former member of the Brevard County School Board in Florida. “I’m curious to see what that looks like for 2022.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1635857227869.png" alt="Preparing to receive voters -photo courtesy Johnson County election office" />
 <figcaption>Preparing to receive voters -photo courtesy Johnson County election office</figcaption>
 </figure>MISSION, Kan. (AP) — School board races, once sleepy and localized, have become&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-education-coronavirus-pandemic-school-boards-e41350b7d9e3662d279c2dad287f7009">the new front in a culture war</a>&nbsp;raging across the nation as resentments over COVID-19 restrictions and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-elections-education-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-f3e0a8198edae71980f942f2eb5ea172">anti-racism curriculum</a>&nbsp;reach a boiling point.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">At gatherings across the country, I’ve talked with Americans who agree we’ve learned the hard way that who sits on our local boards impacts our lives. Get out &amp; vote in your local elections. And, in Andover, KS—vote for <a href="https://twitter.com/jawellstrio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jawellstrio</a>! (2/2)&mdash; Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) <a href="https://twitter.com/mikepompeo/status/1453785146872696844?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 28, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>On Tuesday, voters weigh in on dozens of races that have been dominated by debates over masks, vaccines, race and history. The outcomes will decide not just districts’ policies but also whether the education fight has staying power as part of the national discourse and becomes a rallying issue for Republicans in the 2022 midterms.Conservatives have eagerly taken up the cause as they look to move past&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus pandemic</a>&nbsp;and to reframe the discussion on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/racial-injustice">racial injustice in America</a>&nbsp;as a rewriting of history.The political tracking website Ballotpedia has identified 76 school districts in 22 states where candidates took a stance on race in education or critical race theory, which holds that racism is systemic in America’s institutions and which the National School Boards Association says is not taught in K-12 public schools.1776 Action, a group inspired by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-media-slavery-cultures-donald-trump-afdfa0b3454d5a7fdf544158ee1f5e1f">former President Donald Trump’s now-disbanded 1776 Commission</a>&nbsp;that played down America’s role in slavery, has been urging candidates to sign a pledge calling for the restoration of “honest, patriotic education.” At least 300 candidates and elected officials have done so, said Adam Waldeck, the group’s president.“2021 is really going to sort of be seen as kind of a canary in the coal mine of what’s coming down the pike next year and into the future,” Waldeck said. “This will be the year that I think primarily parents stand up and say, ‘You know, we have a voice, too.’ And I think it’s going to be overwhelming.”Board meetings have grown so contentious that they are being mocked in “Saturday Night Live” skits. Some board members have been called Nazis and child abusers. The National School Boards Association even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-health-education-school-boards-940da42fac771366929fc2150c8acf4d">likened some of what is happening to “domestic terrorism”</a>&nbsp;before apologizing.Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, accused the right wing of orchestrating protests to “turn schools into battlegrounds with the goal of winning elections by politicizing both public health and history.” She noted&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-campaigns-virginia-election-2020-a84bf1d7f2113c77197bca103fd0e81b">the Virginia governor’s race</a>, in which Republican newcomer Glenn Youngkin has seized on conservatives’ frustrations with schools over pandemic policies and diversity education.Even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/elections-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-michael-pence-virginia-a5100eb9c96250d914e8091d7bc51592">former Vice President Mike Pence</a>&nbsp;has gotten into the game, taking a moment during a campaign rally in Ohio on Saturday to urge voters to support conservative school board candidates in Tuesday’s election.Waldeck said his group also sent out mailers and targeted text messages in races in Johnston, Iowa, where three candidates have signed the pledge, and in West Chester, Pennsylvania, where law enforcement was called to investigate threats against school board president Chris McCune.The backlash stems from his ordering the removal from a July meeting of a parent who kept demanding information about critical race theory after her two-minute time limit had ended. McCune, who is on the ballot, wrote in a letter to the Daily Local News newspaper in Pennsylvania that it is his duty to “maintain order” and insisted that the district doesn’t even teach critical race theory.“National and local political forces continue to urge residents to rally against local school boards and CRT, even when board members and administrators have offered to meet to share the district’s curriculum to demonstrate that it is simply not what we teach,” he said.The 1776 Project PAC, which is separate from 1776 Action and headed by New York political operative and author Ryan Girdusky, has invested in races across the country. It raised $289,544 in the third quarter, according to the latest report filed with the Federal Election Commission.“I think anybody that’s running was probably to a degree tipped over by COVID,” said Jim McMullen, who is among three candidates the group is backing in the Blue Valley district in suburban Kansas City. The former English teacher and father of five had considered running before the pandemic but finally decided to mount a bid after the district went virtual and hybrid for parts of last year.In Colorado, Schumé Navarro, who is running for the Cherry Creek School District, went to court last month to win the right to go without a face covering at a district candidate event. The mother of five said she’s unable to wear a mask because of abuse she suffered as a child.“The environment and the culture that it’s creating is just stealing from our kids,” she said of masks.In Ohio, former state Republican chair Jane Timken has taken time from her campaign for the U.S. Senate to offer guidance and funding totaling more than $40,000 to more than 40 conservative candidates in hyperlocal school board races.“We are helping them not just financially, but my team is knocking doors and making calls with them,” said Timken, who said she completed a critical race theory “listening tour” that exposed cases of children being “indoctrinated with leftist policies.”In Wisconsin, voters in Mequon will decide whether to replace the majority of the Mequon-Thiensville school board. Amber Schroeder, an organizer of the Recall MTSD movement, said that along with slipping academic performance, parents are most concerned with critical race theory, which she sees as evident in the district’s emphasis on equity.“It’s huge here,” Schroeder said, noting the district’s hiring of diversity consultants. “It’s already infiltrated our curriculum.”In Minnesota, Erin Shelton has joined two other conservative candidates on a “Vote for Three!” platform that denounces “harmful ideologies like CRT,” political indoctrination and “controversial medical mandates.” If all three are elected, they would hold an ideological majority on the board in Wayzata.“I don’t believe that the way to academic excellence involves making any group of students feel like victims or any other feel responsible for that victimization,” Shelton said via email.In Iowa, masking opponent Sarah Barthole received a high-profile endorsement from Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds as she runs for the school board of the Ankeny school district in suburban Des Moines. Barthole worked with Reynolds last year to reopen schools and is credited with inspiring the state’s now-blocked law prohibiting mask mandates in schools.“The level of involvement in her campaign, I’ve never seen anything like it in a school board race before,” said Barthole’s treasurer, Steve Boal, whose own wife served on the board more than two decades ago. “Usually it’s kind of a pretty low-key thing.”The governor’s backing in that race is just the beginning, predicted Tina Descovich, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, a Melbourne, Florida-based group, whose 142 chapters in 35 states have fought vaccine and mask mandates.“Our governor here in Florida has all but said he’s going to be involved in school board races,” said Descovich, who is a former member of the Brevard County School Board in Florida. “I’m curious to see what that looks like for 2022.”___

GOP push to politicize school board races gets election test

Social media advertising is an effective way for small business 
to get the word out about their products. Unfortunately, the same goes 
for scams. <a href="https://www.bbb.org/scamtracker" target="_blank">BBB Scam Tracker</a>&nbsp;has received&nbsp;thousands&nbsp;of complaints about misleading&nbsp;Facebook and Instagram ads.&nbsp;In fact, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbb.org/bbbscamtrackerriskreport/" target="_blank">2020 BBB Scam Tracker Risk Report</a>
 found that online purchase scams were the most common cons reported to 
Scam Tracker and the category with the most victims, and <a href="https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/23276-bbb-research-shows-spike-in-online-purchase-scams-since-covid-started" target="_blank">online purchase scams have spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic</a>.

