OXFORD TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) — A fourth student, a 17-year-old boy, died Wednesday from wounds he suffered when a sophomore opened fire at a Michigan high school a day earlier, authorities said.

The other dead included a 16-year-old boy who died in a deputy’s patrol car on the way to a hospital. Eight people were wounded, some critically, including a 14-year-old girl who was placed on a ventilator after surgery.

Investigators were still trying to determine a motive for the shooting Tuesday at Oxford High School, located in a community of about 22,000 people roughly 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Detroit, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said.

“The person that’s got the most insight and the motive is not talking,” he said at a news conference late Tuesday.

Deputies rushed to the school around lunchtime as more than 100 calls flooded 911 dispatchers with reports of a shooter. They arrested the student in a hallway within minutes of their arrival. He put his hands in the air as deputies approached, Bouchard said.

The boy’s father on Friday bought the 9 mm Sig Sauer used in the shooting, Bouchard said. He didn’t know why the man bought the semiautomatic handgun, which his son had been posting pictures of and practicing shooting, Bouchard said.

Authorities did not immediately release the boy’s name.

The four students who were killed were 16-year-old Tate Myre, 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana, 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin and Justin Shilling, who died Wednesday.

Bouchard said Myre died in a patrol car as a deputy tried to get him to an emergency room.

A teacher who received a graze wound to the shoulder left the hospital, but seven students ranging in age from 14 to 17 remained hospitalized through the night with gunshot wounds, he said.

The gun the boy was carrying had seven more rounds of ammo in it when he surrendered, Bouchard said.

Undersheriff Mike McCabe said the student’s parents advised their son not to talk to investigators. Police must seek permission from a juvenile’s parents or guardian to speak with them, he added.

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said in a statement that her office expects to issue charges quickly and that an update would be given Wednesday.

Authorities were made aware of posts on social media that said there had been threats of a shooting at the roughly 1,700-student school, but Bouchard said they didn’t know about the rumors until after the attack.

He stressed how crucial it is for tips of the kind to be sent to authorities, while also cautioning against spreading social media rumors before a full investigation.

McCabe also downplayed the significance of a situation in early November when a deer head was thrown off the school roof, which he said was “absolutely unrelated” to the shooting. The vandalism prompted school administrators to post two letters to parents on the school’s website, saying they were responding to rumors of a threat against the school but had found none.

Bouchard said the student in custody had no previous run-ins with his department and he wasn’t aware of any disciplinary history at school.

“That’s part of our investigation to determine what happened prior to this event and if some signs were missed how were they missed and why,” he said.

The campus was placed on lockdown during the attack, with some children sheltering in locked classrooms. They were later taken to a nearby Meijer grocery store to be picked up by their parents.

The district said in a statement that all of its schools would be closed for the rest of the week.

Isabel Flores, a 15-year-old ninth-grader, told WJBK-TV that she and other students heard gunshots and saw another student bleeding from the face. They then ran from the area through the rear of the school, she said.

Authorities said they were searching the suspect’s cellphone, school video footage and social media posts for any evidence of a possible motive.

School administrators had posted two letters to parents on the school’s website in November, saying they were responding to rumors of a threat against the school following a bizarre vandalism incident.

According to a Nov. 4 letter written by Principal Steve Wolf, someone threw a deer head into a courtyard from the school’s roof, painted several windows on the roof with red acrylic paint and used the same paint on concrete near the school building during the early morning hours. Without specifically referencing that incident, a second post on Nov. 12 assured “there has been no threat to our building nor our students.”

Both the sheriff and undersheriff emphasized that Tuesday’s shooting was unrelated to the deer head or any earlier investigation by their office.

“That was a different incident, different student,” McCabe said.

A concerned parent, Robin Redding, said her son, Treshan Bryant, is a 12th grader at the school but stayed home Tuesday. Redding said her son had heard threats that there could be a shooting.

“This couldn’t be just random,” she said.

Bryant said he texted several younger cousins in the morning and they said they didn’t want to go to school, and he got a bad feeling. He asked his mom if he could do his assignments online.

Bryant said he had heard vague threats “for a long time now” about plans for a shooting.

At a vigil Tuesday night at LakePoint Community Church, Leeann Dersa choked back tears as she hugged friends and neighbors. Dersa has lived nearly all of her 73 years in Oxford. Her grandchildren attended the high school.

“Scared us all something terrible. It’s awful,” Dersa said of the shooting.

Pastor Jesse Holt said news of the shooting flooded in to him and his wife, including texts from some of the 20 to 25 students who are among the 400-member congregation.

