<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/06/24/nebraskans-react-to-the-roe-v-wade-ruling/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

Reaction from Nebraska officials has come in swiftly to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday overturning Roe v. Wade. Here’s a sampling:

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.: I have always supported pro-life policies that show compassion for women and their unborn children. Both conservative and liberal legal scholars have long questioned the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade. The justices made the right decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Center by affirming that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Today’s ruling returns policy making decisions on this issue to state and federal lawmakers. It’s going to take good-faith and empathy to address it.”

U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.: “America’s work of becoming a more perfect Union is never over, but today — by righting a constitutional wrong — the Supreme Court took a historic step forward. Roe’s days are over, but the pro-life movement’s work has just begun. This issue will now be debate in the 50 states, and a 330,000,000-person, continental nation will work through this debate in a way that’s healthier than Roe’s one-size-fits-all, Washington-centrism.”

U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, 2nd Congressional District: “Life is the most precious right and today’s decision in the Dobbs case affirms that. It does not outlaw abortion, but puts it in the hands of the elected representatives of the states and Congress. I now have worked for decades to defend life, and today their prayers were answered. I urge all to respond with mutual respect, civility and grace.”

State Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks, Democratic candidate for the 1st Congressional District: “Today the U.S. Supreme Court made an unconscionable decision to overturn Roe v. Waade, giving the government the seat at our daughters’ exam tables for which many have long coveted. A majority of Americans and Nebraskans do not agree that abortion should be illegal. Tuesday’s special election will be our first opportunity to stand up and fight back at the ballot box against this extreme effort to push us back into the Dark Ages.”

State Sen. Tony Vargas, Democratic candidate for the 2nd Congressional District: “Politicians don’t belong in doctor’s offices making medical decisions. Women should make the decisions that are the best for them with their doctors. Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is a clear threat to Americans’ health, safety, and rights. Governor Ricketts has promised to call the Legislature back into a special session, and when he does I’m ready to keep fighting for Nebraska women and families, alongside Planned Parenthood Action, to ensure their access to reproductive health care is protected. And in Congress, just as I have in the Nebraska Legislature, I’ll continue fighting to keep the heavy hand of government out of these important and deeply personal decisions.”

Jim Pillen, Republican candidate for governor: “Nebraska is a pro-life state because our citizens understand that life is the most precious gift of God’s grace. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed what we have long known to be true: Our Constitution contains no right to murder an unborn child. I will do all I can to ensure that no more unborn babies are killed.”

State Sen. Carol Blood, Democratic candidate for governor: “Reproductive justice is on the minds of many women here in Nebraska today. The trigger bill that will ultimately follow will cause Nebraskans to live in a police state. We will become a police state where doctors will live in fear when they need to provide necessary patient care. It will endanger the jobs of medical specialists who may be trying to protect a woman’s health, disallow women from making decisions on IVF with their doctors never allowing them to experience parenthood, mandate what types of birth control a woman may use instead of allowing the woman and her doctor to make that decision. … It’s terrifying that we are choosing to not protect the victims of sexual assault, especially our children.”

Sandy Danek, executive director, Nebraska Right to Life: “The Unicameral will now be charged with taking up the issue of abortion to determine what protection they are willing to provide to Nebraska women and their children. We must continue to work vigorously to elect pro-life representatives in the State Legislature to pass laws to protect mothers and their pre-born children. Elections matter. Nebraska is a pro-life state and our elected officials should reflect Nebraskans commitment to protecting all innocent life.”

Nate Grasz, policy director, Nebraska Family Alliance: “This is a historic victory for preborn children and their mothers. Overturning Roe finally gets the courts out of the abortion business and allows Americans to decide this issue through our elected representatives. For decades, the pro-life movement has worked not just to overturn Roe but to save lives, empower women, educate, and bring lasting cultural change. The pro-life movement cares not only about the unborn child but also for vulnerable mothers. This is demonstrated by the more than 2,700 pregnancy care centers nationwide that serve millions of people annually. With today’s decision, now our real work begins.”

Jo Giles, executive director, Women’s Fund of Omaha: “Everyone deserves the right to decide if, when and how to start a family — including all Nebraskans. Each of us should be free to live our lives with dignity and to make the decisions that are best for our lives, families and communities. Collectively, we will continue to reject further medically unnecessary restrictions to abortion that only stand in the way of pregnant people and the care they need.”

Scout Richters, legal and policy counsel, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska: “Most Nebraskans support keeping abortion legal in our state because they understand no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will or face the life-altering consequences of being denied abortion care. This race to take away people’s rights is dangerous and dystopian — and we will do everything we can to stop it. The impacts of pushing abortion out of reach would fall disproportionately on the same people who have always faced systemic barriers to care: Nebraskans of color, LGBTQ+ Nebraskans, undocumented Nebraskans, young Nebraskans, Nebraskans living in rural communities, Nebraskans with disabilities and Nebraskans with low incomes. All Nebraskans must remain free to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. Now, more than ever, is the time to contact your state senator and demand they respect our reproductive rights.”