Look out for these&nbsp;common scams reported to <a href="https://www.bbb.org/scamtracker" target="_blank">BBB Scam Tracker</a>:

Products That Claim to Support Charity:&nbsp;As
 you scroll through your Facebook or Instagram feed, you see an ad from a
 small business selling adorable jewelry, t-shirts, or other 
merchandise. The best part? Some of the proceeds from the sale will go 
to a charity that helps rescue animals, foster children, or support 
another worthy cause. Some consumers even report getting direct messages
 from sellers promoting the products and asking them to spread the word 
to friends and family.&nbsp;

You make your purchase. But when your merchandise never 
gets delivered, the doubts start to build.&nbsp;When you contact the company 
about your purchase,&nbsp;they are suddenly unreachable or reply with an 
autoresponder. In reality, the product never existed. It was all a ploy 
to get your money.

Free Trial Offers:&nbsp;Many of these 
misleading advertisements tout celebrity endorsements and promise a 
trial of the hottest new skin care or nutritional supplement for the 
minimal investment of shipping fees. What consumers report is that once 
they agree to the terms and conditions of these offers, they realize 
they have agreed to multiple monthly shipments for products in excess of
 $70-$100 each.&nbsp;

Before you sign up for these “limited time offers” research
 the company online, see if there are any other consumer complaints, 
read the terms and conditions you are agreeing to carefully, and if you 
can’t find any terms and conditions, that is a red flag. Watch out for 
pre- checked boxes and make sure that you know who and where the company
 is that you are purchasing from.

Counterfeit Merchandise:&nbsp;Name brand goods 
are prime targets for unauthorized duplication, from sporting goods to 
designer apparel and handbags. If you purchase any of these products you
 may run the risk of not only receiving a poor quality product, but it 
may not meet environmental and safety regulations either.&nbsp;

Look out for red flags. This includes items that are priced
 significantly lower than what other retailers are charging, spelling 
and grammatical errors in the advertisements, and poor quality images. 
These are all signs that the advertisement may be for a counterfeit 
product.

Engaging Ads, Poor Customer Service:&nbsp;This 
category covers a broad spectrum of complaints that BBB receives, from 
ads for beauty products to trendy clothing to kids' toys. The 
advertisements look great and the products are often inexpensive. This 
means that consumers purchase without doing any research into&nbsp;the 
website or the company behind it. However, weeks pass and the products 
never arrive. When the buyers reach out to customer service, they get a 
vague answer or they don't hear back at all.&nbsp;

Before buying, do a quick online search. Google the website
 name with the words “complaints,” “reviews,” and “scam” to see what 
other customers are saying. Check the “About Us” or “Contact Us” 
information on the company’s website to see if they contain actual 
contact details for the business. If the only way to contact the company
 is through a form this is a red flag.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Apps of Unknown Origin:&nbsp;While scrolling 
through your feed you may feel compelled to download the latest “free” 
app. Beware! By downloading this app, not only are you opening up your 
device to this unknown entities, you could possibly be signing up for 
recurring subscription fees. Victims report being&nbsp;charged fees as high 
as $99 every seven days.

Before you enter your username and password, read the 
reviews. Also read the description of the app carefully and look for 
spelling and grammatical errors. Check that the developers website is a 
working website and read the terms and conditions carefully ($99 every 7
 days adds up quickly).

How to Protect Yourself from Social Media Scams

For more ways to protect yourself from social media shopping scams, see <a href="https://www.bbb.org/article/tips/14040-bbb-tip-smart-shopping-online" target="_blank">BBB's tips for smart shopping online</a>. You can also find more general tips at <a href="https://www.bbb.org/article/scams/8767-bbb-tips-10-steps-to-avoid-scams" target="_blank">10 Steps to avoid scams</a>.

If you’ve been the victim of a social media&nbsp;ad scam, share your experience at <a href="http://www.bbb.org/ScamTracker" target="_blank">BBB Scam Tracker</a>. Your report could help other consumers avoid falling victim to similar scams.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/1/1579883951052.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>BBBSocial media advertising is an effective way for small business 
to get the word out about their products. Unfortunately, the same goes 
for scams. <a href="https://www.bbb.org/scamtracker" target="_blank">BBB Scam Tracker</a>&nbsp;has received&nbsp;thousands&nbsp;of complaints about misleading&nbsp;Facebook and Instagram ads.&nbsp;In fact, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbb.org/bbbscamtrackerriskreport/" target="_blank">2020 BBB Scam Tracker Risk Report</a>
 found that online purchase scams were the most common cons reported to 
Scam Tracker and the category with the most victims, and <a href="https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/23276-bbb-research-shows-spike-in-online-purchase-scams-since-covid-started" target="_blank">online purchase scams have spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic</a>.<h2>How the Scam Works</h2>Look out for these&nbsp;common scams reported to <a href="https://www.bbb.org/scamtracker" target="_blank">BBB Scam Tracker</a>:Products That Claim to Support Charity:&nbsp;As
 you scroll through your Facebook or Instagram feed, you see an ad from a
 small business selling adorable jewelry, t-shirts, or other 
merchandise. The best part? Some of the proceeds from the sale will go 
to a charity that helps rescue animals, foster children, or support 
another worthy cause. Some consumers even report getting direct messages
 from sellers promoting the products and asking them to spread the word 
to friends and family.&nbsp;You make your purchase. But when your merchandise never 
gets delivered, the doubts start to build.&nbsp;When you contact the company 
about your purchase,&nbsp;they are suddenly unreachable or reply with an 
autoresponder. In reality, the product never existed. It was all a ploy 
to get your money.Free Trial Offers:&nbsp;Many of these 
misleading advertisements tout celebrity endorsements and promise a 
trial of the hottest new skin care or nutritional supplement for the 
minimal investment of shipping fees. What consumers report is that once 
they agree to the terms and conditions of these offers, they realize 
they have agreed to multiple monthly shipments for products in excess of
 $70-$100 each.&nbsp;Before you sign up for these “limited time offers” research
 the company online, see if there are any other consumer complaints, 
read the terms and conditions you are agreeing to carefully, and if you 
can’t find any terms and conditions, that is a red flag. Watch out for 
pre- checked boxes and make sure that you know who and where the company
 is that you are purchasing from.Counterfeit Merchandise:&nbsp;Name brand goods 
are prime targets for unauthorized duplication, from sporting goods to 
designer apparel and handbags. If you purchase any of these products you
 may run the risk of not only receiving a poor quality product, but it 
may not meet environmental and safety regulations either.&nbsp;Look out for red flags. This includes items that are priced
 significantly lower than what other retailers are charging, spelling 
and grammatical errors in the advertisements, and poor quality images. 
These are all signs that the advertisement may be for a counterfeit 
product.Engaging Ads, Poor Customer Service:&nbsp;This 
category covers a broad spectrum of complaints that BBB receives, from 
ads for beauty products to trendy clothing to kids' toys. The 
advertisements look great and the products are often inexpensive. This 
means that consumers purchase without doing any research into&nbsp;the 
website or the company behind it. However, weeks pass and the products 
never arrive. When the buyers reach out to customer service, they get a 
vague answer or they don't hear back at all.&nbsp;Before buying, do a quick online search. Google the website
 name with the words “complaints,” “reviews,” and “scam” to see what 
other customers are saying. Check the “About Us” or “Contact Us” 
information on the company’s website to see if they contain actual 
contact details for the business. If the only way to contact the company
 is through a form this is a red flag.&nbsp;&nbsp;Apps of Unknown Origin:&nbsp;While scrolling 
through your feed you may feel compelled to download the latest “free” 
app. Beware! By downloading this app, not only are you opening up your 
device to this unknown entities, you could possibly be signing up for 
recurring subscription fees. Victims report being&nbsp;charged fees as high 
as $99 every seven days.Before you enter your username and password, read the 
reviews. Also read the description of the app carefully and look for 
spelling and grammatical errors. Check that the developers website is a 
working website and read the terms and conditions carefully ($99 every 7
 days adds up quickly).<h2>How to Protect Yourself from Social Media Scams</h2><ul>
 <li>Do your research. Before making a purchase, do a 
quick search for the business in question. Do they have valid contact 
information? Don’t be fooled by professional photography or consumer 
reviews on their website. These can be lifted from other sites. Check <a href="https://www.BBB.org/ScamTracker" target="_blank">BBB Scam Tracker</a> to see if others have been duped.</li><li>Search for previous complaints. Do a Google search 
of the business name followed by “complaints,” “reviews,” or “scam” and 
see what pops up. If you find other people have been cheated by this 
business, steer clear.</li><li>Use good judgment. Many con artists play on 
consumers’ desire to help those in need. Keep this in mind and use your 
head, not just your heart, when supporting charitable causes. Go to <a href="https://www.give.org/" target="_blank">Give.org</a> to research organizations before giving.</li>
 </ul><h2>For More Information</h2>For more ways to protect yourself from social media shopping scams, see <a href="https://www.bbb.org/article/tips/14040-bbb-tip-smart-shopping-online" target="_blank">BBB's tips for smart shopping online</a>. You can also find more general tips at <a href="https://www.bbb.org/article/scams/8767-bbb-tips-10-steps-to-avoid-scams" target="_blank">10 Steps to avoid scams</a>.If you’ve been the victim of a social media&nbsp;ad scam, share your experience at <a href="http://www.bbb.org/ScamTracker" target="_blank">BBB Scam Tracker</a>. Your report could help other consumers avoid falling victim to similar scams.

