By CINDY GONZALEZ <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/mutual-of-omaha-envisions-a-potential-second-office-tower-on-city-block-east-of-the-library/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

Omahans
 eventually could see a second Mutual of Omaha downtown office 
structure, perhaps up to 20 stories high, on the city block east of the 
current library site where the insurance mammoth plans to build its 
corporate headquarters.

Details
 on what specifically would occupy that 1.7 acres are to be hammered out
 later, CEO James Blackledge told the Nebraska Examiner on Monday.&nbsp;

He
 said, however, that if the Fortune 500 company continues to grow, it 
likely will require even more local office space than the 800,000 square
 feet to be built in the future $443 million office tower at 215 S. 15th
 St., where the W. Dale Clark library currently sits.

“We
 don’t want to overbuild, but we also want the ability to grow into our 
space rather than have to move or have separate sites” or campuses, 
Blackledge said.

Mutual’s
 acquisition of the city block bounded by 13th, 14th, Douglas and Farnam
 Streets is among numerous points related to the proposed headquarters 
site laid out in a nearly 140-page agreement between the insurance 
company and the city.

The proposed agreement was made public and reported on by the Examiner <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/04/29/mutual-of-omaha-is-to-spread-its-downtown-footprint-beyond-library-site-sell-midtown-parking-garages-to-city/">on Friday</a>,
 and Blackledge elaborated on its contents during an interview Monday. 
It was the first public mention of the additional block envisioned for 
Mutual’s growth, although Blackledge said that Mutual had talked about 
wanting spillover land for future expansion since last September when it
 was eyeing a different possible downtown headquarters site northwest of
 14th and Dodge Streets.

The block east of&nbsp;14th Street
 would continue to be used as a construction staging area for up to four
 years while the main headquarters structure rises. The space is 
currently being used for the same purpose as the overhaul winds down on 
the Gene Leahy Mall.&nbsp;

The
 proposed agreement says that the maximum height of any structure built 
upon the block east of the library shall not surpass 320 feet. That’s 
about the height of the 19-story Union Pacific Railroad corporate office
 tower.

Also,
 the document says, if the site were to be repurchased at some point 
later by the city, the maximum height of any future structure would be 
lowered to 140 feet high and be topped with a “green roof” approved by 
Mutual.

The
 idea would be not to block Mutual’s eastward view toward the ongoing 
$400 million riverfront parks overhaul and new science museum.

As
 planned, Mutual’s new corporate offices — developed by Lanoha Real 
Estate Co. — would be atop a dozen floors of about 2,200 parking stalls 
to be owned by the City of Omaha. The city would lease the parking spots
 to Mutual for its employees and could use the garage for other purposes
 during nonworking times. The city would pay $45,000 per stall, or a 
total of about $99 million for the parking garage.

In all, the headquarters structure would span about 1.8 million square feet.

Nationally,
 Mutual has about 7,500 employees, Blackledge said. About 4,000 of those
 are Omaha-based, he said, though not all physically worked in the 
company’s offices at any one time even before the pandemic.

He
 said the future headquarters tower, as designed, already lacks enough 
space for the company’s full local workforce. Mutual plans to see how 
hybrid work demands evolve before deciding on size and other details of a
 second office and parking structure.

The
 proposed agreement — which will be the topic of a City Council public 
hearing May 10 — says Mutual would pay “fair market value” for the 13th 
Street block.

Other
 details in the agreement, to be voted on by the Council May 17th, 
include the city’s intent to buy Mutual’s existing three parking garages
 on its current midtown Omaha campus for $15,000 per stall, equating to 
about $53 million.

The
 Mayor’s Office said in a statement last week that the three garages 
would be operated by the city and would help facilitate the reuse of 
Mutual’s existing buildings and the redevelopment around them.

The
 city also will take back the maintenance responsibility for Turner 
Park, the green space surrounded by Mutual’s Midtown Crossing retail and
 residential redevelopment. Blackledge said Mutual of Omaha had expanded
 the boundaries of the park and agreed to take care of it. But now, he 
said, the time seemed right to return responsibility to the city.

Mutual
 plans to complete the new headquarters by the end of 2026. Blackledge 
said Mutual already has sold pieces of its midtown properties and will 
continue to do so.&nbsp;

Still
 no official word from Mutual leaders on how high the headquarters may 
rise, other than that it could rival the height of the First National 
Tower, which is the tallest building downtown.&nbsp;

Blackledge
 said he had no desire to “outdo” any other corporate player. “We’re 
just trying to put a building together that meets our needs,” he said.

Blackledge, who first announced Mutual’s new downtown headquarters plan <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/01/26/omaha-aims-for-revamped-urban-core-with-streetcar-new-downtown-mutual-hq/">months ago</a> alongside Mayor Jean Stothert, said he is excited about the move.&nbsp;

“It’s
 a chance for us to make a big difference downtown,” he said. “Not only 
the skyline but the landscape in terms of having another large employer 
there that could attract more development and jobs.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/5/1651587241142.png" alt="The view looking east from the W. Dale Clark Library toward the riverfront park system. Mutual of Omaha plans to build its new headquarters on the library site and acquire the block to the east for a possible second office structure. (Cindy Gonzalez/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>The view looking east from the W. Dale Clark Library toward the riverfront park system. Mutual of Omaha plans to build its new headquarters on the library site and acquire the block to the east for a possible second office structure. (Cindy Gonzalez/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>By CINDY GONZALEZ <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/mutual-of-omaha-envisions-a-potential-second-office-tower-on-city-block-east-of-the-library/">Nebraska Examiner</a>Omahans
 eventually could see a second Mutual of Omaha downtown office 
structure, perhaps up to 20 stories high, on the city block east of the 
current library site where the insurance mammoth plans to build its 
corporate headquarters.Details
 on what specifically would occupy that 1.7 acres are to be hammered out
 later, CEO James Blackledge told the Nebraska Examiner on Monday.&nbsp;He
 said, however, that if the Fortune 500 company continues to grow, it 
likely will require even more local office space than the 800,000 square
 feet to be built in the future $443 million office tower at 215 S. 15th
 St., where the W. Dale Clark library currently sits.“We
 don’t want to overbuild, but we also want the ability to grow into our 
space rather than have to move or have separate sites” or campuses, 
Blackledge said.Mutual’s
 acquisition of the city block bounded by 13th, 14th, Douglas and Farnam
 Streets is among numerous points related to the proposed headquarters 
site laid out in a nearly 140-page agreement between the insurance 
company and the city.<h2>First public mention</h2>The proposed agreement was made public and reported on by the Examiner <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/04/29/mutual-of-omaha-is-to-spread-its-downtown-footprint-beyond-library-site-sell-midtown-parking-garages-to-city/">on Friday</a>,
 and Blackledge elaborated on its contents during an interview Monday. 
It was the first public mention of the additional block envisioned for 
Mutual’s growth, although Blackledge said that Mutual had talked about 
wanting spillover land for future expansion since last September when it
 was eyeing a different possible downtown headquarters site northwest of
 14th and Dodge Streets.The block east of&nbsp;14th Street
 would continue to be used as a construction staging area for up to four
 years while the main headquarters structure rises. The space is 
currently being used for the same purpose as the overhaul winds down on 
the Gene Leahy Mall.&nbsp;The
 proposed agreement says that the maximum height of any structure built 
upon the block east of the library shall not surpass 320 feet. That’s 
about the height of the 19-story Union Pacific Railroad corporate office
 tower.Also,
 the document says, if the site were to be repurchased at some point 
later by the city, the maximum height of any future structure would be 
lowered to 140 feet high and be topped with a “green roof” approved by 
Mutual.The
 idea would be not to block Mutual’s eastward view toward the ongoing 
$400 million riverfront parks overhaul and new science museum.As
 planned, Mutual’s new corporate offices — developed by Lanoha Real 
Estate Co. — would be atop a dozen floors of about 2,200 parking stalls 
to be owned by the City of Omaha. The city would lease the parking spots
 to Mutual for its employees and could use the garage for other purposes
 during nonworking times. The city would pay $45,000 per stall, or a 
total of about $99 million for the parking garage.In all, the headquarters structure would span about 1.8 million square feet.Nationally,
 Mutual has about 7,500 employees, Blackledge said. About 4,000 of those
 are Omaha-based, he said, though not all physically worked in the 
company’s offices at any one time even before the pandemic.He
 said the future headquarters tower, as designed, already lacks enough 
space for the company’s full local workforce. Mutual plans to see how 
hybrid work demands evolve before deciding on size and other details of a
 second office and parking structure.The
 proposed agreement — which will be the topic of a City Council public 
hearing May 10 — says Mutual would pay “fair market value” for the 13th 
Street block.<h2>City to maintain Turner Park</h2>Other
 details in the agreement, to be voted on by the Council May 17th, 
include the city’s intent to buy Mutual’s existing three parking garages
 on its current midtown Omaha campus for $15,000 per stall, equating to 
about $53 million.The
 Mayor’s Office said in a statement last week that the three garages 
would be operated by the city and would help facilitate the reuse of 
Mutual’s existing buildings and the redevelopment around them.The
 city also will take back the maintenance responsibility for Turner 
Park, the green space surrounded by Mutual’s Midtown Crossing retail and
 residential redevelopment. Blackledge said Mutual of Omaha had expanded
 the boundaries of the park and agreed to take care of it. But now, he 
said, the time seemed right to return responsibility to the city.Mutual
 plans to complete the new headquarters by the end of 2026. Blackledge 
said Mutual already has sold pieces of its midtown properties and will 
continue to do so.&nbsp;Still
 no official word from Mutual leaders on how high the headquarters may 
rise, other than that it could rival the height of the First National 
Tower, which is the tallest building downtown.&nbsp;Blackledge
 said he had no desire to “outdo” any other corporate player. “We’re 
just trying to put a building together that meets our needs,” he said.Blackledge, who first announced Mutual’s new downtown headquarters plan <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/01/26/omaha-aims-for-revamped-urban-core-with-streetcar-new-downtown-mutual-hq/">months ago</a> alongside Mayor Jean Stothert, said he is excited about the move.&nbsp;“It’s
 a chance for us to make a big difference downtown,” he said. “Not only 
the skyline but the landscape in terms of having another large employer 
there that could attract more development and jobs.”