“Some were very scared, hiding under their desks and texting us, `We’re safe, we’re OK. We heard gunshots, but we’re OK.’ They were trying to calm us, at least that’s how it felt,” he said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1638381044457.png" alt="Investigators were still trying to determine a motive for the shooting photo courtesy WWJT TV" />
 <figcaption>Investigators were still trying to determine a motive for the shooting photo courtesy WWJT TV</figcaption>
 </figure>OXFORD TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) — A fourth student, a 17-year-old boy, died Wednesday from wounds he suffered when a sophomore opened fire at a Michigan high school a day earlier, authorities said.The other dead included a 16-year-old boy who died in a deputy’s patrol car on the way to a hospital. Eight people were wounded, some critically, including a 14-year-old girl who was placed on a ventilator after surgery.Investigators were still trying to determine a motive for the shooting Tuesday at Oxford High School, located in a community of about 22,000 people roughly 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Detroit, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said.“The person that’s got the most insight and the motive is not talking,” he said at a news conference late Tuesday.Deputies rushed to the school around lunchtime as more than 100 calls flooded 911 dispatchers with reports of a shooter. They arrested the student in a hallway within minutes of their arrival. He put his hands in the air as deputies approached, Bouchard said.The boy’s father on Friday bought the 9 mm Sig Sauer used in the shooting, Bouchard said. He didn’t know why the man bought the semiautomatic handgun, which his son had been posting pictures of and practicing shooting, Bouchard said.Authorities did not immediately release the boy’s name.The four students who were killed were 16-year-old Tate Myre, 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana, 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin and Justin Shilling, who died Wednesday.Bouchard said Myre died in a patrol car as a deputy tried to get him to an emergency room.A teacher who received a graze wound to the shoulder left the hospital, but seven students ranging in age from 14 to 17 remained hospitalized through the night with gunshot wounds, he said.The gun the boy was carrying had seven more rounds of ammo in it when he surrendered, Bouchard said.Undersheriff Mike McCabe said the student’s parents advised their son not to talk to investigators. Police must seek permission from a juvenile’s parents or guardian to speak with them, he added.Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said in a statement that her office expects to issue charges quickly and that an update would be given Wednesday.Authorities were made aware of posts on social media that said there had been threats of a shooting at the roughly 1,700-student school, but Bouchard said they didn’t know about the rumors until after the attack.He stressed how crucial it is for tips of the kind to be sent to authorities, while also cautioning against spreading social media rumors before a full investigation.McCabe also downplayed the significance of a situation in early November when a deer head was thrown off the school roof, which he said was “absolutely unrelated” to the shooting. The vandalism prompted school administrators to post two letters to parents on the school’s website, saying they were responding to rumors of a threat against the school but had found none.Bouchard said the student in custody had no previous run-ins with his department and he wasn’t aware of any disciplinary history at school.“That’s part of our investigation to determine what happened prior to this event and if some signs were missed how were they missed and why,” he said.The campus was placed on lockdown during the attack, with some children sheltering in locked classrooms. They were later taken to a nearby Meijer grocery store to be picked up by their parents.The district said in a statement that all of its schools would be closed for the rest of the week.Isabel Flores, a 15-year-old ninth-grader, told WJBK-TV that she and other students heard gunshots and saw another student bleeding from the face. They then ran from the area through the rear of the school, she said.Authorities said they were searching the suspect’s cellphone, school video footage and social media posts for any evidence of a possible motive.School administrators had posted two letters to parents on the school’s website in November, saying they were responding to rumors of a threat against the school following a bizarre vandalism incident.According to a Nov. 4 letter written by Principal Steve Wolf, someone threw a deer head into a courtyard from the school’s roof, painted several windows on the roof with red acrylic paint and used the same paint on concrete near the school building during the early morning hours. Without specifically referencing that incident, a second post on Nov. 12 assured “there has been no threat to our building nor our students.”Both the sheriff and undersheriff emphasized that Tuesday’s shooting was unrelated to the deer head or any earlier investigation by their office.“That was a different incident, different student,” McCabe said.A concerned parent, Robin Redding, said her son, Treshan Bryant, is a 12th grader at the school but stayed home Tuesday. Redding said her son had heard threats that there could be a shooting.“This couldn’t be just random,” she said.Bryant said he texted several younger cousins in the morning and they said they didn’t want to go to school, and he got a bad feeling. He asked his mom if he could do his assignments online.Bryant said he had heard vague threats “for a long time now” about plans for a shooting.At a vigil Tuesday night at LakePoint Community Church, Leeann Dersa choked back tears as she hugged friends and neighbors. Dersa has lived nearly all of her 73 years in Oxford. Her grandchildren attended the high school.“Scared us all something terrible. It’s awful,” Dersa said of the shooting.Pastor Jesse Holt said news of the shooting flooded in to him and his wife, including texts from some of the 20 to 25 students who are among the 400-member congregation.“Some were very scared, hiding under their desks and texting us, `We’re safe, we’re OK. We heard gunshots, but we’re OK.’ They were trying to calm us, at least that’s how it felt,” he said.