BEWARE: The most popular social media scams of holiday season

The
 Federal Trade Commission is sending 34,893 checks and PayPal refunds 
totaling more than $2 million to consumers who lost money through a 
deceptive direct mail publications scheme. Agora Financial, LLC, 
NewMarket Health, and other related defendants tricked consumers into 
buying pamphlets, newsletters, and other publications through false 
promises and deceptive marketing.&nbsp; The refunds will provide full 
compensation for consumers who bought certain health- and 
finance-related publications sold by the defendants.

<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/10/ftc-sues-publisher-targeting-seniors-phony-diabetes-cure-money">According to an October 2019 FTC complaint</a>, the Agora defendants primarily targeted its publications, including The Doctor’s Guide to Reversing Diabetes in 28 Days, at older consumers nationwide. Agora falsely marketed The Doctor’s Guide
 as a simple and scientifically proven protocol that can permanently 
cure type 2 diabetes in 28 days, without any changes in diet or 
exercise.

The FTC also alleged that the Agora defendants deceptively marketed Congress’ Secret $1.17 Trillion Giveaway,
 falsely promising that the book would show consumers how to claim 
hundreds to thousands of dollars to which they are entitled in 
“Congressional Checks” or “Republican Checks.”

The FTC is using the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/02/publisher-will-pay-more-2-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-targeted">money it recovered from Agora Financial and related defendants</a>
 to provide consumer refunds totaling $2,052,868, via paper checks and 
PayPal. People who receive refund checks should deposit or cash them 
within 90 days, as indicated on the check. PayPal refunds will be 
available for 30 days after they are issued. Recipients who have 
questions about their refund can call the administrator, Ankura 
Consulting Group, LLC, at 1-833-460-2437. The FTC never requires people 
to pay money or provide account information to cash a refund check.

In
 2020, FTC actions led to more than $483 million in refunds to consumers
 across the country, but the United States Supreme Court ruled earlier 
this year that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) to seek 
monetary relief in federal court going forward. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/04/ftc-asks-congress-pass-legislation-reviving-agencys-authority">Commission has urged Congress</a> to restore the FTC’s ability to get money back for consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">stop deceptive and unfair business practices and scams</a>, and <a href="https://consumer.ftc.gov/">educate consumers</a>. Report fraud, scams, or bad business practices at <a href="https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/">ReportFraud.ftc.gov</a>. Get consumer advice at <a href="https://consumer.ftc.gov/">consumer.ftc.gov</a>. Also, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/social-media">follow the FTC on social media</a>, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a>, and read the FTC’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619632629588.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>FTCThe
 Federal Trade Commission is sending 34,893 checks and PayPal refunds 
totaling more than $2 million to consumers who lost money through a 
deceptive direct mail publications scheme. Agora Financial, LLC, 
NewMarket Health, and other related defendants tricked consumers into 
buying pamphlets, newsletters, and other publications through false 
promises and deceptive marketing.&nbsp; The refunds will provide full 
compensation for consumers who bought certain health- and 
finance-related publications sold by the defendants.<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/10/ftc-sues-publisher-targeting-seniors-phony-diabetes-cure-money">According to an October 2019 FTC complaint</a>, the Agora defendants primarily targeted its publications, including The Doctor’s Guide to Reversing Diabetes in 28 Days, at older consumers nationwide. Agora falsely marketed The Doctor’s Guide
 as a simple and scientifically proven protocol that can permanently 
cure type 2 diabetes in 28 days, without any changes in diet or 
exercise.The FTC also alleged that the Agora defendants deceptively marketed Congress’ Secret $1.17 Trillion Giveaway,
 falsely promising that the book would show consumers how to claim 
hundreds to thousands of dollars to which they are entitled in 
“Congressional Checks” or “Republican Checks.”The FTC is using the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/02/publisher-will-pay-more-2-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-targeted">money it recovered from Agora Financial and related defendants</a>
 to provide consumer refunds totaling $2,052,868, via paper checks and 
PayPal. People who receive refund checks should deposit or cash them 
within 90 days, as indicated on the check. PayPal refunds will be 
available for 30 days after they are issued. Recipients who have 
questions about their refund can call the administrator, Ankura 
Consulting Group, LLC, at 1-833-460-2437. The FTC never requires people 
to pay money or provide account information to cash a refund check.In
 2020, FTC actions led to more than $483 million in refunds to consumers
 across the country, but the United States Supreme Court ruled earlier 
this year that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) to seek 
monetary relief in federal court going forward. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/04/ftc-asks-congress-pass-legislation-reviving-agencys-authority">Commission has urged Congress</a> to restore the FTC’s ability to get money back for consumers.The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">stop deceptive and unfair business practices and scams</a>, and <a href="https://consumer.ftc.gov/">educate consumers</a>. Report fraud, scams, or bad business practices at <a href="https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/">ReportFraud.ftc.gov</a>. Get consumer advice at <a href="https://consumer.ftc.gov/">consumer.ftc.gov</a>. Also, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/social-media">follow the FTC on social media</a>, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a>, and read the FTC’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>.

