GRAND ISLAND, Neb. (AP) — Police in Grand Island say an officer suffered a cut to his hand from a knife-wielding suspect who was later shot by officers with a bean bag round and arrested. 

Television station KSNB reports that the confrontation happened Tuesday afternoon, when officers went to check on a man lying on a park picnic table. 

Police say the man — identified as Omer Arbab — was uncooperative, pulled a knife from a bag as police questioned him and tried to stab an officer in the chest, hitting the officer's hand instead. 

Police say Arbab was later shot with the bean bag as he threatened officers with the knife.

GRAND ISLAND, Neb. (AP) — Police in Grand Island say an officer suffered a cut to his hand from a knife-wielding suspect who was later shot by officers with a bean bag round and arrested. Television station KSNB reports that the confrontation happened Tuesday afternoon, when officers went to check on a man lying on a park picnic table. Police say the man — identified as Omer Arbab — was uncooperative, pulled a knife from a bag as police questioned him and tried to stab an officer in the chest, hitting the officer's hand instead. Police say Arbab was later shot with the bean bag as he threatened officers with the knife.

Grand Island police say officer cut trying to detain man

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota has broken its record for COVID-19 hospitalizations and new cases, but state health officials backed up a claim by Gov. Kristi Noem that the record case count is due to increases in testing.

 October has already become the state’s deadliest month of the pandemic. Health officials reported three new deaths from COVID-19, bringing the state’s overall death toll to 291.

 As the deaths and hospitalizations mount, the Republican governor has faced increasing pressure to step up her response. But officials from the Department of Health defended Noem’s remarks. 

She says the surge in cases is “expected” with more testing.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota has broken its record for COVID-19 hospitalizations and new cases, but state health officials backed up a claim by Gov. Kristi Noem that the record case count is due to increases in testing. October has already become the state’s deadliest month of the pandemic. Health officials reported three new deaths from COVID-19, bringing the state’s overall death toll to 291. As the deaths and hospitalizations mount, the Republican governor has faced increasing pressure to step up her response. But officials from the Department of Health defended Noem’s remarks. She says the surge in cases is “expected” with more testing.

South Dakota sets daily coronavirus record as hospitals fill

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee has set an Oct 22 vote on recommending approval of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination. Republicans are racing to confirm President Donald Trump’s pick and Democrats acknowledging there is little they can do stop them.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?476318-1/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-4">Click here&nbsp;</a>to watch day 4 of the confirmation hearing

Her confirmation would lock conservative majority on the court for years to come. Thursday’s session is without Barrett after she testified publicly for two days of questioning. It is a procedural formality setting the panel's vote next week. In her Senate testimony, Barrett has stressed that she would be her own judge and sought to create distance between herself and past positions.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to take the first steps toward approving Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett following two long days of Senate testimony in which she stressed that she would be her own judge and sought to create distance between herself and past positions.

Barrett’s confirmation to take the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems inevitable, as even some Senate Democrats acknowledged in Senate hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday. The shift would cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the court and would be the most pronounced ideological change in 30 years, from the liberal icon to the conservative appeals court judge.

After the two days of questioning, the Judiciary panel is scheduled to start considering the nomination Thursday morning. The meeting, which is a procedural formality, will be held ahead of a panel of law experts and advocates who will testify for and against Barrett’s nomination. Senators are expected to discuss the nomination but then push the committee vote on Barrett until next week, per committee rules. Barrett will not be present.

Facing almost 20 hours of questions from senators, the 48-year-old judge was careful not to take on the president who nominated her and sought to separate herself from writings on controversial subjects when she was an academic. She skipped past Democrats’ pressing questions about ensuring the date of next month’s election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and the peaceful transfer of presidential power.

She also refused to express her view on whether the president can pardon himself. “It’s not one that I can offer a view,” she said in response to a question Wednesday from Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Democrats raised those questions because President Donald Trump has done so himself.

When it came to major issues that are likely to come before the court, including abortion and health care, Barrett repeatedly promised to keep an open mind and said neither Trump nor anyone else in the White House had tried to influence her views.

“No one has elicited from me any commitment in a case,” she said.

Nominees typically resist offering any more information than they have to, especially when the president’s party controls the Senate, as it does now. But Barrett wouldn’t engage on topics that seemed easy to swat away, including that only Congress can change the date that the election takes place.

She said she is not on a “mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” though she has been critical of the two Supreme Court decisions that preserved key parts of the Obama-era health care law. She could be on the court when it hears the latest Republican-led challenge on Nov. 10.