Gov. Pete Ricketts: “Roe v. Wade took away the states’ right to regulate abortion and cost millions of babies their lives. Today’s Supreme Court decision restores the rights of the people, and as a result our future generations will have a chance at life. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe is an answer to millions of prayers on behalf of the unborn and a victory for human life. I will be working with our legislative leaders to determine what more we can do to protect our preborn babies.”

U.S. Rep Adrian Smith, R-Neb: “Life is a miracle that begins at conception. While today’s decision is a win for the pro-life movement, our work does not end here. We must ensure states – which are now rightfully tasked with authority over abortion — have the resources needed to restore a culture that respects and values life by supporting at-risk mothers, fathers, and children.”

Nebraska Legislative Speaker Mike Hilgers: “After nearly 50 years, the Supreme Court has rightfully overturned Roe and Casey and returned the question of abortion to the elected representatives of the states. I anticipate that Nebraskans’ elected representatives in the Legislature will be in special session this summer to pass legislation to protect pre-born babies. I will work with Governor Ricketts on the timing of a special session. And, after reviewing the Supreme Court’s opinion in detail, I will work closely with the Governor and my legislative colleagues on the scope of such protections.”

State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha: “This is a really dark day for women in this country, and our autonomy. And I’m concerned about what the future holds for us. What other things will be taken away from women?” She said abortion no longer is a “hot-button political talking point. … Now you have to deal with the reality of the health care implications. They never had to address those health care realities before. … No matter what your religious beliefs are, women’s health care is a real thing.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656094828972.png" alt="Abortion rights protesters gather May 3, 2022, outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building. (Jane Norman/States Newsroom)" />
 <figcaption>Abortion rights protesters gather May 3, 2022, outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building. (Jane Norman/States Newsroom)</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/06/24/nebraskans-react-to-the-roe-v-wade-ruling/">Nebraska Examiner</a>Reaction from Nebraska officials has come in swiftly to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday overturning Roe v. Wade. Here’s a sampling: U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.: I have always supported pro-life policies that show compassion for women and their unborn children. Both conservative and liberal legal scholars have long questioned the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade. The justices made the right decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Center by affirming that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Today’s ruling returns policy making decisions on this issue to state and federal lawmakers. It’s going to take good-faith and empathy to address it.” U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.: “America’s work of becoming a more perfect Union is never over, but today — by righting a constitutional wrong — the Supreme Court took a historic step forward. Roe’s days are over, but the pro-life movement’s work has just begun. This issue will now be debate in the 50 states, and a 330,000,000-person, continental nation will work through this debate in a way that’s healthier than Roe’s one-size-fits-all, Washington-centrism.” U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, 2nd Congressional District: “Life is the most precious right and today’s decision in the Dobbs case affirms that. It does not outlaw abortion, but puts it in the hands of the elected representatives of the states and Congress. I now have worked for decades to defend life, and today their prayers were answered. I urge all to respond with mutual respect, civility and grace.” State Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks, Democratic candidate for the 1st Congressional District: “Today the U.S. Supreme Court made an unconscionable decision to overturn Roe v. Waade, giving the government the seat at our daughters’ exam tables for which many have long coveted. A majority of Americans and Nebraskans do not agree that abortion should be illegal. Tuesday’s special election will be our first opportunity to stand up and fight back at the ballot box against this extreme effort to push us back into the Dark Ages.” State Sen. Tony Vargas, Democratic candidate for the 2nd Congressional District: “Politicians don’t belong in doctor’s offices making medical decisions. Women should make the decisions that are the best for them with their doctors. Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is a clear threat to Americans’ health, safety, and rights. Governor Ricketts has promised to call the Legislature back into a special session, and when he does I’m ready to keep fighting for Nebraska women and families, alongside Planned Parenthood Action, to ensure their access to reproductive health care is protected. And in Congress, just as I have in the Nebraska Legislature, I’ll continue fighting to keep the heavy hand of government out of these important and deeply personal decisions.” Jim Pillen, Republican candidate for governor: “Nebraska is a pro-life state because our citizens understand that life is the most precious gift of God’s grace. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed what we have long known to be true: Our Constitution contains no right to murder an unborn child. I will do all I can to ensure that no more unborn babies are killed.” State Sen. Carol Blood, Democratic candidate for governor: “Reproductive justice is on the minds of many women here in Nebraska today. The trigger bill that will ultimately follow will cause Nebraskans to live in a police state. We will become a police state where doctors will live in fear when they need to provide necessary patient care. It will endanger the jobs of medical specialists who may be trying to protect a woman’s health, disallow women from making decisions on IVF with their doctors never allowing them to experience parenthood, mandate what types of birth control a woman may use instead of allowing the woman and her doctor to make that decision. … It’s terrifying that we are choosing to not protect the victims of sexual assault, especially our children.” Sandy Danek, executive director, Nebraska Right to Life: “The Unicameral will now be charged with taking up the issue of abortion to determine what protection they are willing to provide to Nebraska women and their children. We must continue to work vigorously to elect pro-life representatives in the State Legislature to pass laws to protect mothers and their pre-born children. Elections matter. Nebraska is a pro-life state and our elected officials should reflect Nebraskans commitment to protecting all innocent life.” Nate Grasz, policy director, Nebraska Family Alliance: “This is a historic victory for preborn children and their mothers. Overturning Roe finally gets the courts out of the abortion business and allows Americans to decide this issue through our elected representatives. For decades, the pro-life movement has worked not just to overturn Roe but to save lives, empower women, educate, and bring lasting cultural change. The pro-life movement cares not only about the unborn child but also for vulnerable mothers. This is demonstrated by the more than 2,700 pregnancy care centers nationwide that serve millions of people annually. With today’s decision, now our real work begins.” Jo Giles, executive director, Women’s Fund of Omaha: “Everyone deserves the right to decide if, when and how to start a family — including all Nebraskans. Each of us should be free to live our lives with dignity and to make the decisions that are best for our lives, families and communities. Collectively, we will continue to reject further medically unnecessary restrictions to abortion that only stand in the way of pregnant people and the care they need.” Scout Richters, legal and policy counsel, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska: “Most Nebraskans support keeping abortion legal in our state because they understand no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will or face the life-altering consequences of being denied abortion care. This race to take away people’s rights is dangerous and dystopian — and we will do everything we can to stop it. The impacts of pushing abortion out of reach would fall disproportionately on the same people who have always faced systemic barriers to care: Nebraskans of color, LGBTQ+ Nebraskans, undocumented Nebraskans, young Nebraskans, Nebraskans living in rural communities, Nebraskans with disabilities and Nebraskans with low incomes. All Nebraskans must remain free to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. Now, more than ever, is the time to contact your state senator and demand they respect our reproductive rights.” Gov. Pete Ricketts: “Roe v. Wade took away the states’ right to regulate abortion and cost millions of babies their lives. Today’s Supreme Court decision restores the rights of the people, and as a result our future generations will have a chance at life. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe is an answer to millions of prayers on behalf of the unborn and a victory for human life. I will be working with our legislative leaders to determine what more we can do to protect our preborn babies.” U.S. Rep Adrian Smith, R-Neb: “Life is a miracle that begins at conception. While today’s decision is a win for the pro-life movement, our work does not end here. We must ensure states – which are now rightfully tasked with authority over abortion — have the resources needed to restore a culture that respects and values life by supporting at-risk mothers, fathers, and children.” Nebraska Legislative Speaker Mike Hilgers: “After nearly 50 years, the Supreme Court has rightfully overturned Roe and Casey and returned the question of abortion to the elected representatives of the states. I anticipate that Nebraskans’ elected representatives in the Legislature will be in special session this summer to pass legislation to protect pre-born babies. I will work with Governor Ricketts on the timing of a special session. And, after reviewing the Supreme Court’s opinion in detail, I will work closely with the Governor and my legislative colleagues on the scope of such protections.” State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha: “This is a really dark day for women in this country, and our autonomy. And I’m concerned about what the future holds for us. What other things will be taken away from women?” She said abortion no longer is a “hot-button political talking point. … Now you have to deal with the reality of the health care implications. They never had to address those health care realities before. … No matter what your religious beliefs are, women’s health care is a real thing.”

Nebraskans react to the Roe v. Wade ruling

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

(Click below to watch President Biden's comments)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LINCOLN, NEB.&nbsp; — One person has been arrested following an investigating into a shooting that occurred last weekend in Peru, Nebraska.

Saturday evening, the Nemaha County Sheriff’s Office responded to a report of a shooting incident that occurred in the 1200 block of 6th&nbsp;street in Peru. After preliminary response, the Sheriff’s Office requested that the Nebraska State Patrol conduct an investigation into the incident.

That investigation has revealed that Guadalupe DeLaCruz, 58, entered the property of Mark Dupre, 25, during a dispute between the two neighbors. During the altercation, DeLaCruz discharged a handgun twice, striking Dupre a single time and missing another person. Dupre was transported to Bryan Health Center West Campus in Lincoln for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries and has since been released from the hospital. There were several people on Dupre’s property, including children, at the time of the incident.

Following the investigation, an arrest warrant was issued for DeLaCruz, who turned himself in to Nemaha County authorities early this morning. DeLaCruz has been lodged in Nemaha County Jail for first degree assault, attempted first degree assault, two counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, child abuse, and carrying a concealed weapon.