Mutual of Omaha envisions a potential second office tower

MISSION, Kan. (AP) — A school system in suburban Kansas City is eliminating over 100 jobs, including kindergarten aides and library clerks. Oakland, California, is closing seven schools. Other districts around the country are merging classrooms, selling buildings and leaving teaching positions unfilled in order to close budget gaps.

Public school systems are beginning to feel the pinch from enrollment losses tied to the coronavirus pandemic.

Money for schools is driven partly by student headcounts, and emergency provisions in many states allowed schools to maintain funding at pre-pandemic levels. But like the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pandemic-aid-public-school-funding-346d3d4b86f904184e357c34c9754800">billions of dollars of federal relief money&nbsp;</a>that have helped schools weather the crisis, those measures were not meant to last forever.

In Olathe, Kansas, where the school system is cutting 140 jobs, Deputy Superintendent John Hutchison said the extra federal money merely put off the inevitable.

Now it is trimming millions of dollars from its budgets because enrollment, having peaked at more than 30,000 students in fall 2019, fell by around 900 in the first full school year of the pandemic. Less than 100 of those students have returned.

“Where did those kids go?” Hutchison asked during a recent public meeting. “Where are they? They didn’t come back this year. That’s what’s laying on that additional reduction in our funding.”

Families opting for homeschooling, private schools and other options sent enrollment down sharply in the first full school year of the pandemic, and generally it has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-race-and-ethnicity-education-e4f3faca4dffec641b11df6dd8259a23">slow to recover</a>.

In Houston, the largest district in Texas, enrollment tumbled by more than 22,000 to around 183,000 in fall 2021 and only about half of those students have returned. The district was shielded from making cuts in the first two years of the pandemic by what are known as “hold harmless” provisions, but those protections are expected to end. Superintendent Millard House has asked departments to cut $60 million from next year’s budget.

Among other states that took steps to protect school budgets, Delaware provided $9.3 million in one-time funding in the fiscal year that ended in summer 2021 to school districts and charter schools to prevent layoffs over enrollment declines, and North Carolina lawmakers decided to allow schools to use pre-pandemic attendance levels.

More districts will be making cuts in coming years, said Alex Spurrier, an associate partner at Bellwether Education Partners, a think tank. The last of the federal aid must be spent by 2024.

“Once the federal funding dries up, it will put a lot more districts in a lot more difficult position if they’re kind of kicking the can down the road of making the adjustments that they’ll need if they are going to be serving smaller student populations in the years to come,” he said.

Some districts have struggled to explain the need for cuts. Albuquerque Public Schools announced this spring that it anticipates a budget shortfall of about $25 million.

“That might sound crazy,” the district wrote in a blog post, acknowledging the influx of federal aid. But it explained that enrollment declines have accelerated amid the pandemic, with the student population falling to 73,000 from 85,000 in just six years. The district hasn’t released a cost-cutting plan but legislative analysts say it will require layoffs and school closures.

Amid the upheaval, some states have gained students. Florida was among the leaders, according to the data-tracking site Burbio. And some districts’ headcounts benefited from new families, including some who moved to less costly areas as work went virtual.

In California, which announced this month that enrollment had fallen by an additional 110,283 students, Oakland's planned school closures are leading to protests. The ACLU filed a complaint this month alleging that they disproportionately affect Black students and families.

Further complicating the situation is a tight labor market and demands for teacher and staff raises.

In Minneapolis Public Schools, where a nearly three-week long teacher strike ended with a new contract, the district said it needed to make $27.1 million in budget cuts in the upcoming school year to pay for it. Federal relief money helped cover the $53.5 million price tag for the more lucrative contract for teachers and support staff for the current school year. Since the pandemic began, the district also has lost more than 4,000 students, along with the state funding they generate.

School officials in the city of Lawrence — home to the main University of Kansas campus — are creating multi-grade level elementary classrooms, which will allow the district to get by with fewer teachers. It is part of an effort to close a budget shortfall brought on by declining enrollment and to free up money for raises.

“You can’t cut close to $7 million and not change how you do business,” Lawrence Superintendent Anthony Lewis acknowledged at a meeting this month.

In Iowa, the Des Moines district canceled a conference, sold a building and isn’t replacing some retiring teachers as it cuts $9.4 million in spending for the upcoming school year. The cuts were needed partially because the district’s enrollment has fallen by 1,600 students since the pandemic began.

The district, which is the state’s largest with 31,000 students, anticipates that it will need to make even deeper cuts next year.

“I think it’s fair to say, the federal aid helped offset some of the financial challenges,” said Phil Roeder, a spokesman for the district. “It did help to get us through what’s been a historically bad moment in history. But it was a temporary, stopgap, not a long-term solution for school districts.”

MISSION, Kan. (AP) — A school system in suburban Kansas City is eliminating over 100 jobs, including kindergarten aides and library clerks. Oakland, California, is closing seven schools. Other districts around the country are merging classrooms, selling buildings and leaving teaching positions unfilled in order to close budget gaps.Public school systems are beginning to feel the pinch from enrollment losses tied to the coronavirus pandemic.Money for schools is driven partly by student headcounts, and emergency provisions in many states allowed schools to maintain funding at pre-pandemic levels. But like the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pandemic-aid-public-school-funding-346d3d4b86f904184e357c34c9754800">billions of dollars of federal relief money&nbsp;</a>that have helped schools weather the crisis, those measures were not meant to last forever.In Olathe, Kansas, where the school system is cutting 140 jobs, Deputy Superintendent John Hutchison said the extra federal money merely put off the inevitable.Now it is trimming millions of dollars from its budgets because enrollment, having peaked at more than 30,000 students in fall 2019, fell by around 900 in the first full school year of the pandemic. Less than 100 of those students have returned.“Where did those kids go?” Hutchison asked during a recent public meeting. “Where are they? They didn’t come back this year. That’s what’s laying on that additional reduction in our funding.”Families opting for homeschooling, private schools and other options sent enrollment down sharply in the first full school year of the pandemic, and generally it has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-race-and-ethnicity-education-e4f3faca4dffec641b11df6dd8259a23">slow to recover</a>.In Houston, the largest district in Texas, enrollment tumbled by more than 22,000 to around 183,000 in fall 2021 and only about half of those students have returned. The district was shielded from making cuts in the first two years of the pandemic by what are known as “hold harmless” provisions, but those protections are expected to end. Superintendent Millard House has asked departments to cut $60 million from next year’s budget.Among other states that took steps to protect school budgets, Delaware provided $9.3 million in one-time funding in the fiscal year that ended in summer 2021 to school districts and charter schools to prevent layoffs over enrollment declines, and North Carolina lawmakers decided to allow schools to use pre-pandemic attendance levels.More districts will be making cuts in coming years, said Alex Spurrier, an associate partner at Bellwether Education Partners, a think tank. The last of the federal aid must be spent by 2024.“Once the federal funding dries up, it will put a lot more districts in a lot more difficult position if they’re kind of kicking the can down the road of making the adjustments that they’ll need if they are going to be serving smaller student populations in the years to come,” he said.Some districts have struggled to explain the need for cuts. Albuquerque Public Schools announced this spring that it anticipates a budget shortfall of about $25 million.“That might sound crazy,” the district wrote in a blog post, acknowledging the influx of federal aid. But it explained that enrollment declines have accelerated amid the pandemic, with the student population falling to 73,000 from 85,000 in just six years. The district hasn’t released a cost-cutting plan but legislative analysts say it will require layoffs and school closures.Amid the upheaval, some states have gained students. Florida was among the leaders, according to the data-tracking site Burbio. And some districts’ headcounts benefited from new families, including some who moved to less costly areas as work went virtual.In California, which announced this month that enrollment had fallen by an additional 110,283 students, Oakland's planned school closures are leading to protests. The ACLU filed a complaint this month alleging that they disproportionately affect Black students and families.Further complicating the situation is a tight labor market and demands for teacher and staff raises.In Minneapolis Public Schools, where a nearly three-week long teacher strike ended with a new contract, the district said it needed to make $27.1 million in budget cuts in the upcoming school year to pay for it. Federal relief money helped cover the $53.5 million price tag for the more lucrative contract for teachers and support staff for the current school year. Since the pandemic began, the district also has lost more than 4,000 students, along with the state funding they generate.School officials in the city of Lawrence — home to the main University of Kansas campus — are creating multi-grade level elementary classrooms, which will allow the district to get by with fewer teachers. It is part of an effort to close a budget shortfall brought on by declining enrollment and to free up money for raises.“You can’t cut close to $7 million and not change how you do business,” Lawrence Superintendent Anthony Lewis acknowledged at a meeting this month.In Iowa, the Des Moines district canceled a conference, sold a building and isn’t replacing some retiring teachers as it cuts $9.4 million in spending for the upcoming school year. The cuts were needed partially because the district’s enrollment has fallen by 1,600 students since the pandemic began.The district, which is the state’s largest with 31,000 students, anticipates that it will need to make even deeper cuts next year.“I think it’s fair to say, the federal aid helped offset some of the financial challenges,” said Phil Roeder, a spokesman for the district. “It did help to get us through what’s been a historically bad moment in history. But it was a temporary, stopgap, not a long-term solution for school districts.”