Feds send $2M to consumers duped by direct mail scheme

The
 Federal Trade Commission is sending nearly $60 million to more than 
140,000 Amazon drivers. The funds will serve as reimbursement for tips 
that Amazon allegedly illegally withheld from drivers between 2016 and 
2019.

<a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase"></a>In 2021, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/192_3123_-_amazon_flex_complaint_final_not_signed.pdf">FTC brought a suit against Amazon</a>
 and its subsidiary, Amazon Logistics, alleging that the company failed 
to fully pay tips that drivers in its Amazon Flex program had earned. 
Amazon Flex drivers deliver goods and groceries ordered through programs
 like Prime Now and AmazonFresh. The complaint alleged that the company 
secretly kept drivers’ tips over a two-and-a-half year period and only 
stopped the practice after becoming aware of the FTC’s investigation in 
2019.

<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/02/amazon-pay-617-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-withheld-some">Amazon agreed to settle the case</a>
 and surrender all the money it withheld from its drivers. The 
settlement also prohibits Amazon from misrepresenting any driver’s 
likely income or rate of pay, how much of their tips will be paid to 
them, as well as whether the amount paid by a customer is a tip. Amazon 
also will be prohibited from making any changes to how a driver’s tips 
are used as compensation without the driver’s express informed consent.

The FTC will be sending 139,507 checks and 1,621 PayPal payments to 
Amazon Flex drivers. Drivers who had more than $5 withheld by Amazon 
will receive the full amount of their withheld tips. The highest amount 
going to a single Amazon Flex driver is more than $28,000, while the 
average amount is $422.

People who receive checks should deposit or cash them before January 
7, 2022, as indicated on the check. Recipients who have questions about 
their checks should call the refund administrator, Rust Consulting, at 
1-800-654-8874. The FTC never requires people to pay money or provide 
account information to cash a refund check.

Drivers whose payments total more than $600—19,980 drivers in 
total—will receive an IRS Form 1099 with their payment and should report
 this income on their tax return.

The FTC’s <a href="https://public.tableau.com/profile/federal.trade.commission#!/vizhome/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase">interactive dashboards for refund data(link is external)</a>
 provide a state-by-state breakdown of FTC refunds. In 2020, FTC actions
 led to more than $483 million in refunds to consumers across the 
country, but the United States Supreme Court ruled earlier this year 
that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) to seek monetary relief
 in federal court going forward. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/04/ftc-asks-congress-pass-legislation-reviving-agencys-authority"> Commission has urged Congress</a> to restore the FTC’s ability to get money back for consumers.

FTCThe
 Federal Trade Commission is sending nearly $60 million to more than 
140,000 Amazon drivers. The funds will serve as reimbursement for tips 
that Amazon allegedly illegally withheld from drivers between 2016 and 
2019.<a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase"></a>In 2021, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/192_3123_-_amazon_flex_complaint_final_not_signed.pdf">FTC brought a suit against Amazon</a>
 and its subsidiary, Amazon Logistics, alleging that the company failed 
to fully pay tips that drivers in its Amazon Flex program had earned. 
Amazon Flex drivers deliver goods and groceries ordered through programs
 like Prime Now and AmazonFresh. The complaint alleged that the company 
secretly kept drivers’ tips over a two-and-a-half year period and only 
stopped the practice after becoming aware of the FTC’s investigation in 
2019.<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/02/amazon-pay-617-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-withheld-some">Amazon agreed to settle the case</a>
 and surrender all the money it withheld from its drivers. The 
settlement also prohibits Amazon from misrepresenting any driver’s 
likely income or rate of pay, how much of their tips will be paid to 
them, as well as whether the amount paid by a customer is a tip. Amazon 
also will be prohibited from making any changes to how a driver’s tips 
are used as compensation without the driver’s express informed consent.The FTC will be sending 139,507 checks and 1,621 PayPal payments to 
Amazon Flex drivers. Drivers who had more than $5 withheld by Amazon 
will receive the full amount of their withheld tips. The highest amount 
going to a single Amazon Flex driver is more than $28,000, while the 
average amount is $422.People who receive checks should deposit or cash them before January 
7, 2022, as indicated on the check. Recipients who have questions about 
their checks should call the refund administrator, Rust Consulting, at 
1-800-654-8874. The FTC never requires people to pay money or provide 
account information to cash a refund check.Drivers whose payments total more than $600—19,980 drivers in 
total—will receive an IRS Form 1099 with their payment and should report
 this income on their tax return.The FTC’s <a href="https://public.tableau.com/profile/federal.trade.commission#!/vizhome/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase">interactive dashboards for refund data(link is external)</a>
 provide a state-by-state breakdown of FTC refunds. In 2020, FTC actions
 led to more than $483 million in refunds to consumers across the 
country, but the United States Supreme Court ruled earlier this year 
that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) to seek monetary relief
 in federal court going forward. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/04/ftc-asks-congress-pass-legislation-reviving-agencys-authority"> Commission has urged Congress</a> to restore the FTC’s ability to get money back for consumers.The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">stop deceptive and unfair business practices and scams</a>, and <a href="https://consumer.ftc.gov/">educate consumers</a>. Report fraud, scams, or bad business practices at <a href="https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/">ReportFraud.ftc.gov</a>. Get consumer advice at <a href="https://consumer.ftc.gov/">consumer.ftc.gov</a>. Also, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/social-media">follow the FTC on social media</a>, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a>, and read the FTC’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>.

FTC sends nearly $60M to Amazon drivers whose tips were illegally withheld

WASHINGTON (AP) — A majority of the Supreme Court signaled Monday they would allow abortion providers to pursue a court challenge to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-health-abortion-government-and-politics-ba02cd7c3f02b1eb5c87094257ee4db2">a Texas law</a>&nbsp;that has virtually ended abortion in the nation’s second-largest state after six weeks of pregnancy.

But it was unclear how quickly the court would rule and whether it would issue an order blocking the law that has been in effect for two months, or require providers to ask a lower court put the law on hold.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two conservative appointees of former President Donald Trump, voted in September to allow the law to take effect, but they raised questions Monday about its novel structure. The law, written to make it difficult to mount legal challenges, subjects clinics, doctors and any others who facilitate abortions to large financial penalties.

“Millions and millions retroactively imposed, even though the activity was perfectly lawful under all court orders and precedent at the time it was undertaken, right?” Kavanaugh asked, one of several skeptical questions he put to Judd E. Stone II, representing Texas.

Barrett, too, pressed Stone about provisions of the law that force providers to fight lawsuits one by one and, she said, don’t allow their constitutional rights to be “fully aired.”

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-9c75eae9d7fddcd34b70bbf3fccb9be3">The justices heard three hours of arguments</a>&nbsp;Monday in two cases over whether abortion providers or&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-bills-149e66a206890b29ccdf15ce26916085">the Justice Department</a>&nbsp;can mount federal court challenges to the law, which has an unusual enforcement scheme its defenders argue shields it from federal court review.

The Biden administration filed its lawsuit after the justices&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-courts-us-supreme-court-32ee7ae7eeec9bdfd1471a848c163321">voted 5-4 to refuse a request by providers to keep the law on hold</a>. Justice Neil Gorsuch, also a Trump appointee, and two other conservative justices joined Barrett and Kavanaugh in the majority to let the law take effect. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.

The justices sounded less convinced that the Justice Department lawsuit should go forward, and Justice Elena Kagan suggested that a ruling instead in favor of the providers would allow the court to avoid difficult issues of federal power.