LINCOLN, NEB.&nbsp; — One person has been arrested following an investigating into a shooting that occurred last weekend in Peru, Nebraska.Saturday evening, the Nemaha County Sheriff’s Office responded to a report of a shooting incident that occurred in the 1200 block of 6th&nbsp;street in Peru. After preliminary response, the Sheriff’s Office requested that the Nebraska State Patrol conduct an investigation into the incident.That investigation has revealed that Guadalupe DeLaCruz, 58, entered the property of Mark Dupre, 25, during a dispute between the two neighbors. During the altercation, DeLaCruz discharged a handgun twice, striking Dupre a single time and missing another person. Dupre was transported to Bryan Health Center West Campus in Lincoln for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries and has since been released from the hospital. There were several people on Dupre’s property, including children, at the time of the incident.Following the investigation, an arrest warrant was issued for DeLaCruz, who turned himself in to Nemaha County authorities early this morning. DeLaCruz has been lodged in Nemaha County Jail for first degree assault, attempted first degree assault, two counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, child abuse, and carrying a concealed weapon.

Man arrested following Peru shooting investigation

Facility expected to draw 1M visitors annually

By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/06/24/ground-broken-on-sports-complex-that-could-eventually-draw-1-million-visitors/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

A youth sports organization based
 in Elkhorn broke ground Thursday on a multimillion-dollar, multi-sports
 complex that officials project will eventually draw more than 1 million
 visitors a year.

&nbsp;“We’ll
 be the second-largest visitor attraction in the State of Nebraska when 
it’s fully operational,” said Bruce O’Neel, the executive director of 
the Elkhorn Athletic Association.

 That, he said, would rank it right behind Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo.

On Thursday, the association broke ground on the MD
 West ONE Sports Complex at 264th and Ida Streets near Valley. The first
 phase will include eight artificial turf baseball/softball fields, six 
synthetic turf soccer/football fields and a barrier-free field for kids 
with adaptive needs. More fields will be added later to the estimated $52 million project.

The project is
 seeking to capitalize on the lucrative market for regional and 
national, youth sports tournaments — tournaments that are being held in 
places like Des Moines and Kansas City now, according to officials.

“A
 lot of organizers want to put tournaments in Omaha, but we don’t have 
the right facilities,” said Mark Rath, director of sports for Visit 
Omaha.

He said the 1 million estimate is valid for the Valley project.

“Youth sports is just huge,” Rath said.

Currently, the Omaha area is hosting 625 
youth baseball teams that are playing in a 13-day, annual Triple Crown 
Sports tournament that coincides with the College World Series. Families
 are staying in motels and hotels throughout the area, Rath said.

Nationally, youth sports is estimated to be a
 $19.2 billion industry, according to Wintergreen Research, as families 
invest in club teams that travel widely to tournaments.

Those kinds of numbers have attracted the 
attention of the Nebraska Legislature in recent years, which has passed 
incentives for construction of youth sports complexes and just recently 
set aside $115 million to help complete such recreation facilities, as 
well as expansions to museums and art galleries, that were disrupted by 
the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Elkhorn project just received a $3.8 million grant from the&nbsp; Shovel-Ready Capital Recovery and Investment Act, while another planned youth sports complex, the Nebraska MultiSports Complex at La Vista, received a $12 million grant.&nbsp;

Joe Greco of the Elkhorn Athletic 
Association said that the initial phase of its project, to be completed 
in late 2023 or spring of 2024, is projected to&nbsp;host 25 to 30 weekend 
tournaments a year, generating up to 40,000 hotel room nights a year 
used by families accompanying their athletic children.

The La Vista project, which broke ground a month ago, is projected to generate 32,000 hotel room nights a year.

The
 Nebraska Multisports complex, which was a decade in the planning, said 
in a press release that it expects to have some of its 12 lighted, 
synthetic turf, multi-purpose fields planned for its initial phase ready
 this fall.

The
 La Vista complex, which is near Cabela’s, is forecasting an annual 
economic impact of $9.9 million, generating $401,000 a year in local 
sales and lodging taxes. 

Is there enough demand for two of these youth sports complexes in the Omaha area?

Both O’Neel and Rath said they believe so.

O’Neel
 said the La Vista complex appears to be more aimed at soccer 
tournaments, while the Elkhorn project is more targeted at baseball and 
softball.&nbsp;

Lisa Roskens, a board member of the La Vista
 projects, said that project was revised to include baseball and 
fast-pitch softball fields as well as fields for soccer, football and 
rugby.

According to O’Neel, the Elkhorn
 Athletic Association already has a letter of intent from one hotel to 
build nearby and has talked other lodging facilities and restaurants.

About 100 people attended Thursday’s 
groundbreaking in Valley, including representatives of chambers of 
commerce for Fremont, Omaha, Valley and Waterloo.

Heisman Trophy winner Eric Crouch is a 
co-founder of the Elkhorn Athletic Association, which had 6,000 kids 
registered for various sports and cheerleading this year.