Headcounts are down at public schools. Now budgets are too

WASHINGTON (AP) — A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473" target="_blank">Politico report</a>&nbsp;released Monday.

A decision to overrule Roe would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications for this year’s elections. But it’s unclear if the draft represents the court’s final word on the matter — opinions often change in ways big and small in the drafting process.

Whatever the outcome, the Politico report represents an extremely rare breach of the court’s secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

The document was labeled a “1st Draft” of the “Opinion of the Court” in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends in late June or early July.

The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” it states, referencing the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that affirmed Roe’s finding of a constitutional right to abortion services but allowed states to place some constraints on the practice. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment and The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which dates from February.

olitico said only that it received “a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.”

The draft opinion strongly suggests that when the justices met in private shortly after arguments in the case on Dec. 1, at least five voted to overrule Roe and Casey, and Alito was assigned the task of writing the court’s majority opinion.

Votes and opinions in a case aren’t final until a decision is announced or, in a change wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, posted on the court’s website.

The report comes amid a legislative push to restrict abortion in several Republican-led states — Oklahoma being the most recent — even before the court issues its decision. Critics of those measures have said low-income women will disproportionately bear the burden of the new restrictions.

The leak jumpstarted the intense political reverberations that the high court’s ultimate decision was expected to have in the midterm election year. Already, politicians on both sides of the aisle were seizing on the report to fundraise and energize their supporters on either side of the hot-button issue.

An&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-reproductive-rights-bd86cf1c8ddbfd09c5e221c7a9d41e01">AP-NORC poll</a>&nbsp;in December found that Democrats increasingly see protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government.

Other polling shows relatively few Americans want to see Roe overturned. In 2020, AP VoteCast found that 69% of voters in the presidential election said the Supreme Court should leave the Roe v. Wade decision as is; just 29% said the court should overturn the decision. In general, AP-NORC polling finds a majority of the public favors abortion being legal in most or all cases.

Still, when asked about abortion policy generally, Americans have nuanced attitudes on the issue, and many don’t think that abortion should be possible after the first trimester or that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason.

Alito, in the draft, said the court can’t predict how the public might react and shouldn’t try. “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to Politico.

People on both sides of the issue quickly gathered outside the Supreme Court waving signs and chanting on a balmy spring night, following the release of the Politico report.

Reaction was swift from elected officials in Congress and across the country.

In a joint statement from Congress’ top two Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “If the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years — not just on women but on all Americans.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, said people seeking abortions could head to New York. “For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. Abortion will always be safe &amp; accessible in New York,” Hochul said in a tweet.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said in a statement, “We will let the Supreme Court speak for itself and wait for the Court’s official opinion.” But local officials were praising the draft.

“This puts the decision making back into the hands of the states, which is where it should have always been,” said Mississippi state Rep. Becky Currie.

Congress could act, too, though a bill that would write Roe’s protections into federal law stalled in the Senate after passing the House last year with only Democratic votes.

At Supreme Court arguments in December, all six conservative justices signaled that they would uphold the Mississippi law, and five asked questions that suggested that overruling Roe and Casey was a possibility.

Only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed prepared to take the smaller step of upholding the 15-week ban, though that too would be a significant weakening of abortion rights.

Until now, the court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before the point of viability, around 24 weeks.

The court’s three liberal justices seemed likely to be in dissent.

It’s impossible to know what efforts are taking place behind the scenes to influence any justice’s vote. If Roberts is inclined to allow Roe to survive, he need only pick off one other conservative vote to deprive the court of a majority to overrule the abortion landmark.

Twenty-six states are certain or likely to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, according to the pro-abortion rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute. Of those, 22 states already have total or near-total bans on the books that are currently blocked by Roe, aside from Texas. The state’s law banning it after six weeks has already been allowed to go into effect by the Supreme Court due to its unusual civil enforcement structure. Four more states are considered likely to quickly pass bans if Roe is overturned.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, meanwhile, have protected access to abortion in state law.

This year, anticipating a decision overturning or gutting Roe, eight conservative states have already moved to restrict abortion rights. Oklahoma, for example, passed several bills in recent weeks, including one that goes into effect this summer making it a felony to perform an abortion. Like many anti-abortion bills passed in GOP-led states this year, it does not have exceptions for rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.

Eight Democratic-leaning states protected or expanded access to the procedure, including California, which has passed legislation making the procedure less expensive and is considering other bills to make itself an “abortion sanctuary” if Roe is overturned.

The draft looked legitimate to some followers of the court. Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, who worked as a clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer and therefore has been in a position to see drafts, wrote on Twitter: “There are lots of signals the opinion is legit. The length and depth of analysis, would be very hard to fake. It says it is written by Alito and definitely sounds like him.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473" target="_blank">Politico report</a>&nbsp;released Monday.A decision to overrule Roe would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications for this year’s elections. But it’s unclear if the draft represents the court’s final word on the matter — opinions often change in ways big and small in the drafting process.Whatever the outcome, the Politico report represents an extremely rare breach of the court’s secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance.“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.The document was labeled a “1st Draft” of the “Opinion of the Court” in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.The court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends in late June or early July.The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure.“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” it states, referencing the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that affirmed Roe’s finding of a constitutional right to abortion services but allowed states to place some constraints on the practice. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment and The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which dates from February.olitico said only that it received “a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.”The draft opinion strongly suggests that when the justices met in private shortly after arguments in the case on Dec. 1, at least five voted to overrule Roe and Casey, and Alito was assigned the task of writing the court’s majority opinion.Votes and opinions in a case aren’t final until a decision is announced or, in a change wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, posted on the court’s website.The report comes amid a legislative push to restrict abortion in several Republican-led states — Oklahoma being the most recent — even before the court issues its decision. Critics of those measures have said low-income women will disproportionately bear the burden of the new restrictions.The leak jumpstarted the intense political reverberations that the high court’s ultimate decision was expected to have in the midterm election year. Already, politicians on both sides of the aisle were seizing on the report to fundraise and energize their supporters on either side of the hot-button issue.An&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-reproductive-rights-bd86cf1c8ddbfd09c5e221c7a9d41e01">AP-NORC poll</a>&nbsp;in December found that Democrats increasingly see protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government.Other polling shows relatively few Americans want to see Roe overturned. In 2020, AP VoteCast found that 69% of voters in the presidential election said the Supreme Court should leave the Roe v. Wade decision as is; just 29% said the court should overturn the decision. In general, AP-NORC polling finds a majority of the public favors abortion being legal in most or all cases.Still, when asked about abortion policy generally, Americans have nuanced attitudes on the issue, and many don’t think that abortion should be possible after the first trimester or that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason.Alito, in the draft, said the court can’t predict how the public might react and shouldn’t try. “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to Politico.People on both sides of the issue quickly gathered outside the Supreme Court waving signs and chanting on a balmy spring night, following the release of the Politico report.Reaction was swift from elected officials in Congress and across the country.In a joint statement from Congress’ top two Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “If the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years — not just on women but on all Americans.”New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, said people seeking abortions could head to New York. “For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. Abortion will always be safe &amp; accessible in New York,” Hochul said in a tweet.Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said in a statement, “We will let the Supreme Court speak for itself and wait for the Court’s official opinion.” But local officials were praising the draft.“This puts the decision making back into the hands of the states, which is where it should have always been,” said Mississippi state Rep. Becky Currie.Congress could act, too, though a bill that would write Roe’s protections into federal law stalled in the Senate after passing the House last year with only Democratic votes.At Supreme Court arguments in December, all six conservative justices signaled that they would uphold the Mississippi law, and five asked questions that suggested that overruling Roe and Casey was a possibility.Only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed prepared to take the smaller step of upholding the 15-week ban, though that too would be a significant weakening of abortion rights.Until now, the court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before the point of viability, around 24 weeks.The court’s three liberal justices seemed likely to be in dissent.It’s impossible to know what efforts are taking place behind the scenes to influence any justice’s vote. If Roberts is inclined to allow Roe to survive, he need only pick off one other conservative vote to deprive the court of a majority to overrule the abortion landmark.Twenty-six states are certain or likely to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, according to the pro-abortion rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute. Of those, 22 states already have total or near-total bans on the books that are currently blocked by Roe, aside from Texas. The state’s law banning it after six weeks has already been allowed to go into effect by the Supreme Court due to its unusual civil enforcement structure. Four more states are considered likely to quickly pass bans if Roe is overturned.Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, meanwhile, have protected access to abortion in state law.This year, anticipating a decision overturning or gutting Roe, eight conservative states have already moved to restrict abortion rights. Oklahoma, for example, passed several bills in recent weeks, including one that goes into effect this summer making it a felony to perform an abortion. Like many anti-abortion bills passed in GOP-led states this year, it does not have exceptions for rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.Eight Democratic-leaning states protected or expanded access to the procedure, including California, which has passed legislation making the procedure less expensive and is considering other bills to make itself an “abortion sanctuary” if Roe is overturned.The draft looked legitimate to some followers of the court. Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, who worked as a clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer and therefore has been in a position to see drafts, wrote on Twitter: “There are lots of signals the opinion is legit. The length and depth of analysis, would be very hard to fake. It says it is written by Alito and definitely sounds like him.”___