Fourth student dies from Michigan high school shooting

BROOKINGS, S.D. (AP) — A man has been sentenced to 40 years in prison in the 2019 starvation death of a toddler in Brookings County. 

Thirty-year-old Robert Price pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in an agreement with prosecutors. 

Price and Renae Fayant were charged in the death of Fayant’s niece, who was in their care.

 Fayant was earlier sentenced to 75 years in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree manslaughter. 

Prosecutors said Fayant was primarily responsible for the child. 

The charges against the two say the girl was living in filthy conditions in a small area of the residence in Brookings and was deprived of food and water for an extended period of time.

BROOKINGS, S.D. (AP) — A man has been sentenced to 40 years in prison in the 2019 starvation death of a toddler in Brookings County. Thirty-year-old Robert Price pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in an agreement with prosecutors. Price and Renae Fayant were charged in the death of Fayant’s niece, who was in their care. Fayant was earlier sentenced to 75 years in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree manslaughter. Prosecutors said Fayant was primarily responsible for the child. The charges against the two say the girl was living in filthy conditions in a small area of the residence in Brookings and was deprived of food and water for an extended period of time.

South Dakota man sentenced to 40 years in toddler's starvation death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🎤 Abortion rights at stake in historic Supreme Court showdown

One lucky player who bought a 2by2 ticket for the Tuesday, November 30 drawing is holding a ticket worth $22,000.

The Nebraska Lottery has confirmed that one ticket sold for Tuesday’s 2by2 draw matched all four winning numbers for the $22,000 top prize. The ticket was sold at Discount City, 848 S Burlington, in Hastings. The winning numbers from Tuesday’s 2by2 draw were Red 02, 20, and White 22, 25. Players are encouraged to check their tickets at any Nebraska Lottery retailer, online at nelottery.com, or by calling the Lottery office at 402-471-6100.

Winning Nebraska Lottery Lotto tickets expire 180 days after the drawing. Prizes of $20,000 or more must be claimed in person at Lottery headquarters in Lincoln. Additional information about claiming prizes can be found at the Nebraska Lottery website, nelottery.com, or by calling 800-587-5200.

2by2 is run by the Multi-State Lottery Association and was introduced in June 2002. Players in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming have the opportunity to win up to $22,000 Monday through Sunday by playing 2by2. The odds of winning the $22,000 2by2 top prize are 1 in 105,625. The overall odds of winning any prize are 1 in 3.59.

The mission of the Nebraska Lottery is to generate proceeds for good causes while providing quality entertainment options to Nebraskans. Over $843 million has been raised for the Nebraska Lottery’s beneficiary funds since the Lottery began in 1993. All 93 counties in Nebraska have benefited from projects funded with these Nebraska Lottery proceeds.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1638367062380.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>News Release Nebraska LotteryOne lucky player who bought a 2by2 ticket for the Tuesday, November 30 drawing is holding a ticket worth $22,000.The Nebraska Lottery has confirmed that one ticket sold for Tuesday’s 2by2 draw matched all four winning numbers for the $22,000 top prize. The ticket was sold at Discount City, 848 S Burlington, in Hastings. The winning numbers from Tuesday’s 2by2 draw were Red 02, 20, and White 22, 25. Players are encouraged to check their tickets at any Nebraska Lottery retailer, online at nelottery.com, or by calling the Lottery office at 402-471-6100.Winning Nebraska Lottery Lotto tickets expire 180 days after the drawing. Prizes of $20,000 or more must be claimed in person at Lottery headquarters in Lincoln. Additional information about claiming prizes can be found at the Nebraska Lottery website, nelottery.com, or by calling 800-587-5200.2by2 is run by the Multi-State Lottery Association and was introduced in June 2002. Players in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming have the opportunity to win up to $22,000 Monday through Sunday by playing 2by2. The odds of winning the $22,000 2by2 top prize are 1 in 105,625. The overall odds of winning any prize are 1 in 3.59.The mission of the Nebraska Lottery is to generate proceeds for good causes while providing quality entertainment options to Nebraskans. Over $843 million has been raised for the Nebraska Lottery’s beneficiary funds since the Lottery began in 1993. All 93 counties in Nebraska have benefited from projects funded with these Nebraska Lottery proceeds.