The association’s partner in the Valley project is MD West ONE, a provider of orthopedic, sports medicine, neurosurgery and spine care.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656082725459.png" alt="The Elkhorn Athletic Association broke ground Thursday on a youth sports complex near Valley estimated to eventually cost $52 million. (Courtesy of the Elkhorn Athletic Association)" />
 <figcaption>The Elkhorn Athletic Association broke ground Thursday on a youth sports complex near Valley estimated to eventually cost $52 million. (Courtesy of the Elkhorn Athletic Association)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Facility expected to draw 1M visitors annually</h2>By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/06/24/ground-broken-on-sports-complex-that-could-eventually-draw-1-million-visitors/">Nebraska Examiner</a>A youth sports organization based
 in Elkhorn broke ground Thursday on a multimillion-dollar, multi-sports
 complex that officials project will eventually draw more than 1 million
 visitors a year.&nbsp;“We’ll
 be the second-largest visitor attraction in the State of Nebraska when 
it’s fully operational,” said Bruce O’Neel, the executive director of 
the Elkhorn Athletic Association. That, he said, would rank it right behind Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo.<h2>Near Valley</h2>On Thursday, the association broke ground on the MD
 West ONE Sports Complex at 264th and Ida Streets near Valley. The first
 phase will include eight artificial turf baseball/softball fields, six 
synthetic turf soccer/football fields and a barrier-free field for kids 
with adaptive needs. More fields will be added later to the estimated $52 million project.The project is
 seeking to capitalize on the lucrative market for regional and 
national, youth sports tournaments — tournaments that are being held in 
places like Des Moines and Kansas City now, according to officials.“A
 lot of organizers want to put tournaments in Omaha, but we don’t have 
the right facilities,” said Mark Rath, director of sports for Visit 
Omaha.He said the 1 million estimate is valid for the Valley project.<h2>‘Youth sports is just huge’</h2>“Youth sports is just huge,” Rath said.Currently, the Omaha area is hosting 625 
youth baseball teams that are playing in a 13-day, annual Triple Crown 
Sports tournament that coincides with the College World Series. Families
 are staying in motels and hotels throughout the area, Rath said.Nationally, youth sports is estimated to be a
 $19.2 billion industry, according to Wintergreen Research, as families 
invest in club teams that travel widely to tournaments.Those kinds of numbers have attracted the 
attention of the Nebraska Legislature in recent years, which has passed 
incentives for construction of youth sports complexes and just recently 
set aside $115 million to help complete such recreation facilities, as 
well as expansions to museums and art galleries, that were disrupted by 
the COVID-19 pandemic.<h2>State provided grants</h2>The Elkhorn project just received a $3.8 million grant from the&nbsp; Shovel-Ready Capital Recovery and Investment Act, while another planned youth sports complex, the Nebraska MultiSports Complex at La Vista, received a $12 million grant.&nbsp;Joe Greco of the Elkhorn Athletic 
Association said that the initial phase of its project, to be completed 
in late 2023 or spring of 2024, is projected to&nbsp;host 25 to 30 weekend 
tournaments a year, generating up to 40,000 hotel room nights a year 
used by families accompanying their athletic children.The La Vista project, which broke ground a month ago, is projected to generate 32,000 hotel room nights a year.The
 Nebraska Multisports complex, which was a decade in the planning, said 
in a press release that it expects to have some of its 12 lighted, 
synthetic turf, multi-purpose fields planned for its initial phase ready
 this fall.

	La Vista project [/subhed]The
 La Vista complex, which is near Cabela’s, is forecasting an annual 
economic impact of $9.9 million, generating $401,000 a year in local 
sales and lodging taxes. Is there enough demand for two of these youth sports complexes in the Omaha area?Both O’Neel and Rath said they believe so.O’Neel
 said the La Vista complex appears to be more aimed at soccer 
tournaments, while the Elkhorn project is more targeted at baseball and 
softball.&nbsp;Lisa Roskens, a board member of the La Vista
 projects, said that project was revised to include baseball and 
fast-pitch softball fields as well as fields for soccer, football and 
rugby.According to O’Neel, the Elkhorn
 Athletic Association already has a letter of intent from one hotel to 
build nearby and has talked other lodging facilities and restaurants.About 100 people attended Thursday’s 
groundbreaking in Valley, including representatives of chambers of 
commerce for Fremont, Omaha, Valley and Waterloo.Heisman Trophy winner Eric Crouch is a 
co-founder of the Elkhorn Athletic Association, which had 6,000 kids 
registered for various sports and cheerleading this year.The association’s partner in the Valley project is MD West ONE, a provider of orthopedic, sports medicine, neurosurgery and spine care.

Ground broken on massive sports complex west of Omaha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LGBTQ students would get new protections under Biden plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The combination of more than 21 million unprocessed paper tax 
returns, more than 14 million math error notices, eight-month backlogs 
in processing taxpayer correspondence, and extraordinary difficulty 
reaching the IRS by phone made this filing season particularly 
challenging," Collins wrote.