In neither case argued Monday is the right to an abortion directly at issue. But the motivation for the lawsuits is that the Texas law conflicts with landmark Supreme Court rulings that prevent a state from banning abortion early in pregnancy.

Arguing for the United States, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that Texas’ law was enacted in “open defiance” of Supreme Court precedent. “It enacted a law that clearly violates this court’s precedents,” she said.

Under the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, states are prevented from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The justices will hear a separate challenge to those decisions in a case over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-us-supreme-court-mississippi-7ee64ee43f9d5c291133cf14b66f6875">Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks</a>. Those arguments are set for Dec. 1.

The most direct reference to the Mississippi case came from Justice Samuel Alito, who asked if the decision by providers to stop doing abortions in Texas “is attributable to the fear of liability if Roe or Casey is altered?”

But most questions focused on the Texas law and how it has altered abortion in the state even before the high court has made any change in abortion law. Kagan told Stone that until Texas passed its law, “no state dreamed” of trying to make an end-run around Supreme Court precedent in the same way.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t do anything about that, she said, it would be inviting states to try to flout precedent: “Guns. Same-sex marriage. Religious rights. Whatever you don’t like: go ahead,” she said. Kagan, who disagreed with her colleagues’ decision to let the law take effect, said Texas’ law has prevented women in Texas “from exercising a constitutional right.”

Kavanaugh also raised concerns about laws that might affect other constitutional rights.

The Texas law has been in effect since September when the Supreme Court declined to intervene, except for a 48-hour period in early October when it was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-business-texas-courts-5eb085acee67615da3623212953220c9">blocked by a lower court</a>. The high court got involved again less than two weeks ago, moving at extraordinary speed. The court offered no explanation for its decision to hear the cases so quickly.

If the court allows the providers to continue their lawsuit, it would still take a separate order from the justices or a lower court to put the law on hold.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, said her four clinics would resume abortion services if they get a favorable court order.

The Texas ban, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortion after cardiac activity is detected in a fetus, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.

The law makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.

A study published by researchers at the University of Texas found that the number of abortions statewide fell by 50% after the law took effect in September, compared to the same month in 2020. The study was based on data from 19 of the state’s 24 abortion clinics, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.

At least 12 other states have enacted bans early in pregnancy, but all have been blocked from going into effect.

Rather than have state officials enforce the law, Texas deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids and abets an abortion. If someone bringing suit is successful, they are entitled to at least $10,000. Women who obtain abortions can’t be sued under the law.

During arguments Monday, Roberts at one point asked whether the law could be challenged if Texas had made the entitlement much higher, $1 million. Texas’ lawyer told him no.

The structure of the law threatens abortion providers with huge financial penalties if they violate it. Clinics throughout the state have stopped performing abortions once cardiac activity is found.

The result, both the providers and the Biden administration said, is that women who are financially able have traveled to other states and those without the means must either continue their pregnancies against their will or find other, potentially dangerous ways to end them.

Stone and Jonathan Mitchell, an architect of the law who also argued Monday, defended the law and its unusual structure. They said both the providers and the Justice Department lack the right to go into federal court, and should be asking Congress,not the justices, to expand court access.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up challenges to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-health-abortion-government-and-politics-ba02cd7c3f02b1eb5c87094257ee4db2">a Texas law</a>&nbsp;that has virtually ended abortion in the nation’s second-largest state after six weeks of pregnancy.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-9c75eae9d7fddcd34b70bbf3fccb9be3">The justices are hearing arguments</a>&nbsp;Monday in two cases over whether abortion providers or&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-bills-149e66a206890b29ccdf15ce26916085">the Justice Department</a>&nbsp;can mount federal court challenges to the law, which has an unusual enforcement scheme its defenders argue shields it from federal court review.

In neither case is the right to an abortion directly at issue, but the motivation for lawsuits filed by abortion providers and the Justice Department is that the Texas law conflicts with landmark Supreme Court rulings that prevent a state from banning abortion early in pregnancy.

The justices will hear a separate challenge to the decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a case over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-us-supreme-court-mississippi-7ee64ee43f9d5c291133cf14b66f6875">Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks</a>. Those arguments are set for Dec. 1.

The Texas law has been in effect since September, except for a 48-hour period in early October when it was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-business-texas-courts-5eb085acee67615da3623212953220c9">blocked by a lower court</a>.

The high court jumped into the Texas cases less than two weeks ago, moving at extraordinary speed, but only after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21053670-whole-womans-health-v-jackson" target="_blank">rejecting a plea to block the law</a>&nbsp;by a 5-4 vote in early September.

Five conservative justices, including three who were appointed by President Donald Trump, were in the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.

The court offered no explanation for its decision to hear the cases so quickly.

But rather than have state officials enforce it, the Texas law deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids and abets an abortion. If they’re successful, they are entitled to at least $10,000. Women who obtain abortions can’t be sued under the law.