Report: Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion

BEATRICE, Neb. (AP) — Police in the southeastern Nebraska city of Beatrice say an officer shot and wounded a man in a confrontation in which police say the man yelled he had a gun and reached for his waistband. 

Radio station KWBE reports that the shooting happened late Saturday night following a high-speed chase in Gage County. 

Beatrice Police Chief Bruce Lang says the driver eventually fled the vehicle on foot and was later confronted by a Beatrice officer, who said the man yelled that he had a gun. 

Police say when the man reached into his waistband, an officer fired several shots, hitting the man several times, leaving him in critical but stable condition. 

By Associated PressBEATRICE, Neb. (AP) — Police in the southeastern Nebraska city of Beatrice say an officer shot and wounded a man in a confrontation in which police say the man yelled he had a gun and reached for his waistband. Radio station KWBE reports that the shooting happened late Saturday night following a high-speed chase in Gage County. Beatrice Police Chief Bruce Lang says the driver eventually fled the vehicle on foot and was later confronted by a Beatrice officer, who said the man yelled that he had a gun. Police say when the man reached into his waistband, an officer fired several shots, hitting the man several times, leaving him in critical but stable condition. Police have not released his name. Police say no gun was found on the man.

Beatrice police shoot man in confrontation after chase

By NATHAN SIMINGTON Federal Communications Commission

WASHINGTON — Some have recently called on the FCC to stop
Elon Musk from acquiring Twitter. But nothing in the United States Code or our regulations
gives us the right to interfere with this transaction. Our competition review authority does not
and has never extended to internet platforms like Twitter.


But even if this deal were within our purview, it would be inappropriate and contrary to the
public interest to block it. Mr. Musk’s acquisition does not raise any concerns about vertical or
horizontal concentration in the social media market, and there is no reason to think it would
otherwise limit competition or harm consumer welfare.


In fact, antitrust regulators should welcome this purchase. In recent years, consumer choice
and freedom have suffered due to the restrictive, and often politically motivated, content
moderation practices adopted across all major social media platforms. If Mr. Musk follows
through on his stated intention to ease Twitter’s restrictions on speech, he would almost
certainly enhance competition and better serve those Americans, the majority, who value free
speech.


Also unpersuasive are selective concerns about concentration of ownership. Nothing about
Mr. Musk becoming the sole owner of Twitter would be out of step with the ownership
structures of other social media platforms or, for that matter, media companies generally.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are each owned
or controlled by one or two people or a single family. Vertical integration is also widespread,
and there are numerous examples of common ownership and control of broadband internet
access service and online services like search engines, streaming platforms, and news websites.
Concerns about Mr. Musk controlling both Twitter and Starlink—a broadband provider
currently serving less than one percent of Americans—cannot be taken seriously.


The FCC cannot, and should not, block this sale. We should instead applaud Mr. Musk for
doing something about a serious problem that government has so far failed to address. I
encourage my colleagues across the government to investigate the market failures and perverse
incentives that caused big tech companies to standardize around censorious and slanted content
policies in the first place. If this acquisition leads to corporate success by bucking the trend
toward curated and managed speech informed by the sensibilities of a narrow and
unrepresentative class of insiders, it will bring greater diversity to the social media experience.
And, as this experiment is clearly lawful, I for one look forward to seeing what comes of it.


Finally, I am particularly troubled by arguments that the federal government must act with
the purpose of stopping Mr. Musk from enshrining free expression on Twitter. The only merit
in such proposals is their candor in proposing something so blatantly illegal. The law in this
country does not recognize a government interest in restricting the open exchange of ideas.
Labeling content as “fake news” or “disinformation” does not change that. It would be not only
unconstitutional, but plainly un-American, for any arm of the government to act against Twitter
or Mr. Musk for such a purpose.


Nathan Simington is commissioner of the FCC.

By NATHAN SIMINGTON Federal Communications CommissionWASHINGTON — Some have recently called on the FCC to stop
Elon Musk from acquiring Twitter. But nothing in the United States Code or our regulations
gives us the right to interfere with this transaction. Our competition review authority does not
and has never extended to internet platforms like Twitter.
But even if this deal were within our purview, it would be inappropriate and contrary to the
public interest to block it. Mr. Musk’s acquisition does not raise any concerns about vertical or
horizontal concentration in the social media market, and there is no reason to think it would
otherwise limit competition or harm consumer welfare.
In fact, antitrust regulators should welcome this purchase. In recent years, consumer choice
and freedom have suffered due to the restrictive, and often politically motivated, content
moderation practices adopted across all major social media platforms. If Mr. Musk follows
through on his stated intention to ease Twitter’s restrictions on speech, he would almost
certainly enhance competition and better serve those Americans, the majority, who value free
speech.
Also unpersuasive are selective concerns about concentration of ownership. Nothing about
Mr. Musk becoming the sole owner of Twitter would be out of step with the ownership
structures of other social media platforms or, for that matter, media companies generally.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are each owned
or controlled by one or two people or a single family. Vertical integration is also widespread,
and there are numerous examples of common ownership and control of broadband internet
access service and online services like search engines, streaming platforms, and news websites.
Concerns about Mr. Musk controlling both Twitter and Starlink—a broadband provider
currently serving less than one percent of Americans—cannot be taken seriously.
The FCC cannot, and should not, block this sale. We should instead applaud Mr. Musk for
doing something about a serious problem that government has so far failed to address. I
encourage my colleagues across the government to investigate the market failures and perverse
incentives that caused big tech companies to standardize around censorious and slanted content
policies in the first place. If this acquisition leads to corporate success by bucking the trend
toward curated and managed speech informed by the sensibilities of a narrow and
unrepresentative class of insiders, it will bring greater diversity to the social media experience.
And, as this experiment is clearly lawful, I for one look forward to seeing what comes of it.
Finally, I am particularly troubled by arguments that the federal government must act with
the purpose of stopping Mr. Musk from enshrining free expression on Twitter. The only merit
in such proposals is their candor in proposing something so blatantly illegal. The law in this
country does not recognize a government interest in restricting the open exchange of ideas.
Labeling content as “fake news” or “disinformation” does not change that. It would be not only
unconstitutional, but plainly un-American, for any arm of the government to act against Twitter
or Mr. Musk for such a purpose.
Nathan Simington is commissioner of the FCC.

FCC: Agency won't move to block Musk's acquisition of Twitter

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris tested negative on Monday for COVID-19, six days after she tested positive for the virus, and has been cleared to return to the White House on Tuesday.

Harris press secretary Kirsten Allen said Harris, who was prescribed the antiviral treatment Paxlovid last week, was negative on a rapid antigen test. Allen said Harris would continue to wear a “well-fitting mask while around others” in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines until through her tenth day after her positive test.