Barrett is the most open opponent of abortion nominated to the Supreme Court in decades, and Democrats fear that her ascension could be a tipping point that threatens abortion rights.

There was no hiding her views in at least three letters and ads she signed over 15 years and her membership in Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life. So Republican senators embraced her stance, proudly stating that she was, in the words of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an “unashamedly pro-life” conservative who is making history as a role model for other women.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said there “is nothing wrong with confirming a devout pro-life Christian.”

Barrett refused to say whether the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights was correctly decided, though she signed an open letter seven years ago that called the decision “infamous.”

Democrats pressed repeatedly on the judge’s approach to health care, abortion, racial equity and voting rights, but conceded they were unlikely to stop her quick confirmation.

“When you are on the court,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., began one question in which he asked her to keep an open mind on the high court bench. Barrett readily agreed to do so.

In an exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Barrett resisted the invitation to explicitly endorse or reject the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments about perpetuating “racial entitlement” in a key voting rights case.

“When I said that Justice Scalia’s philosophy is mine, too, I certainly didn’t mean to say that every sentence that came out of Justice Scalia’s mouth or every sentence that he wrote is one that I would agree with,” Barrett said.

She called the Voting Rights Act a “triumph in the civil rights movement,” without discussing the specifics of the earlier challenge to it. The court will hear another challenge to the law early next year.

One of the more dramatic moments came late Wednesday when Barrett told California Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, that she wouldn’t say whether racial discrimination in voting still exists nor express a view on climate change.

Harris asked if she agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote in a 2013 voting rights case that “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.”

Barrett said she would “not comment on what any justice said in an opinion.”

Asked whether “climate change is happening,” Barrett said she wouldn’t engage because it is “a very contentious matter of public debate.” Barrett did, however, say she believes the novel coronavirus is infectious and that smoking causes cancer.

Along with trying to undo the health care law, Trump has publicly stated he wants a justice seated for any disputes arising from the election, and particularly the surge of mail-in ballots expected during the pandemic as voters prefer to vote by mail.

Barrett testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases, and declined to commit to recusing herself from any post-election cases.

She did describe what the role of the court would be if it were asked to intervene. “Certainly the court would not see itself -- and would not be -- electing the president. It would be applying laws that are designed to protect the election and protect the right to vote,” Barrett said.

In 2000, the court’s decision in Bush v. Gore brought a Florida recount to a halt, effectively deciding the election in George W. Bush’s favor. Barrett was on Bush’s legal team in 2000, in a minor role.