The state and Jonathan Mitchell, an architect of the law, say in their briefs that the providers and the Justice Department lack the right to go into federal court and can’t sue state judges and clerks who are not responsible for enforcing the abortion ban. They also contend that there is no effective way of blocking the law, in part because federal court can’t force state judges to abstain from hearing the lawsuits the law authorizes.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1635782546230.png" alt="Protesters outside the Supreme Court Monday -photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protesters outside the Supreme Court Monday -photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — A majority of the Supreme Court signaled Monday they would allow abortion providers to pursue a court challenge to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-health-abortion-government-and-politics-ba02cd7c3f02b1eb5c87094257ee4db2">a Texas law</a>&nbsp;that has virtually ended abortion in the nation’s second-largest state after six weeks of pregnancy.But it was unclear how quickly the court would rule and whether it would issue an order blocking the law that has been in effect for two months, or require providers to ask a lower court put the law on hold.Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two conservative appointees of former President Donald Trump, voted in September to allow the law to take effect, but they raised questions Monday about its novel structure. The law, written to make it difficult to mount legal challenges, subjects clinics, doctors and any others who facilitate abortions to large financial penalties.“Millions and millions retroactively imposed, even though the activity was perfectly lawful under all court orders and precedent at the time it was undertaken, right?” Kavanaugh asked, one of several skeptical questions he put to Judd E. Stone II, representing Texas.Barrett, too, pressed Stone about provisions of the law that force providers to fight lawsuits one by one and, she said, don’t allow their constitutional rights to be “fully aired.”<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-9c75eae9d7fddcd34b70bbf3fccb9be3">The justices heard three hours of arguments</a>&nbsp;Monday in two cases over whether abortion providers or&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-bills-149e66a206890b29ccdf15ce26916085">the Justice Department</a>&nbsp;can mount federal court challenges to the law, which has an unusual enforcement scheme its defenders argue shields it from federal court review.The Biden administration filed its lawsuit after the justices&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-courts-us-supreme-court-32ee7ae7eeec9bdfd1471a848c163321">voted 5-4 to refuse a request by providers to keep the law on hold</a>. Justice Neil Gorsuch, also a Trump appointee, and two other conservative justices joined Barrett and Kavanaugh in the majority to let the law take effect. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.The justices sounded less convinced that the Justice Department lawsuit should go forward, and Justice Elena Kagan suggested that a ruling instead in favor of the providers would allow the court to avoid difficult issues of federal power.In neither case argued Monday is the right to an abortion directly at issue. But the motivation for the lawsuits is that the Texas law conflicts with landmark Supreme Court rulings that prevent a state from banning abortion early in pregnancy.Arguing for the United States, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that Texas’ law was enacted in “open defiance” of Supreme Court precedent. “It enacted a law that clearly violates this court’s precedents,” she said.Under the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, states are prevented from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy.The justices will hear a separate challenge to those decisions in a case over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-us-supreme-court-mississippi-7ee64ee43f9d5c291133cf14b66f6875">Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks</a>. Those arguments are set for Dec. 1.The most direct reference to the Mississippi case came from Justice Samuel Alito, who asked if the decision by providers to stop doing abortions in Texas “is attributable to the fear of liability if Roe or Casey is altered?”But most questions focused on the Texas law and how it has altered abortion in the state even before the high court has made any change in abortion law. Kagan told Stone that until Texas passed its law, “no state dreamed” of trying to make an end-run around Supreme Court precedent in the same way.If the Supreme Court doesn’t do anything about that, she said, it would be inviting states to try to flout precedent: “Guns. Same-sex marriage. Religious rights. Whatever you don’t like: go ahead,” she said. Kagan, who disagreed with her colleagues’ decision to let the law take effect, said Texas’ law has prevented women in Texas “from exercising a constitutional right.”Kavanaugh also raised concerns about laws that might affect other constitutional rights.The Texas law has been in effect since September when the Supreme Court declined to intervene, except for a 48-hour period in early October when it was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-business-texas-courts-5eb085acee67615da3623212953220c9">blocked by a lower court</a>. The high court got involved again less than two weeks ago, moving at extraordinary speed. The court offered no explanation for its decision to hear the cases so quickly.If the court allows the providers to continue their lawsuit, it would still take a separate order from the justices or a lower court to put the law on hold.Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, said her four clinics would resume abortion services if they get a favorable court order.The Texas ban, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortion after cardiac activity is detected in a fetus, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.The law makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.A study published by researchers at the University of Texas found that the number of abortions statewide fell by 50% after the law took effect in September, compared to the same month in 2020. The study was based on data from 19 of the state’s 24 abortion clinics, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.At least 12 other states have enacted bans early in pregnancy, but all have been blocked from going into effect.Rather than have state officials enforce the law, Texas deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids and abets an abortion. If someone bringing suit is successful, they are entitled to at least $10,000. Women who obtain abortions can’t be sued under the law.During arguments Monday, Roberts at one point asked whether the law could be challenged if Texas had made the entitlement much higher, $1 million. Texas’ lawyer told him no.The structure of the law threatens abortion providers with huge financial penalties if they violate it. Clinics throughout the state have stopped performing abortions once cardiac activity is found.The result, both the providers and the Biden administration said, is that women who are financially able have traveled to other states and those without the means must either continue their pregnancies against their will or find other, potentially dangerous ways to end them.Stone and Jonathan Mitchell, an architect of the law who also argued Monday, defended the law and its unusual structure. They said both the providers and the Justice Department lack the right to go into federal court, and should be asking Congress,not the justices, to expand court access.---------WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up challenges to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-health-abortion-government-and-politics-ba02cd7c3f02b1eb5c87094257ee4db2">a Texas law</a>&nbsp;that has virtually ended abortion in the nation’s second-largest state after six weeks of pregnancy.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-9c75eae9d7fddcd34b70bbf3fccb9be3">The justices are hearing arguments</a>&nbsp;Monday in two cases over whether abortion providers or&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-bills-149e66a206890b29ccdf15ce26916085">the Justice Department</a>&nbsp;can mount federal court challenges to the law, which has an unusual enforcement scheme its defenders argue shields it from federal court review.In neither case is the right to an abortion directly at issue, but the motivation for lawsuits filed by abortion providers and the Justice Department is that the Texas law conflicts with landmark Supreme Court rulings that prevent a state from banning abortion early in pregnancy.The justices will hear a separate challenge to the decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a case over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-us-supreme-court-mississippi-7ee64ee43f9d5c291133cf14b66f6875">Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks</a>. Those arguments are set for Dec. 1.The Texas law has been in effect since September, except for a 48-hour period in early October when it was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-business-texas-courts-5eb085acee67615da3623212953220c9">blocked by a lower court</a>.The high court jumped into the Texas cases less than two weeks ago, moving at extraordinary speed, but only after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21053670-whole-womans-health-v-jackson" target="_blank">rejecting a plea to block the law</a>&nbsp;by a 5-4 vote in early September.Five conservative justices, including three who were appointed by President Donald Trump, were in the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.The court offered no explanation for its decision to hear the cases so quickly.The Texas ban, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortion after cardiac activity is detected in a fetus, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.The law makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.At least 12 other states have enacted bans early in pregnancy, but all have been blocked from going into effect.But rather than have state officials enforce it, the Texas law deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids and abets an abortion. If they’re successful, they are entitled to at least $10,000. Women who obtain abortions can’t be sued under the law.The structure of the law threatens abortion providers with huge financial penalties if they violate it. Clinics throughout the state have stopped performing abortions once cardiac activity is found.The result, both the providers and the Biden administration said, is that women who are financially able have traveled to other states and those without the means must either continue their pregnancies against their will or find other, potentially dangerous ways to end them.The state and Jonathan Mitchell, an architect of the law, say in their briefs that the providers and the Justice Department lack the right to go into federal court and can’t sue state judges and clerks who are not responsible for enforcing the abortion ban. They also contend that there is no effective way of blocking the law, in part because federal court can’t force state judges to abstain from hearing the lawsuits the law authorizes.

Supreme Court takes up nation's most restrictive abortion law

WASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Biden set out to be a president who under-promised and over-delivered.

As the White House tries to nail down a nearly $3 trillion domestic package that Biden frames as a historic investment in infrastructure and social spending, the moment is clouded by a sense among many on the left that the pared-back package falls far short of the lofty expectations set by the president himself.

“I know it’s hard,” Biden said Thursday, even as he sought to claim a victory for having crafted the “framework” of a social spending plan that he believes — or hopes — can pass Congress.

“I know how deeply people feel about the things that they fight for,” he added. “No one got everything they wanted, including me. But that’s what compromise is.”

It was not the triumphal moment the president had envisioned as he flew to Europe for economic and climate summits, landing in Rome early Friday. Instead, he and other Democratic leaders were left to almost plead for the support within their party to pass Biden’s signature legislative proposal. He was buffeted both from the liberal wing of his party and from moderate holdouts, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

He’s facing disgruntlement from some allies that the latest iteration of the proposed deal doesn’t meet his campaign aims as the ambition — and price tag — of his domestic legislative agenda has been repeatedly whittled back to secure the votes of members of his own party.

Biden marketed himself to voters as a competent leader whose deep experience in the ways of Washington could yield meaningful change through legislation, a clear counterpoint to President Donald Trump’s blunt-instrument approach to policy. Instead, Biden was left not to negotiate with Republicans, but with his fellow Democrats, and he did not appear to succeed yet in persuading them, at least not on his preferred timetable.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats behind closed doors that “when the president gets off that plane, we want him to have a vote of confidence from this Congress.”

“In order for us to have success, we must succeed today.”

As the day dragged on, that appeared increasingly unlikely.

None of that kept the president from claiming to be on the cusp of historic achievements.

Biden and his allies stress that the proposed deal, though far smaller than first envisioned, would represent record spending and that new programs in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill and the $1.75 trillion social spending and climate legislation would boost American competitiveness, lift people out of poverty and ease the burdens of working families.