CDC guidance allows people to leave isolation on the sixth day after they tested positive, as long as they wear a mask around others. The White House exceeds those guidelines, requiring a negative rapid test before people who have been infected are allowed to return to the complex.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/4/1650996759503.png" alt="Vice President Harris, 57, who tested positive for COVID April 26, received her first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine weeks before taking office and a second dose just days after Inauguration Day in 2021. She received a booster shot in late October and an additional booster on April 1. -photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Vice President Harris, 57, who tested positive for COVID April 26, received her first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine weeks before taking office and a second dose just days after Inauguration Day in 2021. She received a booster shot in late October and an additional booster on April 1. -photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris tested negative on Monday for COVID-19, six days after she tested positive for the virus, and has been cleared to return to the White House on Tuesday.Harris press secretary Kirsten Allen said Harris, who was prescribed the antiviral treatment Paxlovid last week, was negative on a rapid antigen test. Allen said Harris would continue to wear a “well-fitting mask while around others” in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines until through her tenth day after her positive test.CDC guidance allows people to leave isolation on the sixth day after they tested positive, as long as they wear a mask around others. The White House exceeds those guidelines, requiring a negative rapid test before people who have been infected are allowed to return to the complex.

Vice President negative for COVID-19 after taking antiviral pill

By LAURA EBKE <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/go-big-for-nebraskas-small-towns-and-businesses/">Courtesy Nebraska Examiner</a>

Even people born in Nebraska might struggle 
to find the village of Ohiowa on a state map. But this community of 
about 100 residents in Fillmore County has been host to visitors from 
all over the world, many who found their way thanks to Lazy Horse 
Brewing and Winery.

The drinking and dining establishment earns 
high marks from reviewers, who praise its craft beer, wine made from 
Nebraska-grown grapes, and lovely outdoor patio views of horses in their
 pasture.

Jim and Julie Stutzman, the owners of Lazy 
Horse, keep their own maps displayed on the premises, inviting visitors 
to pin their origin points in Nebraska, the United States, and the 
world. Their map of Nebraska shows visitors from all over the state, 
with a cluster of pins in southeast Nebraska, where the brewery is 
located.

The national map shows that people from 
every state have stopped by, while a cursory glance at the world map has
 pins on every continent and subcontinent (save Antarctica).

Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery is a 2022&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskapassport.com/stops/lazy-horse-brewing-winery">Nebraska Passport</a>&nbsp;tourism
 stop, so you can add your pin to the map and get your passport stamped,
 like I did. While everything on the menu is good, here are my 
recommendations: The Salted Caramel Blonde Ale and the Blood Orange 
American Ale are my favorite adult beverages, and for dinner, their BBQ 
brisket pizza is fantastic!

Local establishments like Lazy Horse are a 
testament to the impact small businesses — even those with seemingly 
niche offerings — can have on Nebraska communities and the state’s 
aspirations for growth.

Not only is Lazy Horse a local favorite, its
 visitors may frequent other area businesses along the way, like a 
service station or a motel. They might even bring business to 
surrounding communities, taking a side trip to check out The World’s 
Largest Porch Swing down the road in Hebron, or see Deshler’s impressive
 Spring Creek Model Trains store, which puts on a model train show each 
weekend.

The people who create these unique 
activities, attractions and amenities give our state a true sense of 
place and add vitality to their hometowns. It matters that Ohiowans can 
enjoy a night out.

Operations like Lazy Horse could also 
someday have the chance to build a footprint across the state, not to 
mention the world, by canning and selling their beer on the retail 
market. That’s why it’s vital for Nebraska’s state policies to be not 
just “business-friendly,” but entrepreneur and small business-friendly. 
Barriers to entry can be overwhelming for businesses that don’t have big
 legal teams to support them. Permits, licenses and regulations from 
multiple layers of government all impose costs before these enterprises 
can earn their first dollar.

In the case of craft breweries, state laws 
imposing a post-Prohibition-era system for alcohol distribution have 
often prevented smaller operations from getting their product into 
stores on their own.

That’s changing slightly under Legislative 
Bill 1236, a bill the Platte Institute supported in the Unicameral. 
Under the new law, craft brewers will be able to self-distribute up to 
250 barrels of their products without needing to go through a larger 
distributor.

But Jim Stutzman told me that while the bill
 opens the door to growing the industry, the terms lawmakers negotiated 
for the final bill won’t go far enough to make the process worthwhile 
for most brewers.

“LB 1236, while a step in the right 
direction toward self-distribution, still presents some challenges for 
many brewers,” Stutzman said.

Jim estimated that selling 250 barrels of 
beer to retailers would gross the brewery about $20,000. The input costs
 required under the bill, including having to deliver his products to 
retailers using the brewery’s own staff and vehicles, would leave little
 room to profit from the sales.

That means fewer Nebraskans and Americans will have the chance to learn about the Ohiowa-based business.

While the bill had other helpful features 
for small beverage businesses, including allowing micro-distilleries to 
open up to five physical locations under the same state license, craft 
brewers’ experience with the legislative process provides just one 
example of why the work of removing barriers for Nebraska entrepreneurs 
is never complete.

Good ideas for businesses offering new 
products and services can spring up anywhere in our state, and all 
Nebraskans benefit when small businesses succeed. Whether the issue is 
taxation or regulation, there’s always more policymakers can do to help 
creative and entrepreneurial Nebraskans put their businesses and 
communities on the map.

Laura Ebke, of Crete, Nebraska, is a senior fellow at the Platte Institute.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/5/1651515528042.png" alt="Jim and Julie Stutzman, the owners of the Lazy Horse, let customers push a pin into a map to show where they are from. (Courtesy of Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery.)" />
 <figcaption>Jim and Julie Stutzman, the owners of the Lazy Horse, let customers push a pin into a map to show where they are from. (Courtesy of Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery.)</figcaption>
 </figure>By LAURA EBKE <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/go-big-for-nebraskas-small-towns-and-businesses/">Courtesy Nebraska Examiner</a>Even people born in Nebraska might struggle 
to find the village of Ohiowa on a state map. But this community of 
about 100 residents in Fillmore County has been host to visitors from 
all over the world, many who found their way thanks to Lazy Horse 
Brewing and Winery.The drinking and dining establishment earns 
high marks from reviewers, who praise its craft beer, wine made from 
Nebraska-grown grapes, and lovely outdoor patio views of horses in their
 pasture.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/5/1651515586523.jpeg" alt="Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery in Ohiowa, Nebraska, is a stop on this year’s Nebraska Passport tourism program. (Courtesy of Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery)" />
 <figcaption>Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery in Ohiowa, Nebraska, is a stop on this year’s Nebraska Passport tourism program. (Courtesy of Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery)</figcaption>
 </figure>Jim and Julie Stutzman, the owners of Lazy 
Horse, keep their own maps displayed on the premises, inviting visitors 
to pin their origin points in Nebraska, the United States, and the 
world. Their map of Nebraska shows visitors from all over the state, 
with a cluster of pins in southeast Nebraska, where the brewery is 
located.The national map shows that people from 
every state have stopped by, while a cursory glance at the world map has
 pins on every continent and subcontinent (save Antarctica).Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery is a 2022&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskapassport.com/stops/lazy-horse-brewing-winery">Nebraska Passport</a>&nbsp;tourism
 stop, so you can add your pin to the map and get your passport stamped,
 like I did. While everything on the menu is good, here are my 
recommendations: The Salted Caramel Blonde Ale and the Blood Orange 
American Ale are my favorite adult beverages, and for dinner, their BBQ 
brisket pizza is fantastic!Local establishments like Lazy Horse are a 
testament to the impact small businesses — even those with seemingly 
niche offerings — can have on Nebraska communities and the state’s 
aspirations for growth.Not only is Lazy Horse a local favorite, its
 visitors may frequent other area businesses along the way, like a 
service station or a motel. They might even bring business to 
surrounding communities, taking a side trip to check out The World’s 
Largest Porch Swing down the road in Hebron, or see Deshler’s impressive
 Spring Creek Model Trains store, which puts on a model train show each 
weekend.The people who create these unique 
activities, attractions and amenities give our state a true sense of 
place and add vitality to their hometowns. It matters that Ohiowans can 
enjoy a night out.Operations like Lazy Horse could also 
someday have the chance to build a footprint across the state, not to 
mention the world, by canning and selling their beer on the retail 
market. That’s why it’s vital for Nebraska’s state policies to be not 
just “business-friendly,” but entrepreneur and small business-friendly. 
Barriers to entry can be overwhelming for businesses that don’t have big
 legal teams to support them. Permits, licenses and regulations from 
multiple layers of government all impose costs before these enterprises 
can earn their first dollar.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/5/1651515613201.jpeg" alt="Under Legislative Bill 1236, passed this session, craft brewers will be able to self-distribute up to 250 barrels of their products without needing to go through a larger distributor. (Courtesy of Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery)" />
 <figcaption>Under Legislative Bill 1236, passed this session, craft brewers will be able to self-distribute up to 250 barrels of their products without needing to go through a larger distributor. (Courtesy of Lazy Horse Brewing and Winery)</figcaption>
 </figure>In the case of craft breweries, state laws 
imposing a post-Prohibition-era system for alcohol distribution have 
often prevented smaller operations from getting their product into 
stores on their own.That’s changing slightly under Legislative 
Bill 1236, a bill the Platte Institute supported in the Unicameral. 
Under the new law, craft brewers will be able to self-distribute up to 
250 barrels of their products without needing to go through a larger 
distributor.But Jim Stutzman told me that while the bill
 opens the door to growing the industry, the terms lawmakers negotiated 
for the final bill won’t go far enough to make the process worthwhile 
for most brewers.“LB 1236, while a step in the right 
direction toward self-distribution, still presents some challenges for 
many brewers,” Stutzman said.Jim estimated that selling 250 barrels of 
beer to retailers would gross the brewery about $20,000. The input costs
 required under the bill, including having to deliver his products to 
retailers using the brewery’s own staff and vehicles, would leave little
 room to profit from the sales.That means fewer Nebraskans and Americans will have the chance to learn about the Ohiowa-based business.While the bill had other helpful features 
for small beverage businesses, including allowing micro-distilleries to 
open up to five physical locations under the same state license, craft 
brewers’ experience with the legislative process provides just one 
example of why the work of removing barriers for Nebraska entrepreneurs 
is never complete.Good ideas for businesses offering new 
products and services can spring up anywhere in our state, and all 
Nebraskans benefit when small businesses succeed. Whether the issue is 
taxation or regulation, there’s always more policymakers can do to help 
creative and entrepreneurial Nebraskans put their businesses and 
communities on the map.Laura Ebke, of Crete, Nebraska, is a senior fellow at the Platte Institute.