Barrett’s nomination has been the focus at a Capitol mostly shut down by COVID-19 protocols. The health care debate has been central to the week’s hearings, as Americans struggle during the pandemic, leading to a sharp exchange among senators at one point.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/10/1602767225983.png" alt="The Senate Judiciary Committee opened Thursday's hearing with an argument over moving forward with the hearing-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>The Senate Judiciary Committee opened Thursday's hearing with an argument over moving forward with the hearing-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee has set an Oct 22 vote on recommending approval of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination. Republicans are racing to confirm President Donald Trump’s pick and Democrats acknowledging there is little they can do stop them.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?476318-1/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-4">Click here&nbsp;</a>to watch day 4 of the confirmation hearingHer confirmation would lock conservative majority on the court for years to come. Thursday’s session is without Barrett after she testified publicly for two days of questioning. It is a procedural formality setting the panel's vote next week. In her Senate testimony, Barrett has stressed that she would be her own judge and sought to create distance between herself and past positions.--WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to take the first steps toward approving Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett following two long days of Senate testimony in which she stressed that she would be her own judge and sought to create distance between herself and past positions.Barrett’s confirmation to take the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems inevitable, as even some Senate Democrats acknowledged in Senate hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday. The shift would cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the court and would be the most pronounced ideological change in 30 years, from the liberal icon to the conservative appeals court judge.After the two days of questioning, the Judiciary panel is scheduled to start considering the nomination Thursday morning. The meeting, which is a procedural formality, will be held ahead of a panel of law experts and advocates who will testify for and against Barrett’s nomination. Senators are expected to discuss the nomination but then push the committee vote on Barrett until next week, per committee rules. Barrett will not be present.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/10/1602594185937.png" alt="President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett wait's for day one of her Senate Confirmation hearing to begin-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett wait's for day one of her Senate Confirmation hearing to begin-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>Facing almost 20 hours of questions from senators, the 48-year-old judge was careful not to take on the president who nominated her and sought to separate herself from writings on controversial subjects when she was an academic. She skipped past Democrats’ pressing questions about ensuring the date of next month’s election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and the peaceful transfer of presidential power.She also refused to express her view on whether the president can pardon himself. “It’s not one that I can offer a view,” she said in response to a question Wednesday from Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.Democrats raised those questions because President Donald Trump has done so himself.When it came to major issues that are likely to come before the court, including abortion and health care, Barrett repeatedly promised to keep an open mind and said neither Trump nor anyone else in the White House had tried to influence her views.“No one has elicited from me any commitment in a case,” she said.Nominees typically resist offering any more information than they have to, especially when the president’s party controls the Senate, as it does now. But Barrett wouldn’t engage on topics that seemed easy to swat away, including that only Congress can change the date that the election takes place.She said she is not on a “mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” though she has been critical of the two Supreme Court decisions that preserved key parts of the Obama-era health care law. She could be on the court when it hears the latest Republican-led challenge on Nov. 10.Barrett is the most open opponent of abortion nominated to the Supreme Court in decades, and Democrats fear that her ascension could be a tipping point that threatens abortion rights.There was no hiding her views in at least three letters and ads she signed over 15 years and her membership in Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life. So Republican senators embraced her stance, proudly stating that she was, in the words of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an “unashamedly pro-life” conservative who is making history as a role model for other women.Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said there “is nothing wrong with confirming a devout pro-life Christian.”Barrett refused to say whether the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights was correctly decided, though she signed an open letter seven years ago that called the decision “infamous.”Democrats pressed repeatedly on the judge’s approach to health care, abortion, racial equity and voting rights, but conceded they were unlikely to stop her quick confirmation.“When you are on the court,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., began one question in which he asked her to keep an open mind on the high court bench. Barrett readily agreed to do so.In an exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Barrett resisted the invitation to explicitly endorse or reject the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments about perpetuating “racial entitlement” in a key voting rights case.“When I said that Justice Scalia’s philosophy is mine, too, I certainly didn’t mean to say that every sentence that came out of Justice Scalia’s mouth or every sentence that he wrote is one that I would agree with,” Barrett said.She called the Voting Rights Act a “triumph in the civil rights movement,” without discussing the specifics of the earlier challenge to it. The court will hear another challenge to the law early next year.One of the more dramatic moments came late Wednesday when Barrett told California Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, that she wouldn’t say whether racial discrimination in voting still exists nor express a view on climate change.Harris asked if she agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote in a 2013 voting rights case that “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.”Barrett said she would “not comment on what any justice said in an opinion.”Asked whether “climate change is happening,” Barrett said she wouldn’t engage because it is “a very contentious matter of public debate.” Barrett did, however, say she believes the novel coronavirus is infectious and that smoking causes cancer.Along with trying to undo the health care law, Trump has publicly stated he wants a justice seated for any disputes arising from the election, and particularly the surge of mail-in ballots expected during the pandemic as voters prefer to vote by mail.Barrett testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases, and declined to commit to recusing herself from any post-election cases.She did describe what the role of the court would be if it were asked to intervene. “Certainly the court would not see itself -- and would not be -- electing the president. It would be applying laws that are designed to protect the election and protect the right to vote,” Barrett said.In 2000, the court’s decision in Bush v. Gore brought a Florida recount to a halt, effectively deciding the election in George W. Bush’s favor. Barrett was on Bush’s legal team in 2000, in a minor role.Barrett’s nomination has been the focus at a Capitol mostly shut down by COVID-19 protocols. The health care debate has been central to the week’s hearings, as Americans struggle during the pandemic, leading to a sharp exchange among senators at one point.

🎥 Supreme Court showdown: Date set for vote on nomination

WASHINGTON —First Lady&nbsp;Melania Trump says her and the president's 14-year-old son, Barron, tested positive for the coronavirus not long after his parents. But he had no symptoms and has since tested negative. She made the revelation in a lengthy note chronicling her personal experience with COVID-19, the disease the virus causes.&nbsp;

"It was two weeks ago when I received the diagnosis that so many Americans across our country and the world had already received—I tested positive for COVID-19. To make matters worse, my husband, and our nation’s Commander-in-Chief, received the same news.

Naturally my mind went immediately to our son. To our great relief he tested negative, but again, as so many parents have thought over the past several months, I couldn’t help but think “what about tomorrow or the next day?”. My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive. Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms. In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together. He has since tested negative.