As he arrived at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday morning to urge House Democrats to get behind the framework, he was greeted by environmental protesters who said he was giving up too much. Later, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, grumbled that Biden’s plan has “some major gaps in it” and that the bill does not provide relief on prescription drug costs.

When it became clear that holdout Democrats still weren’t on board, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., said she felt “bamboozled because this was not what I thought was coming today.”

Biden administration officials and allies pushed back against the angst from the liberal wing of their party. They noted that the plan has the biggest spending ever for combating climate change —$555 billion — and the greatest expansion of education, with free, universal childcare, since the establishment of free high school.

“How can I say this is transformative? Because it is,” said Pelosi. She argued that the framework would lead to millions more Americans gaining access to health care, add thousands of jobs and benefit the environment.

Biden’s plan was first brought forward as a $7 trillion “Build Back Better” agenda in mid-2020 that also had much of what became the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill passed in March. His domestic proposals were offered as part of a plan to pull the nation from the depths of the pandemic and set it on a course toward an even more prosperous future.

Rebranded — for a time — as the American Families Plan, it formed the backbone of Biden’s first address to a joint session of Congress in April.

It included long-sought Democratic priorities like measures to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and provide 12 weeks of paid family leave. Each of those provisions fell out of the bill during the months of negotiation.

Before departing for Europe, Biden spoke of the latest version as if he had achieved a consensus and compromise in the classically understood sense -- between the two political parties.

In fact, he was actually talking about bringing together legislators from his own party — many of whom didn’t hide their frustration at Biden’s dramatic scaling back of his ambitions for the bill. The moment showed that Biden, while he’s found success in getting his party to unite in opposition to Trump, has had less luck getting a fractured rank-and-file to fall in line on policy fights.

Many of the cuts that are irking the liberal wing have also been painful for Biden. He’s repeatedly talked about issues like paid family leave and drug costs in personal terms.

Biden also had to pull back on his hopes of making permanent a proposal to extend the child tax credit that was in his $1.9 trillion relief plan passed earlier this year. The credit, which has helped to cut child poverty by nearly half by some estimates, would be extended only by a year. That leaves a future Congress to decide whether to sustain it.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian, said it was unclear that many Americans would quickly feel the benefits of what was left in Biden’s plan. That might make it difficult for Biden, whose approval rating has cratered in recent weeks, to benefit politically if the bills finally become law.

“The parts of the plan that would have immediate impact, like family leave and the prescription drugs, have been stripped out,” Zelizer said. “Parts of the plan won’t last forever. I am not certain that Americans are going to feel impact before some of this comes and goes.”

From the beginning, Biden faced headwinds as he sought to craft a social services and environmental spending plan to rival FDR’s New Deal, working with the backing of only slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Manchin and Sinema’s hesitance on various aspects of the package made Biden’s big aspirations an uphill battle from the start.

Jim Kessler, executive vice president of policy at the center-left group Third Way, said lessons learned by President Barack Obama, who was criticized by many on the left for not pushing for more stimulus in the midst of the Great Recession more than a decade ago, fed into the president’s decision to shoot for the moon.

While Biden fell short of his initial goals, Kessler said that lost in the noise is that the pared-down spending plan is still among the most significant domestic policy efforts of the last century.

“The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan soon after he came to office was huge,” Kessler said. “Now, if these two bills pass, those are big bumps. It feels like morning broke here as we go into November for the Biden presidency.”

Obama himself chimed in to make the point that Biden was right to swing for the fences.

“The Build Back Better framework doesn’t contain everything that the President proposed and that some had hoped,” Obama said in a statement. “But that’s the nature of progress in a democracy.” Still, Obama called it a “giant leap forward” for the country.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1635437156930.png" alt="President Biden spoke to the American people just before he left Thursday for Europe-White House photo" />
 <figcaption>President Biden spoke to the American people just before he left Thursday for Europe-White House photo</figcaption>
 </figure>By ZEKE MILLER and AAMER MADHANIWASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Biden set out to be a president who under-promised and over-delivered.That worked, until it didn’t.As the White House tries to nail down a nearly $3 trillion domestic package that Biden frames as a historic investment in infrastructure and social spending, the moment is clouded by a sense among many on the left that the pared-back package falls far short of the lofty expectations set by the president himself.“I know it’s hard,” Biden said Thursday, even as he sought to claim a victory for having crafted the “framework” of a social spending plan that he believes — or hopes — can pass Congress.“I know how deeply people feel about the things that they fight for,” he added. “No one got everything they wanted, including me. But that’s what compromise is.”It was not the triumphal moment the president had envisioned as he flew to Europe for economic and climate summits, landing in Rome early Friday. Instead, he and other Democratic leaders were left to almost plead for the support within their party to pass Biden’s signature legislative proposal. He was buffeted both from the liberal wing of his party and from moderate holdouts, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.He’s facing disgruntlement from some allies that the latest iteration of the proposed deal doesn’t meet his campaign aims as the ambition — and price tag — of his domestic legislative agenda has been repeatedly whittled back to secure the votes of members of his own party.Biden marketed himself to voters as a competent leader whose deep experience in the ways of Washington could yield meaningful change through legislation, a clear counterpoint to President Donald Trump’s blunt-instrument approach to policy. Instead, Biden was left not to negotiate with Republicans, but with his fellow Democrats, and he did not appear to succeed yet in persuading them, at least not on his preferred timetable.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats behind closed doors that “when the president gets off that plane, we want him to have a vote of confidence from this Congress.”“In order for us to have success, we must succeed today.”As the day dragged on, that appeared increasingly unlikely.None of that kept the president from claiming to be on the cusp of historic achievements.Biden and his allies stress that the proposed deal, though far smaller than first envisioned, would represent record spending and that new programs in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill and the $1.75 trillion social spending and climate legislation would boost American competitiveness, lift people out of poverty and ease the burdens of working families.As he arrived at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday morning to urge House Democrats to get behind the framework, he was greeted by environmental protesters who said he was giving up too much. Later, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, grumbled that Biden’s plan has “some major gaps in it” and that the bill does not provide relief on prescription drug costs.When it became clear that holdout Democrats still weren’t on board, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., said she felt “bamboozled because this was not what I thought was coming today.”Biden administration officials and allies pushed back against the angst from the liberal wing of their party. They noted that the plan has the biggest spending ever for combating climate change —$555 billion — and the greatest expansion of education, with free, universal childcare, since the establishment of free high school.“How can I say this is transformative? Because it is,” said Pelosi. She argued that the framework would lead to millions more Americans gaining access to health care, add thousands of jobs and benefit the environment.Biden’s plan was first brought forward as a $7 trillion “Build Back Better” agenda in mid-2020 that also had much of what became the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill passed in March. His domestic proposals were offered as part of a plan to pull the nation from the depths of the pandemic and set it on a course toward an even more prosperous future.Rebranded — for a time — as the American Families Plan, it formed the backbone of Biden’s first address to a joint session of Congress in April.It included long-sought Democratic priorities like measures to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and provide 12 weeks of paid family leave. Each of those provisions fell out of the bill during the months of negotiation.Before departing for Europe, Biden spoke of the latest version as if he had achieved a consensus and compromise in the classically understood sense -- between the two political parties.In fact, he was actually talking about bringing together legislators from his own party — many of whom didn’t hide their frustration at Biden’s dramatic scaling back of his ambitions for the bill. The moment showed that Biden, while he’s found success in getting his party to unite in opposition to Trump, has had less luck getting a fractured rank-and-file to fall in line on policy fights.Many of the cuts that are irking the liberal wing have also been painful for Biden. He’s repeatedly talked about issues like paid family leave and drug costs in personal terms.Biden also had to pull back on his hopes of making permanent a proposal to extend the child tax credit that was in his $1.9 trillion relief plan passed earlier this year. The credit, which has helped to cut child poverty by nearly half by some estimates, would be extended only by a year. That leaves a future Congress to decide whether to sustain it.Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian, said it was unclear that many Americans would quickly feel the benefits of what was left in Biden’s plan. That might make it difficult for Biden, whose approval rating has cratered in recent weeks, to benefit politically if the bills finally become law.“The parts of the plan that would have immediate impact, like family leave and the prescription drugs, have been stripped out,” Zelizer said. “Parts of the plan won’t last forever. I am not certain that Americans are going to feel impact before some of this comes and goes.”From the beginning, Biden faced headwinds as he sought to craft a social services and environmental spending plan to rival FDR’s New Deal, working with the backing of only slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Manchin and Sinema’s hesitance on various aspects of the package made Biden’s big aspirations an uphill battle from the start.Jim Kessler, executive vice president of policy at the center-left group Third Way, said lessons learned by President Barack Obama, who was criticized by many on the left for not pushing for more stimulus in the midst of the Great Recession more than a decade ago, fed into the president’s decision to shoot for the moon.While Biden fell short of his initial goals, Kessler said that lost in the noise is that the pared-down spending plan is still among the most significant domestic policy efforts of the last century.“The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan soon after he came to office was huge,” Kessler said. “Now, if these two bills pass, those are big bumps. It feels like morning broke here as we go into November for the Biden presidency.”Obama himself chimed in to make the point that Biden was right to swing for the fences.“The Build Back Better framework doesn’t contain everything that the President proposed and that some had hoped,” Obama said in a statement. “But that’s the nature of progress in a democracy.” Still, Obama called it a “giant leap forward” for the country.___