OPINION: Go big for Nebraska’s small towns and businesses

By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/proposal-to-build-states-largest-feedlot-hits-snag-but-now-headed-for-another-chance/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN
 — A proposal to build perhaps the state’s largest cattle feedlot in a 
rural, southwest Nebraska county is getting a second chance after the 
Dundy County Board refused to approve the idea last month.

The
 proposal by Blackshirt Feeders LP to construct a $65-million feedlot, 
holding up to 100,000 cattle and consuming 10 million bushels of corn a 
year, has stirred controversy and filled meeting rooms over the past 
couple of months in the southwest corner of the state.

Supporters
 wearing black shirts, packed a public hearing last month to back the 
idea as much needed economic development and jobs (an estimated 85), as 
well as a new customer for corn. The state senator who represents the 
area, Dan Hughes of Venango, was among the advocates.

But
 it has also attracted concern as being too large for a small county of 
1,913 residents that doesn’t have abundant water resources or any other 
feedlots close to that size.

A decision on whether the project moves forward is now expected to be announced by the county board May 16.

On
 Thursday, the three Dundy County commissioners met in a closed, 
executive session in Benkelman to consider what to do after the board 
failed to approve the feedlot project at its April 5 meeting.

Dundy
 County Attorney Gary Burke had advised the commissioners after the 
April 5 vote that there were several “deficiencies and shortcomings” in 
their decision. So the board asked for an opinion from the 
self-insurance pool that covers the county.

Among
 the deficiencies, the county attorney wrote in an April 18 memo, were 
that commissioners did not specify the reason for rejecting the project,
 as required. There were also concerns that the feedlot project wasn’t 
technically rejected or approved, as required — the only vote was to OK 
the project, which failed to pass.

Burke
 recommended holding another meeting on the project, and that’s what 
came out of the closed-door meeting Thursday, according to the county 
attorney.

“They’re going to come out with a public statement, ‘here’s what we’re going to do,’ “ Burke said.

Because
 Friday was Arbor Day and Dundy County offices were closed, 
commissioners were unable to reconsider the feedlot project at its next 
scheduled meeting on Monday. The next county board meeting after that is
 May 16.

The
 manager of Blackshirt Feeders, Dr. Eric Behlke, a veterinarian and 
native of Benkelman who now works as a feedlot consultant for a Canadian
 company, said he’s hopeful the project will get the OK.&nbsp;

Behlke
 said it’s been his dream to put his experience working with feedlots 
from China to Kazakhstan into practice. He called Dundy County “the 
sweet spot” for cattle feeding due to the climate, the availability of 
feed and proximity to meatpacking plants.

“We have a chance to capitalize on our two most important resources, corn and cattle,” he said.&nbsp;

Behlke,
 who has two other Canadian veterinarians as partners, said the 
100,000-head Blackshirt project would be the first of its size in the 
U.S. to utilize a “roller compacted concrete” surface, rather than dirt.
 The more solid feedlot surface, he said, would eliminate mud and 
increase health and performance by the cattle, as well as reduce flies, 
dust and odor.&nbsp;

“We
 really believe this feedlot will be a showcase for southwest Nebraska 
and the state of Nebraska,” he said. “We want this to be the most 
environmentally friendly around.”

Currently,
 the largest feedlots in Dundy County are in the 10,000- to 12,000-head 
range. The largest feedlot in Nebraska is thought to be Adams Land &amp;
 Cattle, south of Broken Bow, which has a capacity of at least 85,000.

The
 massive size, along with impacts on groundwater and county roads, 
emerged as the main concerns when the Dundy County Board considered the 
project April 5. 

The
 project had won a unanimous recommendation from the county planning 
board. The OK came with 13 conditions, such as having a mitigation plan 
for dust and flies, working with the county on road maintenance and 
obtaining approval for water use.

Richard Bartholomew of
 Benkelman told the Examiner on Sunday that he would rather see 
proposals for five feedlots, holding 20,000-head of cattle each, instead
 of one for 100,000 head.&nbsp;

“I
 have difficulty here on a personal basis accepting that bigger is 
better,” Bartholomew said at the April 5 meeting, according to the Benkelman Post.

Bartholomew, on Sunday, also expressed 
empathy for residents just across the border in Chase County who are 
“going to get run over and swept away by the process.” The Blackshirt 
Feeder site is at the northern border of Dundy County, he said, and just
 across the county line, near the facility, is a home occupied by a 
young couple.

But Dundy County’s setback rules have no 
force across county lines, which Bartholomew said might be something the
 State Legislature needs to look at when such projects arise.

At
 the April 5 meeting, Commissioner Jerry Fries of Benkelman said the 
longtime trend in agriculture has been to “get bigger or get out,” 
according to the local newspaper.

Feedlots of that size are not unheard of, he added, and the Blackshirt project meets all of the county’s zoning requirements.

Bartholomew’s
 motion at the meeting to reject the feedlot proposal failed to get a 
second. Then, Fries’ motion to approve the feedlot fell short, on a 1-2 
vote.

Commissioner
 Scott A. Olson of Haigler joined Bartholomew in voting “no.” Olson 
expressed concern about the size of the project and increased costs for 
county roads, according to the Benkelman Post. Olson, the chairman of 
the board, did not return phone messages seeking comment.

Now a final decision is expected May 16.&nbsp;

Behlke
 said the Blackshirt Feeders project, in his opinion, meets all the 
county’s zoning requirements, which he called the most stringent in the 
state. 

Dundy
 County is not listed among the 51 other rural counties that have passed
 a “livestock friendly” declaration, according to the Nebraska 
Department of Agriculture’s website, but Bartholomew and others said 
“livestock friendly” signs are posted at entrances to the county, whose 
economy is based on farming and ranching.&nbsp;

Behlke
 added that downsizing the project to fewer than 100,000 head of 
livestock isn’t feasible. The larger size provides economies of scale 
that a smaller feedlot would not, Behlke said.

As
 he planted corn Saturday on a Dundy County farm still owned by his 
family, Behlke said he has been working at least three years to make the
 Blackshirt Feeders project a reality.

Initially,
 the plan was to buy land from a state entity, the Nebraska Board of 
Educational Lands and Funds, which manages parcels of land set aside for
 schools way back in settlement days.

But
 a deal couldn’t be reached, which led him to a parcel in the northern 
part of Dundy County, along the Chase County line. Behlke said it is 
about 16 to 18 miles to the three nearest towns, Imperial, Wauneta and 
Benkelman.

The
 project still has some hurdles. It needs to obtain some nearby 
irrigated farm ground and “retire” at least six center-pivot irrigation 
systems to obtain enough water to supply the feedlot. The Upper 
Republican Natural Resources District would have to approve such a water
 swap.

But
 Behlke said he doesn’t see that as a problem and reads the county’s 
zoning rules as saying the County Board “shall” approve the project if 
it meets all the zoning rules.

Bartholomew, when reached Sunday, didn’t dispute that.

“As
 I understand it, the (county) commissioners are really neutered on this
 thing. If all the boxes are checked, we have no option but to approve 
it,” he said.