I was very fortunate as my diagnosis came with minimal symptoms, though they hit me all at once and it seemed to be a roller coaster of symptoms in the days after. I experienced body aches, a cough and headaches, and felt extremely tired most of the time. I chose to go a more natural route in terms of medicine, opting more for vitamins and healthy food. We had wonderful caretakers around us and we will be forever grateful for the medical care and professional discretion we received from Dr. Conley and his team. It was an unfamiliar feeling for me to be the patient instead of a person trying to encourage our nation to stay healthy and safe. It was me being taken care of now, and getting first-hand experience with all that COVID-19 can do. As the patient, and the person benefitting from so much medical support, I found myself even more grateful and in awe of caretakers and first responders everywhere. To the medical staff and the residence staff who have been taking care of our family—thank you doesn’t say enough.

Recovering from an illness gives you a lot of time to reflect. When my husband was taken to Walter Reed as a precaution, I spent much of my time reflecting on my family. I also thought about the hundreds of thousands of people across our country who have been impacted by this illness that infects people with no discrimination. We are in unprecedented times—and with the election fast approaching, it has been easy to get caught up in so much negative energy.

It also cheered me to think of all the people I have met across our country and the world—and the goodness and compassion that exists if you seek it out. Our country has overcome many hardships and much adversity, and it is my hope COVID-19 will be another obstacle we will be able to tell future generations we overcame—and learned from in the process.

I encourage everyone to continue to live the healthiest life they can. A balanced diet, fresh air, and vitamins really are vital to keep our bodies healthy. For your complete well-being, compassion and humility are just as important in keeping our minds strong. For me personally, the most impactful part of my recovery was the opportunity to reflect on many things—family, friendships, my work, and staying true to who you are.

I am happy to report that I have tested negative and hope to resume my duties as soon as I can. Along with this good news, I want people to know that I understand just how fortunate my family is to have received the kind of care that we did. If you are sick, or if you have a loved one who is sick—I am thinking of you and will be thinking of you every day. I pray for our country and I pray for everyone who is grappling with COVID-19 and any other illnesses or challenges.

Thank you to everyone who reached out, and offered well wishes and prayers for our family. You remain in ours as well."

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/10/1601666018204.png" alt="First Lady Melania Trump and the President following the Presidential Debate in Cleveland Sept. 29 -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>First Lady Melania Trump and the President following the Presidential Debate in Cleveland Sept. 29 -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON —First Lady&nbsp;Melania Trump says her and the president's 14-year-old son, Barron, tested positive for the coronavirus not long after his parents. But he had no symptoms and has since tested negative. She made the revelation in a lengthy note chronicling her personal experience with COVID-19, the disease the virus causes.&nbsp;"It was two weeks ago when I received the diagnosis that so many Americans across our country and the world had already received—I tested positive for COVID-19. To make matters worse, my husband, and our nation’s Commander-in-Chief, received the same news.Naturally my mind went immediately to our son. To our great relief he tested negative, but again, as so many parents have thought over the past several months, I couldn’t help but think “what about tomorrow or the next day?”. My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive. Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms. In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together. He has since tested negative.I was very fortunate as my diagnosis came with minimal symptoms, though they hit me all at once and it seemed to be a roller coaster of symptoms in the days after. I experienced body aches, a cough and headaches, and felt extremely tired most of the time. I chose to go a more natural route in terms of medicine, opting more for vitamins and healthy food. We had wonderful caretakers around us and we will be forever grateful for the medical care and professional discretion we received from Dr. Conley and his team. It was an unfamiliar feeling for me to be the patient instead of a person trying to encourage our nation to stay healthy and safe. It was me being taken care of now, and getting first-hand experience with all that COVID-19 can do. As the patient, and the person benefitting from so much medical support, I found myself even more grateful and in awe of caretakers and first responders everywhere. To the medical staff and the residence staff who have been taking care of our family—thank you doesn’t say enough.Recovering from an illness gives you a lot of time to reflect. When my husband was taken to Walter Reed as a precaution, I spent much of my time reflecting on my family. I also thought about the hundreds of thousands of people across our country who have been impacted by this illness that infects people with no discrimination. We are in unprecedented times—and with the election fast approaching, it has been easy to get caught up in so much negative energy.It also cheered me to think of all the people I have met across our country and the world—and the goodness and compassion that exists if you seek it out. Our country has overcome many hardships and much adversity, and it is my hope COVID-19 will be another obstacle we will be able to tell future generations we overcame—and learned from in the process.I encourage everyone to continue to live the healthiest life they can. A balanced diet, fresh air, and vitamins really are vital to keep our bodies healthy. For your complete well-being, compassion and humility are just as important in keeping our minds strong. For me personally, the most impactful part of my recovery was the opportunity to reflect on many things—family, friendships, my work, and staying true to who you are.I am happy to report that I have tested negative and hope to resume my duties as soon as I can. Along with this good news, I want people to know that I understand just how fortunate my family is to have received the kind of care that we did. If you are sick, or if you have a loved one who is sick—I am thinking of you and will be thinking of you every day. I pray for our country and I pray for everyone who is grappling with COVID-19 and any other illnesses or challenges.Thank you to everyone who reached out, and offered well wishes and prayers for our family. You remain in ours as well."