Analysis: Pres. Biden faces liberal angst after under-delivering

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Police say they are investigating the death of a woman in south Omaha as a homicide.

 Police say officers were called to an area along South 20th Street just before 8 a.m. Sunday for a death investigation and found the body of 61-year-old Jolene Harshbarger. 

Police say the circumstances surrounding Harshbarger's death are suspicious but have not said how she died. 

No arrests in the death have been reported, and police asked anyone with knowledge of Harshbarger's death to contact Crime Stoppers.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Police say they are investigating the death of a woman in south Omaha as a homicide. Police say officers were called to an area along South 20th Street just before 8 a.m. Sunday for a death investigation and found the body of 61-year-old Jolene Harshbarger. Police say the circumstances surrounding Harshbarger's death are suspicious but have not said how she died. No arrests in the death have been reported, and police asked anyone with knowledge of Harshbarger's death to contact Crime Stoppers.

Police investigate south Omaha woman's death as homicide

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration on Friday paved the way for children ages 5 to 11 to get Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Their decision came after U.S. health advisers endorsed the Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for younger children despite hearing concerns expressed by a number of physicians and parents.&nbsp;

During the public comment portion of the Oct. 26, hearing, a number of professionals and parents raised concerns about the vaccine for young children.

Steve Hirsh, Executive Director of the&nbsp; COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund told the panel there were too many unanswered questions for the FDA to approve the vaccine for 5-11 year-olds.

Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist, shared thoughts against the emergency use authorization of the vaccine for children because "COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable."

Dr. Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D., at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said extending the emergency use authorization for children's vaccine "would do more harm than good."

Dr. Beatrice Setnick, a clinical pharamacologist and consultant to various biotech companies told the panel, "please do not assume the vaccine is safe for children until more data is evaluated."

Amy Alvo, the mother of a 17-year-old , shared what the adverse reaction her daughter experienced after vaccination.

This week, the CDC will have to decide whether to recommend the shots and which youngsters should get them.

Some parents are expected to vaccinate their children ahead of family holiday gatherings and the winter cold season.

But a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey suggests most parents won’t rush to get the shots. About 25% of parents polled earlier this month said they would get their children vaccinated “right away.” But the remaining majority of parents were roughly split between those who said they will to wait to see how the vaccine performs and those who said they “definitely” won’t have their children vaccinated.

The similarly made Moderna vaccine also is being studied in young children, and both Pfizer and Moderna also are testing shots for babies and preschoolers.

-The Associated Press contributed to this report

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1635349957156.png" alt="A slide presented to the FDA panel Tuesday by Dr. Josh Guetzkow&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>A slide presented to the FDA panel Tuesday by Dr. Josh Guetzkow&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration on Friday paved the way for children ages 5 to 11 to get Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.Their decision came after U.S. health advisers endorsed the Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for younger children despite hearing concerns expressed by a number of physicians and parents.&nbsp;During the public comment portion of the Oct. 26, hearing, a number of professionals and parents raised concerns about the vaccine for young children.Steve Hirsh, Executive Director of the&nbsp; COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund told the panel there were too many unanswered questions for the FDA to approve the vaccine for 5-11 year-olds.<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laaL0_xKmmA?start=16805" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist, shared thoughts against the emergency use authorization of the vaccine for children because "COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable."<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laaL0_xKmmA?start=17219" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Dr. Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D., at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said extending the emergency use authorization for children's vaccine "would do more harm than good."<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laaL0_xKmmA?start=17425" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Dr. Beatrice Setnick, a clinical pharamacologist and consultant to various biotech companies told the panel, "please do not assume the vaccine is safe for children until more data is evaluated."<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laaL0_xKmmA?start=18053" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Amy Alvo, the mother of a 17-year-old , shared what the adverse reaction her daughter experienced after vaccination.<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laaL0_xKmmA?start=18209" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>This week, the CDC will have to decide whether to recommend the shots and which youngsters should get them.Some parents are expected to vaccinate their children ahead of family holiday gatherings and the winter cold season.But a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey suggests most parents won’t rush to get the shots. About 25% of parents polled earlier this month said they would get their children vaccinated “right away.” But the remaining majority of parents were roughly split between those who said they will to wait to see how the vaccine performs and those who said they “definitely” won’t have their children vaccinated.The similarly made Moderna vaccine also is being studied in young children, and both Pfizer and Moderna also are testing shots for babies and preschoolers.-The Associated Press contributed to this report

🎥 Some doctors, parents tell FDA to delay COVID vaccine for kids

(AP)-The coronavirus pandemic and its impact on the labor market have pushed many prison staffing systems into crisis. Correction officers are retiring and quitting in droves, while states struggle to recruit new employees. 

In Texas, Lance Lowry quit after 20 years to become a long-haul trucker because he couldn’t bear the job any longer. 

Staff shortages have long been a challenge for prison agencies, given the low pay and grueling nature of the work. And some prisons whose populations dropped during the pandemic have seen their numbers rise again, exacerbating the problem. 

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/1/1579101364118.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>(AP)-The coronavirus pandemic and its impact on the labor market have pushed many prison staffing systems into crisis. Correction officers are retiring and quitting in droves, while states struggle to recruit new employees. In Texas, Lance Lowry quit after 20 years to become a long-haul trucker because he couldn’t bear the job any longer. Staff shortages have long been a challenge for prison agencies, given the low pay and grueling nature of the work. And some prisons whose populations dropped during the pandemic have seen their numbers rise again, exacerbating the problem. Meanwhile, prisoners don’t see family members and can’t shower. Counseling and other programs have fallen away.