By PAUL HAMMEL <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/05/02/proposal-to-build-states-largest-feedlot-hits-snag-but-now-headed-for-another-chance/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN
 — A proposal to build perhaps the state’s largest cattle feedlot in a 
rural, southwest Nebraska county is getting a second chance after the 
Dundy County Board refused to approve the idea last month.The
 proposal by Blackshirt Feeders LP to construct a $65-million feedlot, 
holding up to 100,000 cattle and consuming 10 million bushels of corn a 
year, has stirred controversy and filled meeting rooms over the past 
couple of months in the southwest corner of the state.Supporters
 wearing black shirts, packed a public hearing last month to back the 
idea as much needed economic development and jobs (an estimated 85), as 
well as a new customer for corn. The state senator who represents the 
area, Dan Hughes of Venango, was among the advocates.<h2>Too large?</h2>But
 it has also attracted concern as being too large for a small county of 
1,913 residents that doesn’t have abundant water resources or any other 
feedlots close to that size.A decision on whether the project moves forward is now expected to be announced by the county board May 16.On
 Thursday, the three Dundy County commissioners met in a closed, 
executive session in Benkelman to consider what to do after the board 
failed to approve the feedlot project at its April 5 meeting.Dundy
 County Attorney Gary Burke had advised the commissioners after the 
April 5 vote that there were several “deficiencies and shortcomings” in 
their decision. So the board asked for an opinion from the 
self-insurance pool that covers the county.<h2>No reason specified</h2>Among
 the deficiencies, the county attorney wrote in an April 18 memo, were 
that commissioners did not specify the reason for rejecting the project,
 as required. There were also concerns that the feedlot project wasn’t 
technically rejected or approved, as required — the only vote was to OK 
the project, which failed to pass.Burke
 recommended holding another meeting on the project, and that’s what 
came out of the closed-door meeting Thursday, according to the county 
attorney.“They’re going to come out with a public statement, ‘here’s what we’re going to do,’ “ Burke said.Because
 Friday was Arbor Day and Dundy County offices were closed, 
commissioners were unable to reconsider the feedlot project at its next 
scheduled meeting on Monday. The next county board meeting after that is
 May 16.The
 manager of Blackshirt Feeders, Dr. Eric Behlke, a veterinarian and 
native of Benkelman who now works as a feedlot consultant for a Canadian
 company, said he’s hopeful the project will get the OK.&nbsp;Behlke
 said it’s been his dream to put his experience working with feedlots 
from China to Kazakhstan into practice. He called Dundy County “the 
sweet spot” for cattle feeding due to the climate, the availability of 
feed and proximity to meatpacking plants.“We have a chance to capitalize on our two most important resources, corn and cattle,” he said.&nbsp;Behlke,
 who has two other Canadian veterinarians as partners, said the 
100,000-head Blackshirt project would be the first of its size in the 
U.S. to utilize a “roller compacted concrete” surface, rather than dirt.
 The more solid feedlot surface, he said, would eliminate mud and 
increase health and performance by the cattle, as well as reduce flies, 
dust and odor.&nbsp;<h2>Existing feedlots much smaller</h2>“We
 really believe this feedlot will be a showcase for southwest Nebraska 
and the state of Nebraska,” he said. “We want this to be the most 
environmentally friendly around.”Currently,
 the largest feedlots in Dundy County are in the 10,000- to 12,000-head 
range. The largest feedlot in Nebraska is thought to be Adams Land &amp;
 Cattle, south of Broken Bow, which has a capacity of at least 85,000.The
 massive size, along with impacts on groundwater and county roads, 
emerged as the main concerns when the Dundy County Board considered the 
project April 5. The
 project had won a unanimous recommendation from the county planning 
board. The OK came with 13 conditions, such as having a mitigation plan 
for dust and flies, working with the county on road maintenance and 
obtaining approval for water use.<h2>Rather have smaller feedlots</h2>Richard Bartholomew of
 Benkelman told the Examiner on Sunday that he would rather see 
proposals for five feedlots, holding 20,000-head of cattle each, instead
 of one for 100,000 head.&nbsp;“I
 have difficulty here on a personal basis accepting that bigger is 
better,” Bartholomew said at the April 5 meeting, according to the Benkelman Post.Bartholomew, on Sunday, also expressed 
empathy for residents just across the border in Chase County who are 
“going to get run over and swept away by the process.” The Blackshirt 
Feeder site is at the northern border of Dundy County, he said, and just
 across the county line, near the facility, is a home occupied by a 
young couple.But Dundy County’s setback rules have no 
force across county lines, which Bartholomew said might be something the
 State Legislature needs to look at when such projects arise.At
 the April 5 meeting, Commissioner Jerry Fries of Benkelman said the 
longtime trend in agriculture has been to “get bigger or get out,” 
according to the local newspaper.Feedlots of that size are not unheard of, he added, and the Blackshirt project meets all of the county’s zoning requirements.Bartholomew’s
 motion at the meeting to reject the feedlot proposal failed to get a 
second. Then, Fries’ motion to approve the feedlot fell short, on a 1-2 
vote.<h2>Concern about roads</h2>Commissioner
 Scott A. Olson of Haigler joined Bartholomew in voting “no.” Olson 
expressed concern about the size of the project and increased costs for 
county roads, according to the Benkelman Post. Olson, the chairman of 
the board, did not return phone messages seeking comment.Now a final decision is expected May 16.&nbsp;Behlke
 said the Blackshirt Feeders project, in his opinion, meets all the 
county’s zoning requirements, which he called the most stringent in the 
state. Dundy
 County is not listed among the 51 other rural counties that have passed
 a “livestock friendly” declaration, according to the Nebraska 
Department of Agriculture’s website, but Bartholomew and others said 
“livestock friendly” signs are posted at entrances to the county, whose 
economy is based on farming and ranching.&nbsp;Behlke
 added that downsizing the project to fewer than 100,000 head of 
livestock isn’t feasible. The larger size provides economies of scale 
that a smaller feedlot would not, Behlke said.<h2>Ready to build</h2>As
 he planted corn Saturday on a Dundy County farm still owned by his 
family, Behlke said he has been working at least three years to make the
 Blackshirt Feeders project a reality.Initially,
 the plan was to buy land from a state entity, the Nebraska Board of 
Educational Lands and Funds, which manages parcels of land set aside for
 schools way back in settlement days.But
 a deal couldn’t be reached, which led him to a parcel in the northern 
part of Dundy County, along the Chase County line. Behlke said it is 
about 16 to 18 miles to the three nearest towns, Imperial, Wauneta and 
Benkelman.The
 project still has some hurdles. It needs to obtain some nearby 
irrigated farm ground and “retire” at least six center-pivot irrigation 
systems to obtain enough water to supply the feedlot. The Upper 
Republican Natural Resources District would have to approve such a water
 swap.But
 Behlke said he doesn’t see that as a problem and reads the county’s 
zoning rules as saying the County Board “shall” approve the project if 
it meets all the zoning rules.Bartholomew, when reached Sunday, didn’t dispute that.“As
 I understand it, the (county) commissioners are really neutered on this
 thing. If all the boxes are checked, we have no option but to approve 
it,” he said.

Proposal to build state’s largest feedlot hits snag, headed for another vote

ATLANTA (AP) — Former football great Herschel Walker has gone to great lengths to dodge tough questions during his run for the U.S. Senate in Georgia.

 The GOP candidate does not widely publicize his campaign stops and limits his appearances mostly to conservative news outlets and friendly audiences. 

Walker recently skipped the first debate for the May 24 Republican primary and is expected to miss another debate Tuesday. 

Political experts say it may be a wise choice for the gaffe-prone GOP front-runner. 

But Walker’s Republican rivals have seized on his absence to raise doubts about his fitness to take on Democrat Raphael Warnock in November should he win the Republican primary.

By Associated PressATLANTA (AP) — Former football great Herschel Walker has gone to great lengths to dodge tough questions during his run for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. The GOP candidate does not widely publicize his campaign stops and limits his appearances mostly to conservative news outlets and friendly audiences. Walker recently skipped the first debate for the May 24 Republican primary and is expected to miss another debate Tuesday. Political experts say it may be a wise choice for the gaffe-prone GOP front-runner. But Walker’s Republican rivals have seized on his absence to raise doubts about his fitness to take on Democrat Raphael Warnock in November should he win the Republican primary.

Herschel Walker, other candidates test skipping debates

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration on Friday set tentative dates in June to publicly review COVID-19 vaccines for the youngest American children, typically the final step before authorizing the shots.

The meeting announcement follows months of frustration from families impatient for a chance to vaccinate their little children, along with complaints from politicians bemoaning the slow pace of the process.

The FDA said it plans to convene its outside panel of vaccine experts on June 8, 21 and 22 to review applications from Moderna and Pfizer for child vaccines. The dates are not final and the FDA said it will provide more details as each company completes its application.

While questions have swirled about what’s taking so long, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf emphasized Friday that the agency can’t evaluate the vaccines until all the data is submitted.

“There will be no delays,” Califf told reporters at a health journalism conference. “We’ll review the data, hold an advisory committee meeting and make a decision as quickly as possible once we get the applications.”

Currently, only children ages 5 or older can be vaccinated in the U.S. with Pfizer’s vaccine, leaving 18 million younger tots unprotected.

On Thursday, Moderna submitted some of its data to the FDA that it hopes will prove its two low-dose shots can protect children younger than 6. Moderna has filed FDA applications for older kids, but the FDA hasn’t ruled on them. It’s not clear if that data children will be considered at the June meetings.

Pfizer is soon expected to announce if three of its even smaller-dose shots work for the littlest kids, months after the disappointing discovery that two doses weren’t quite strong enough.

On Monday, a top House Democrat requested a briefing from FDA on the status of vaccines for children after media reports that the FDA was considering delaying its work on Moderna’s application to jointly review it with Pfizer’s at a later date.