As required by law, the Advocate's report identifies TAS's key 
objectives for the upcoming fiscal year. The report describes 14 
systemic advocacy objectives, six case advocacy and other business 
objectives, and three research objectives. In light of the challenges 
taxpayers have been facing over the last two years, Collins wrote that 
TAS will be placing heavy emphasis on working with the IRS to improve 
the processing of tax returns and taxpayer service generally. Among the 
objectives the report identifies are the following:

IRS Responses to National Taxpayer Advocate Administrative Recommendations

The National Taxpayer Advocate is required by statute to submit a 
year-end report to Congress that, among other things, makes 
administrative recommendations to resolve taxpayer problems. 
Section&nbsp;7803(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the National 
Taxpayer Advocate to submit administrative recommendations to the 
Commissioner and requires the IRS to respond within three months. Under 
this authority, the National Taxpayer Advocate annually transmits to the
 Commissioner all administrative recommendations proposed in her 
year-end report for response.

The National Taxpayer Advocate made 88 administrative recommendations
 in her 2021 year-end report and then submitted them to the Commissioner
 for response. The IRS has agreed to implement 61 (or 69%) of the 
recommendations in full or in part.

The IRS's responses are published on the TAS website at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/arc-recommendations-tracker/">National Taxpayer Advocate’s Annual Report to Congress Tracker</a>.

The National Taxpayer Advocate is required by statute to submit two 
annual reports to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate 
Committee on Finance. The statute requires these reports to be submitted
 directly to the Committees without any prior review or comment from the
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
IRS Oversight Board, any other officer or employee of the Department of 
the Treasury, or the Office of Management and Budget. The first report 
must identify the objectives of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate for 
the fiscal year beginning in that calendar year. The second report must 
include a discussion of the ten most serious problems encountered by 
taxpayers, identify the ten tax issues most frequently litigated in the 
courts, and make administrative and legislative recommendations to 
resolve taxpayer problems.

The National Taxpayer Advocate blogs about key issues in tax administration. Visit <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/contact-us/subscribe-to-tas/">TAS Subscriptions</a> to subscribe. Past blogs from the National Taxpayer Advocate can be found at <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/taxnews-information/blogs-nta/">Most Recent NTA Blogs</a>. For media inquiries, please contact TAS Media Relations at <a href="mailto:TAS.media@irs.gov">tas.media@irs.gov</a> or call the media line at <a href="tel:202-317-6802">202-317-6802</a>.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) is an independent organization
 within the IRS that helps taxpayers and protects taxpayer rights. The 
local taxpayer advocate's number is in local directories and at <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/contact-us/">Contact Us</a>. Taxpayers can also call TAS toll-free at <a href="tel:877-777-4778">877-777-4778</a>.
 TAS can help those who need assistance in resolving an IRS problem, if 
the problem is causing financial difficulty, or those who believe an IRS
 system or procedure isn't working as it should. This service is free. <a href="http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/">We're your voice</a> at the IRS has more information about TAS and taxpayer rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Get updates on tax topics at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/YourVoiceAtIRS">facebook.com/YourVoiceAtIRS</a>, <a href="https://www.twitter.com/YourVoiceAtIRS">Twitter.com/YourVoiceatIRS</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/tasnta">YouTube.com/TASNTA</a>.

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

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

Advocate to Congress: Concerns about refund delays, poor service at IRS

OLATHE, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas man has been sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison for a 2018 hit-and-run crash that killed two people. 

Television station WDAF reports that 48-year-old Bradley Woodworth was sentenced Tuesday to 19½ year in prison after pleading guilty in February to two counts of second-degree murder for the deaths of 18-year-old Matthew Bloskey, of Overland Park, and 20-year-old Samuel Siebuhr, of Kansas City, Kansas.

Investigators said the Oct. 6 crash in Overland Park began as a road rage confrontation between Woodworth and Siebuhr before their vehicles collided. 

Siebuhr's car spun into oncoming traffic and the path of Bloskey's vehicle. That collision caused Siebuhr's car to burst into flames, and both Siebuhr and Bloskey died. Police say Woodworth sped away.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1655905375616.png" alt="Woodworth-photo Johnson Co." />
 <figcaption>Woodworth-photo Johnson Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>OLATHE, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas man has been sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison for a 2018 hit-and-run crash that killed two people. Television station WDAF reports that 48-year-old Bradley Woodworth was sentenced Tuesday to 19½ year in prison after pleading guilty in February to two counts of second-degree murder for the deaths of 18-year-old Matthew Bloskey, of Overland Park, and 20-year-old Samuel Siebuhr, of Kansas City, Kansas.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1655905247286.png" alt="First responders at the crash scene photo courtesy KSHB" />
 <figcaption>First responders at the crash scene photo courtesy KSHB</figcaption>
 </figure>Investigators said the Oct. 6 crash in Overland Park began as a road rage confrontation between Woodworth and Siebuhr before their vehicles collided. Siebuhr's car spun into oncoming traffic and the path of Bloskey's vehicle. That collision caused Siebuhr's car to burst into flames, and both Siebuhr and Bloskey died. Police say Woodworth sped away.