First Lady reveals her personal experience with COVID-19

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett faced a second day of questions Wednesday from the Senate Judiciary Committee as Democrats kept up their focus on health care three weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election.

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?476317-1/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-3">CLICK here to</a>&nbsp;watch the replay of day 3 of the confirmation hearing.

Barrett again avoided taking positions on a variety of subjects and rulings, saying it would be inappropriate to comment on cases that may come before her as a justice. Republicans appear on track to push ahead with her confirmation before the election.

HEALTH CARE PLAYS A STARRING ROLE — AGAIN

Democrats again pressed Barrett over her views on the Affordable Care Act, noting that President Donald Trump has made clear he wishes to undo the Obama-era health law. Democrats say Trump and Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm Barrett so she can be seated in time to hear a case next month challenging that law.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said there’s an “orange cloud” hanging over Barrett’s nomination — a political jab at Trump’s tan and a reference to the president’s oft-stated wish to overturn “Obamacare.”

Barrett told senators she is not “hostile” to the law and promised to consider all arguments.

Republicans played down the threat to the health law posed by the court case. “This hearing has been more about Obamacare than it has you,″ said the committee chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Barrett. He added: “Obamacare is on the ballot″ next month.

Republicans object to the health law because “it was written and passed on a partisan line,″ Graham said. ”Most big changes in society have more buy-in (from the public and the two political parties) than that. You’re talking about one-fifth of the American economy.″

Still, Graham and other Republicans stressed that even if parts of the law are struck down, important aspects such as coverage for preexisting conditions could still be preserved, under a concept known as severability. “The doctrine of severability presumes — and its goal is — to preserve (key parts of) the statute if that is possible,″ Graham said.

Barrett agreed, saying, “The presumption is always in favor of severability.″

Republicans have introduced bills to protect Americans with preexisting conditions and bring down drug prices, said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “And if we act, (voters) don’t have to worry about you doing away with preexisting conditions in some future case down the road,″ he told Barrett.

On another issue where Trump’s views and tweets are well-known, Barrett declined to say whether a president can pardon himself. But she said she agrees no one is above the law.

Under questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Barrett said the question of a self-pardon has never come before the court. “That question may or may not arise, but it is one that calls for a legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is,″ Barrett said. She said offering an opinion now ”would be opining on an open question ... it’s not one in which I can offer a view.″

Multiple investigations are looking into Trump’s taxes, his businesses and his associates, and he has said he has “an absolute right” to pardon himself.

While declining to address whether Trump would be able to pardon himself, Barrett said she agreed with Leahy’s assertion “no one is above the law.”

For the second straight day, Barrett repeatedly declined to give her personal views, or to preview how she might rule, on issues that could become before the court. Like other Supreme Court nominees, Barrett said she was prohibited from expressing those opinions by the “canons of judicial conduct.”

In addition to a possible presidential pardon and whether to overturn the health law, Barrett said she could not give an opinion on whether she would withdraw from any election-related litigation involving Trump. He said when he nominated her that he wanted the full nine justices in place before any possible election decisions.

Barrett also said she could not answer whether Trump could delay the general election, an idea the president floated earlier this year even though he does not have authority under the Constitution to unilaterally change the date.

Graham opened Wednesday’s hearing by proclaiming Barrett’s expected confirmation a historic victory for conservative women. Like “conservatives of color,” conservative women, he said, are often “marginalized” in public life.

“This hearing, to me, is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women,” Graham told Barrett. “You are going to shatter that barrier.’’

Graham said he has “never been more proud of a nominee” than he is of Barrett, a federal appeals court judge from Indiana. “This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology, and she is going to the court. This is history being made, folks.”