$22K winning Nebraska 2by2 ticket sold in Hastings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Reserve warning: Tighter credit for consumers, businesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A jury has awarded $26.1 million to a Sarpy County family who sued Children's Hospital and Medical Center in Omaha after their child was sent home following a fall, then suffered seizures that left her permanently disabled. 

The award is a record for medical malpractice in Nebraska, but could be drastically reduced under Nebraska’s $2.25 million cap on medical malpractice verdicts. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports that the jury on Monday awarded $21.5 million for a lifetime of medical care and damages to 5-year-old Vivianne Marousek and another $4.6 million to her parents. 

The jury found that Children's and one of its doctors improperly discharged Vivianne in 2017 after she suffered brain trauma in an accidental fall.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A jury has awarded $26.1 million to a Sarpy County family who sued Children's Hospital and Medical Center in Omaha after their child was sent home following a fall, then suffered seizures that left her permanently disabled. The award is a record for medical malpractice in Nebraska, but could be drastically reduced under Nebraska’s $2.25 million cap on medical malpractice verdicts. The Omaha World-Herald reports that the jury on Monday awarded $21.5 million for a lifetime of medical care and damages to 5-year-old Vivianne Marousek and another $4.6 million to her parents. The jury found that Children's and one of its doctors improperly discharged Vivianne in 2017 after she suffered brain trauma in an accidental fall.

Jury awards $26M in malpractice lawsuit, a Nebraska record

BRUSSELS (AP) — Economic powerhouses Japan and France reported their first cases of the omicron variant Tuesday, while new findings indicated the mutant coronavirus had already slipped into Europe close to a week before South Africa sounded the alarm.

The Netherlands’ RIVM health institute disclosed that patient samples dating from Nov. 19 and 23 were found to contain the variant. It was last Wednesday, Nov. 24, that South African authorities reported the existence of the highly mutated virus to the World Health Organization.

That indicates omicron had a bigger head start in the Netherlands than previously believed.

Together with the cases in Japan and France, the finding illustrated the difficulty in containing the virus in an age of jet travel and economic globalization. And it left the world once again whipsawed between hopes of returning to normal and fears that the worst is yet to come.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned in Latvia that “as long as the virus is replicating somewhere, it could be mutating,” which could mean it “can defeat the existing vaccines or induce greater illness or be more transmissible.”

Much remains unknown about the new variant, including just how contagious it is, whether it makes people more seriously ill, and whether it can thwart the vaccine.

But a WHO official said that given the growing number of omicron cases in South Africa and neighboring Botswana, parts of southern Africa could soon be witnessing a steep rise in infections.

“There is a possibility that really we’re going to be seeing a serious doubling or tripling of the cases as we move along or as the week unfolds,” said Dr. Nicksy Gumede-Moeletsi, a WHO regional virologist.

After a period of low transmission in South Africa, new cases began to increase rapidly in mid-November. The country is now seeing nearly 3,000 confirmed new infections per day.

It is unclear exactly where or when the variant first emerged, and Tuesday’s Dutch announcement further muddies the timeline.

Previously, the Netherlands said it found the variant among passengers who came from South Africa on Friday — the same day the country and other European Union members began imposing flight bans and other restrictions on southern Africa. But the newly identified cases predate that.

Belgium reported a case involving a traveler who returned to the country from Egypt on Nov. 11 but did not become sick with mild symptoms until Nov. 22.

Japan announced a ban on all foreign visitors starting Tuesday — the same day the country confirmed its first omicron case, in a Namibian diplomat who had recently arrived from his country.

France likewise recorded its first case, in the island territory of Reunion in the Indian Ocean. The patient was identified as a man who had returned to Reunion from South Africa and Mozambique on Nov. 20 — before WHO learned of the variant.

Many health officials tried to calm fears, insisting that vaccines remain the best defense and that the world must redouble its efforts to get the shots to every part of the globe.

Emer Cooke, chief of the European Medicines Agency, said that the 27-nation EU is well prepared for the variant and that the vaccine could be adapted for use against omicron within three or four months if necessary.

England reacted to the emerging threat by making face coverings mandatory again on public transportation and in stores, banks and hair salons. And one month ahead of Christmas, the head of Britain’s Health Security Agency urged people not to socialize if they don’t need to.