 Kan. man sentenced for fatal hit-and-run, road rage crash

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former top Justice Department officials have testified to the Jan. 6 committee that President Donald Trump hounded the department to pursue his false election fraud claims, contacting the agency’s leader “virtually every day” and striving in vain to enlist the government’s top law enforcement officials in his desperate bid to stay in power. 

The House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol heard testimony Thursday that Trump was fixated on fake voter fraud claims and insisted the officials pursue them despite being repeatedly told that none had any merit.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-2022-midterm-elections-ivanka-trump-biden-congress-6bd8df364e9a087dac705b0d9ed31abd">Jan. 6 committee</a>&nbsp;will hear from former Justice Department officials who faced down a relentless pressure campaign from Donald Trump over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">the 2020 presidential election results</a>&nbsp;while suppressing a bizarre challenge from within their own ranks.

The hearing Thursday will bring attention to a memorably turbulent stretch at the department as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/emails-show-trump-pressured-justice-department-election-2020-4f35f18009e8c88b3cddcdc3f4bdd54f">Trump in his final days in office</a>&nbsp;sought to bend to his will a law enforcement agency that has long cherished its independence from the White House. The testimony is aimed at showing how Trump not only relied on outside advisers to press his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-technology-49a24edd6d10888dbad61689c24b05a5">false claims of election fraud</a>&nbsp;but also tried to leverage the powers of federal executive branch agencies.

The witnesses will include Jeffrey Rosen, who was acting attorney general during&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol</a>. Three days earlier, Rosen was part of a tense Oval Office showdown in which Trump contemplated replacing him with a lower-level official, Jeffrey Clark, who wanted to champion Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-michael-pence-electoral-college-elections-health-2d9bd47a8bd3561682ac46c6b3873a10">bogus election fraud claims</a>.

In a written statement prepared for the committee and obtained by The Associated Press, Rosen says the Justice Department had been presented with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-7fcb6f134e528fee8237c7601db3328f">no evidence of fraud</a>&nbsp;that could have affected the outcome of the election and therefore did not participate in any Trump campaign efforts to overturn the results, instead insisting on an orderly transfer of power.

“Some argued to the former president and public that the election was corrupt and stolen,” Rosen’s statement says. “That view was wrong then and it is wrong today, and I hope our presence here today helps reaffirm that fact.”

Two other former department officials, Rosen’s top deputy, Richard Donoghue, and Steven Engel, are also scheduled to testify. Both warned Trump at the White House meeting that they’d resign and that many of the department’s lawyers would follow if he replaced Rosen with Clark.

“You could have a situation here, within 24 hours, you have hundreds of people resigning from the Justice Department,” Donoghue has said he told Trump. “Is that good for anyone? Is it good for the department? Is it good for the country? Is it good for you. It’s not.”