The FDA also set a June 7 meeting to review Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine for adults. The Maryland-based company’s shots are authorized in Europe and elsewhere but have been delayed by production problems.

The advisory group will also convene June 28 to discuss whether the current U.S. COVID-19 vaccines should be updated to better target coronavirus variants.

WASHINGTON (AP)—Moderna on Thursday asked U.S. regulators to authorize low doses of its COVID-19 vaccine for children younger than 6, a long-awaited move toward potentially opening shots for millions of tots by summer.

Frustrated families are waiting impatiently for a chance to protect the nation’s littlest kids as all around them people shed masks and other public health precautions -- even though highly contagious coronavirus mutants continue to spread.

Moderna submitted data to the Food and Drug Administration that it hopes will prove two low-dose shots can protect babies, toddlers and preschoolers -- albeit not as effectively during the omicron surge as earlier in the pandemic.

“There is an important unmet medical need here with these youngest kids,” Dr. Paul Burton, Moderna’s chief medical officer, told The Associated Press. Two kid-size shots “will safely protect them. I think it is likely that over time they will need additional doses. But we’re working on that.”

Now, only children ages 5 or older can be vaccinated in the U.S., using rival Pfizer’s vaccine, leaving 18 million younger tots unprotected.

Moderna’s vaccine isn’t the only one in the race. Pfizer is soon expected to announce if three of its even smaller-dose shots work for the littlest kids, months after the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-business-health-coronavirus-vaccine-c283d0644db46578f18b0b1aa1bfb9a0">disappointing discovery that two doses weren’t quite strong enough.</a>

Whether it’s one company’s shots or both, FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said the agency will “move quickly without sacrificing our standards” in deciding if tot-sized doses are safe and effective.

While questions are swirling about what’s taking so long, Marks pointedly told lawmakers this week that the FDA can’t evaluate a product until a manufacturer completes its application. FDA will publicly debate the evidence with its scientific advisers before making a decision, and Marks said multiple meetings would be set to cover several expected applications.

“It’s critically important that we have the proper evaluation so that parents will have trust in any vaccines that we authorize,” Marks told a Senate committee.

If FDA clears vaccinations for the littlest, next the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would have to recommend who needs them -- all tots or just those at higher risk from COVID-19.

Many parents are desperate for whichever vaccine gets to the scientific finish line first.

“We’ve been kind of left behind as everybody else moves on,” said Meagan Dunphy-Daly, a Duke University marine biologist whose 6-year-old daughter is vaccinated -- but whose 3-year-old and 18-month-old sons are part of Pfizer’s trial.

The family continues to mask and take other precautions until it’s clear if the boys got real vaccine or dummy shots. If it turns out they weren’t protected in the Pfizer study and Moderna’s shots are cleared first, Dunphy-Daly said she’d seek them for her sons.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634902668202.jpeg" alt="photo courtesy Moderna" />
 <figcaption>photo courtesy Moderna</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration on Friday set tentative dates in June to publicly review COVID-19 vaccines for the youngest American children, typically the final step before authorizing the shots.The meeting announcement follows months of frustration from families impatient for a chance to vaccinate their little children, along with complaints from politicians bemoaning the slow pace of the process.The FDA said it plans to convene its outside panel of vaccine experts on June 8, 21 and 22 to review applications from Moderna and Pfizer for child vaccines. The dates are not final and the FDA said it will provide more details as each company completes its application.While questions have swirled about what’s taking so long, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf emphasized Friday that the agency can’t evaluate the vaccines until all the data is submitted.“There will be no delays,” Califf told reporters at a health journalism conference. “We’ll review the data, hold an advisory committee meeting and make a decision as quickly as possible once we get the applications.”Currently, only children ages 5 or older can be vaccinated in the U.S. with Pfizer’s vaccine, leaving 18 million younger tots unprotected.On Thursday, Moderna submitted some of its data to the FDA that it hopes will prove its two low-dose shots can protect children younger than 6. Moderna has filed FDA applications for older kids, but the FDA hasn’t ruled on them. It’s not clear if that data children will be considered at the June meetings.Pfizer is soon expected to announce if three of its even smaller-dose shots work for the littlest kids, months after the disappointing discovery that two doses weren’t quite strong enough.On Monday, a top House Democrat requested a briefing from FDA on the status of vaccines for children after media reports that the FDA was considering delaying its work on Moderna’s application to jointly review it with Pfizer’s at a later date.The FDA also set a June 7 meeting to review Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine for adults. The Maryland-based company’s shots are authorized in Europe and elsewhere but have been delayed by production problems.The advisory group will also convene June 28 to discuss whether the current U.S. COVID-19 vaccines should be updated to better target coronavirus variants.--------WASHINGTON (AP)—Moderna on Thursday asked U.S. regulators to authorize low doses of its COVID-19 vaccine for children younger than 6, a long-awaited move toward potentially opening shots for millions of tots by summer.Frustrated families are waiting impatiently for a chance to protect the nation’s littlest kids as all around them people shed masks and other public health precautions -- even though highly contagious coronavirus mutants continue to spread.Moderna submitted data to the Food and Drug Administration that it hopes will prove two low-dose shots can protect babies, toddlers and preschoolers -- albeit not as effectively during the omicron surge as earlier in the pandemic.“There is an important unmet medical need here with these youngest kids,” Dr. Paul Burton, Moderna’s chief medical officer, told The Associated Press. Two kid-size shots “will safely protect them. I think it is likely that over time they will need additional doses. But we’re working on that.”Now, only children ages 5 or older can be vaccinated in the U.S., using rival Pfizer’s vaccine, leaving 18 million younger tots unprotected.Moderna’s vaccine isn’t the only one in the race. Pfizer is soon expected to announce if three of its even smaller-dose shots work for the littlest kids, months after the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-business-health-coronavirus-vaccine-c283d0644db46578f18b0b1aa1bfb9a0">disappointing discovery that two doses weren’t quite strong enough.</a>Whether it’s one company’s shots or both, FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said the agency will “move quickly without sacrificing our standards” in deciding if tot-sized doses are safe and effective.While questions are swirling about what’s taking so long, Marks pointedly told lawmakers this week that the FDA can’t evaluate a product until a manufacturer completes its application. FDA will publicly debate the evidence with its scientific advisers before making a decision, and Marks said multiple meetings would be set to cover several expected applications.“It’s critically important that we have the proper evaluation so that parents will have trust in any vaccines that we authorize,” Marks told a Senate committee.If FDA clears vaccinations for the littlest, next the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would have to recommend who needs them -- all tots or just those at higher risk from COVID-19.Many parents are desperate for whichever vaccine gets to the scientific finish line first.“We’ve been kind of left behind as everybody else moves on,” said Meagan Dunphy-Daly, a Duke University marine biologist whose 6-year-old daughter is vaccinated -- but whose 3-year-old and 18-month-old sons are part of Pfizer’s trial.The family continues to mask and take other precautions until it’s clear if the boys got real vaccine or dummy shots. If it turns out they weren’t protected in the Pfizer study and Moderna’s shots are cleared first, Dunphy-Daly said she’d seek them for her sons.“I will feel such a sense of relief when I know my boys are vaccinated and that the risk of them getting a serious infection is so low,” she said.Some parents even have urged the government to let families choose shots before all the evidence is in.“This strain of COVID feels almost impossible to dodge,” Dana Walker, a mother of an 8-month-old, tearfully told a CDC meeting last week. “Cut red tape and allow parents to protect their kids.”The FDA will face some complex questions.In a study of kids ages 6 months through 5 years, two Moderna shots — each a quarter of the regular dose — triggered high levels of virus-fighting antibodies, the same amount proven to protect young adults, Burton said. There were no serious side effects, and the shots triggered fewer fevers than other routine vaccinations.But the vaccine proved between about 40% and 50% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 during the trial. Burton blamed the omicron variant’s ability to partially evade vaccine immunity, noting that unboosted adults showed similarly less effectiveness against milder omicron infections. While no children became severely ill during the study, he said high antibody levels are a proxy for protection against more serious illness — and the company will test a child booster dose.Another issue: So far in the U.S., Moderna’s vaccine is restricted to adults. Other countries have expanded the shot to kids as young as 6. But months ago the FDA cited concern about a rare side effect, heart inflammation, in teen boys, and it hasn’t ruled on Moderna’s earlier pediatric applications.Burton said the FDA may consider its vaccine for children of all ages — but also might open it first to the youngest kids who have no other option. He said safety data from millions of older children given Moderna vaccinations abroad should help reassure parents.While COVID-19 generally isn’t as dangerous in youngsters as adults, some do become severely ill or even die. About 475 children younger than 5 have died from COVID-19 since the pandemic’s start, according to the CDC, and child hospitalizations soared at omicron’s peak.Yet it’s not clear how many parents intend to vaccinate the youngest kids. Less than a third of children ages 5 to 11 have had two vaccinations, and 58% of those ages 12 to 17.___