After COVID-19 led to a one-year postponement of the Summer Games, Olympic organizers began to worry about the February Winter Games in Beijing. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said omicron would “certainly bring some challenges in terms of prevention and control.”

World markets continued to seesaw on every piece of medical news, whether worrisome or reassuring. Stocks fell on Wall Street in the morning after Moderna’s CEO expressed concern about the effectiveness of the vaccines against omicron.

Around the globe, stocks mostly slipped as investors weighed how much damage the variant might do to the economy.

Some analysts think a serious economic downturn will probably be averted because many people have been vaccinated. But they also think a return to pre-pandemic levels of economic activity, especially in tourism, has been dramatically delayed.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1638297902218.png" alt="Riders on Tuesday aboard the Underground in London-image courtesy Underground Web Camera" />
 <figcaption>Riders on Tuesday aboard the Underground in London-image courtesy Underground Web Camera</figcaption>
 </figure>BRUSSELS (AP) — Economic powerhouses Japan and France reported their first cases of the omicron variant Tuesday, while new findings indicated the mutant coronavirus had already slipped into Europe close to a week before South Africa sounded the alarm.The Netherlands’ RIVM health institute disclosed that patient samples dating from Nov. 19 and 23 were found to contain the variant. It was last Wednesday, Nov. 24, that South African authorities reported the existence of the highly mutated virus to the World Health Organization.That indicates omicron had a bigger head start in the Netherlands than previously believed.Together with the cases in Japan and France, the finding illustrated the difficulty in containing the virus in an age of jet travel and economic globalization. And it left the world once again whipsawed between hopes of returning to normal and fears that the worst is yet to come.U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned in Latvia that “as long as the virus is replicating somewhere, it could be mutating,” which could mean it “can defeat the existing vaccines or induce greater illness or be more transmissible.”Much remains unknown about the new variant, including just how contagious it is, whether it makes people more seriously ill, and whether it can thwart the vaccine.But a WHO official said that given the growing number of omicron cases in South Africa and neighboring Botswana, parts of southern Africa could soon be witnessing a steep rise in infections.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1638285832314.png" alt="A rider on Tuesday using the Underground in London-image courtesy Underground Web Camera" />
 <figcaption>A rider on Tuesday using the Underground in London-image courtesy Underground Web Camera</figcaption>
 </figure>“There is a possibility that really we’re going to be seeing a serious doubling or tripling of the cases as we move along or as the week unfolds,” said Dr. Nicksy Gumede-Moeletsi, a WHO regional virologist.After a period of low transmission in South Africa, new cases began to increase rapidly in mid-November. The country is now seeing nearly 3,000 confirmed new infections per day.It is unclear exactly where or when the variant first emerged, and Tuesday’s Dutch announcement further muddies the timeline.Previously, the Netherlands said it found the variant among passengers who came from South Africa on Friday — the same day the country and other European Union members began imposing flight bans and other restrictions on southern Africa. But the newly identified cases predate that.Belgium reported a case involving a traveler who returned to the country from Egypt on Nov. 11 but did not become sick with mild symptoms until Nov. 22.Japan announced a ban on all foreign visitors starting Tuesday — the same day the country confirmed its first omicron case, in a Namibian diplomat who had recently arrived from his country.France likewise recorded its first case, in the island territory of Reunion in the Indian Ocean. The patient was identified as a man who had returned to Reunion from South Africa and Mozambique on Nov. 20 — before WHO learned of the variant.Many health officials tried to calm fears, insisting that vaccines remain the best defense and that the world must redouble its efforts to get the shots to every part of the globe.Emer Cooke, chief of the European Medicines Agency, said that the 27-nation EU is well prepared for the variant and that the vaccine could be adapted for use against omicron within three or four months if necessary.England reacted to the emerging threat by making face coverings mandatory again on public transportation and in stores, banks and hair salons. And one month ahead of Christmas, the head of Britain’s Health Security Agency urged people not to socialize if they don’t need to.After COVID-19 led to a one-year postponement of the Summer Games, Olympic organizers began to worry about the February Winter Games in Beijing. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said omicron would “certainly bring some challenges in terms of prevention and control.”World markets continued to seesaw on every piece of medical news, whether worrisome or reassuring. Stocks fell on Wall Street in the morning after Moderna’s CEO expressed concern about the effectiveness of the vaccines against omicron.Around the globe, stocks mostly slipped as investors weighed how much damage the variant might do to the economy.Some analysts think a serious economic downturn will probably be averted because many people have been vaccinated. But they also think a return to pre-pandemic levels of economic activity, especially in tourism, has been dramatically delayed.___