Only then did Trump relent. The night, and later his Republican administration, ended with Rosen still in power.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former top Justice Department officials have testified to the Jan. 6 committee that President Donald Trump hounded the department to pursue his false election fraud claims, contacting the agency’s leader “virtually every day” and striving in vain to enlist the government’s top law enforcement officials in his desperate bid to stay in power. <div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z4535-VW-bY?start=627" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>The House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol heard testimony Thursday that Trump was fixated on fake voter fraud claims and insisted the officials pursue them despite being repeatedly told that none had any merit.-------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-2022-midterm-elections-ivanka-trump-biden-congress-6bd8df364e9a087dac705b0d9ed31abd">Jan. 6 committee</a>&nbsp;will hear from former Justice Department officials who faced down a relentless pressure campaign from Donald Trump over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">the 2020 presidential election results</a>&nbsp;while suppressing a bizarre challenge from within their own ranks.The hearing Thursday will bring attention to a memorably turbulent stretch at the department as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/emails-show-trump-pressured-justice-department-election-2020-4f35f18009e8c88b3cddcdc3f4bdd54f">Trump in his final days in office</a>&nbsp;sought to bend to his will a law enforcement agency that has long cherished its independence from the White House. The testimony is aimed at showing how Trump not only relied on outside advisers to press his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-technology-49a24edd6d10888dbad61689c24b05a5">false claims of election fraud</a>&nbsp;but also tried to leverage the powers of federal executive branch agencies.The witnesses will include Jeffrey Rosen, who was acting attorney general during&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol</a>. Three days earlier, Rosen was part of a tense Oval Office showdown in which Trump contemplated replacing him with a lower-level official, Jeffrey Clark, who wanted to champion Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-michael-pence-electoral-college-elections-health-2d9bd47a8bd3561682ac46c6b3873a10">bogus election fraud claims</a>.In a written statement prepared for the committee and obtained by The Associated Press, Rosen says the Justice Department had been presented with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-7fcb6f134e528fee8237c7601db3328f">no evidence of fraud</a>&nbsp;that could have affected the outcome of the election and therefore did not participate in any Trump campaign efforts to overturn the results, instead insisting on an orderly transfer of power.“Some argued to the former president and public that the election was corrupt and stolen,” Rosen’s statement says. “That view was wrong then and it is wrong today, and I hope our presence here today helps reaffirm that fact.”Two other former department officials, Rosen’s top deputy, Richard Donoghue, and Steven Engel, are also scheduled to testify. Both warned Trump at the White House meeting that they’d resign and that many of the department’s lawyers would follow if he replaced Rosen with Clark.“You could have a situation here, within 24 hours, you have hundreds of people resigning from the Justice Department,” Donoghue has said he told Trump. “Is that good for anyone? Is it good for the department? Is it good for the country? Is it good for you. It’s not.”Only then did Trump relent. The night, and later his Republican administration, ended with Rosen still in power.The hearing is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-ivanka-trump-politics-entertainment-new-york-5bb69ad9ff710fcf9602cfbf093b59c7">the fifth this month</a>&nbsp;by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-congress-donald-trump-subpoenas-government-and-politics-af491858a41ce4f42416fe3a7131592e">the House committee</a>&nbsp;investigating the run-up to the insurrection at the Capitol, when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">Trump loyalists stormed the building</a>&nbsp;as lawmakers were certifying the results of the election won by Democrat Joe Biden. Witnesses have included&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-government-and-politics-riots-d690e70ac850d8652b82c0c3e2fba5bf">police officers attacked at the Capitol</a>&nbsp;as well as lawyers, a television executive and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-capitol-siege-biden-presidential-election-2020-5f0f2eeae477437a5fed9fffe9ce286a">local election officials</a>&nbsp;who all resisted demands to alter results in Trump’s favor.The committee last week presented videotaped depositions of former Attorney General William Barr, who&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-capitol-siege-donald-trump-campaigns-presidential-070ced9a013c58cf001d6d4137e4abc0">castigated Trump’s fraud claims as “bull—,” “bogus” and “idiotic”</a>&nbsp;and resigned after failing to convince the president of that.Thursday’s hearing will focus on what happened next as Rosen, Barr’s top deputy, took over the department and found himself immediately besieged by Trump’s demands for Justice Department action.In one phone conversation,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-urged-justice-department-to-declare-election-corrupt-0edf178869f33ddcf72d4c739bd18a5d">according to handwritten notes</a>&nbsp;taken by Donoghue and made public by lawmakers last year, Trump directed to Rosen to “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”Around that time, Trump was introduced by a Republican congressman, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, to Clark, who’d joined the department in 2018 as its chief environmental lawyer and was later appointed to run its civil division. Clark was earlier subpoenaed by the committee to give a deposition but will not be among the witnesses Thursday.Clark, according to statements from other Justice Department officials, met with Trump despite being ordered not to by bosses at the department and presented himself as eager to aid the president’s efforts to challenge the election results.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22066517-subverting-justice" target="_blank">A report released last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee</a>&nbsp;that painted Clark as a relentless advocate for Trump included a draft letter pushing Georgia officials to convene a special legislative session to reconsider the election results.Clark wanted the letter sent, but superiors at the Justice Department refused.The situation came to a head on Jan. 3, 2021, a Sunday, when Clark informed Rosen in a private meeting at the Justice Department that Trump wanted to replace him with Clark as acting attorney general. Rosen, according to the Senate report, responded that “there was no universe I could imagine in which that would ever happen” and that he would not accept being fired by a subordinate.Rosen then contacted the White House to request a meeting. That night, Rosen, Donoghue and Engel, along with Clark, gathered with Trump and top White House lawyers for a contentious, hours-long Oval Office meeting about whether the president should follow through with his plans for a radical leadership change at the department.According to testimony given by Rosen, Trump opened the meeting by saying, “One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election.”Donoghue and Engel made clear to Trump that they and large numbers of other Justice Department officials would resign if Trump fired Rosen. White House lawyers said the same. Pat Cipollone, then the White House counsel, said the letter that Clark wanted to send was a “murder-suicide pact.”“Steve Engel at one point said, ‘Jeff Clark will be leading a graveyard. And what are you going to get done with a graveyard,’ that there would be such an exodus of the leadership,” Donoghue told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “So it was very strongly worded to the president that that would happen.”Donoghue also sought to dissuade Trump from believing that Clark had the legal background to do as the president wished since he was not a criminal prosecutor at the department.“And he kind of retorted by saying, ‘Well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that,’” Donoghue said. “And I said, ‘That’s right. You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.’”