Barrett has declined to say how she would rule on a challenge to the Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion rights, but she has made clear she opposes abortion rights and signed a 2006 letter objecting to “abortion on demand.”

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., asked Barrett whether she would acknowledge that her confirmation would mean a shift to the right on the Supreme Court that would have “profound” implications.

Coons referred to an interview that Barrett gave where she spoke of a balance shift if Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge nominated in 2016 by President Barack Obama, were elevated to the high court. Obama picked Garland after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, but Republicans in the Senate refused give Garland a hearing, citing the presidential election that was months away that year.

Barrett told Coons she was referring in the interview to Garland’s judicial approach, not his more liberal views. Unlike the conservative Scalia, Garland was not an originalist, which refers to a way of interpreting the Constitution that focuses on the text and Founding Fathers’ intentions in resolving legal disputes. Originalists such as Scalia and Barrett argue that new legislation, rather than a new interpretation of the Constitution, is the best way to bring about social change.

“It would be away from one balance and toward another in terms of how judges think about the text,″ Barrett said.

Coons noted that Barrett, who claims Scalia as her mentor, would replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was not an originalist and was the court’s liberal leader. Barrett’s confirmation would shift the court’s previous 5-4 conservative majority to 6-3.

The hearing paused twice Wednesday because of audio problems in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The sound in the hearing room cut out a little before 2 p.m. and was off for 40 minutes. It cut out again after the hearing resumed, this time for about 15 minutes.

The problem happened the first time just after Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked Barrett whether she had gotten some rest after a long day of questioning Tuesday. “I did have a glass of wine. I’ll tell you I needed that at the end of the day,” she said.

On that point, “You have a right to remain silent,″ Blumenthal told Barrett.

WASHINGTON (AP) —&nbsp;Supreme Court&nbsp;nominee Amy Coney Barrett returns to Capitol Hill for a third day of confirmation hearings as senators dig deeper into the conservative judge’s outlook on abortion, health care and a potentially disputed presidential election — the Democrats running out of time to stop Republicans pushing her quick confirmation.

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?476317-1/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-3">CLICK here to</a> watch day 3 of the confirmation hear that begins at 8a.m. CDT

Wednesday’s session is set to be Barrett’s last before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-health-63a2f915b62cf3281f66e80fea9c20e1">batting away questions&nbsp;</a>in long and lively exchanges, insisting she would bring no personal agenda to the court but decide cases “as they come.”

Her nomination by President Donald Trump to replace the late&nbsp;Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg&nbsp;has ground other legislative business to a halt as Republicans excited by the prospect of locking in a 6-3 conservative court majority race to confirm her over Democratic objections before&nbsp;Election Day.

“We’re going to fill this vacancy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the committee chairman, said late Tuesday after a nearly 12-hour session.

Graham said he appreciated that Trump had nominated a judge “who’s unabashedly pro-life, somebody who embraces their faith, but somebody who understands the difference between their personal views and judging.”

Barrett’s nomination has been the focus at a Capitol mostly shut down by COVID-19 protocols, frustrating Democrats who are virtually powerless to stop a judge from confirmation. They warn she will be seated on the court in time to cast a vote to undo the Affordable Care Act next month, causing millions of Americans to lose coverage during a pandemic.

“People are fed up,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., criticizing GOP priorities in forcing the Senate action as the country suffers from the pandemic and Congress squabbles over approving additional economic aid.

The 48-year-old appellate court judge declared her conservative views in often colloquial language, but she refused many specifics Tuesday. She aligns with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative mentor, and declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett told the committee during its second day of hearings.

“It’s not the law of Amy,” she said. “It’s the law of the American people.”

Trump seemed pleased with her performance. “I think Amy’s doing incredibly well,” he said at the White House departing for a campaign rally.

Trump has said he wants a justice seated for any disputes arising from his heated campaign against Biden, but Barrett testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases. Pressed by Democrats, she skipped past questions about ensuring the date of the election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and the peaceful transfer of presidential power. She declined to commit to recusing herself from any post-election cases without first consulting the other justices.

“I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process,” she said.

A frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, all but implored the nominee to be more specific about how she would handle landmark abortion cases,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-confirmation-hearings-amy-coney-barrett-judiciary-us-supreme-court-4ca09a4f3230eb1aee5a82308cffe8c3">including Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;and the follow-up Pennsylvania case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which confirmed it in large part.

“It’s distressing not to get a good answer,” the U.S. senator from California told the judge.

Barrett was unmoved. “I don’t have an agenda to try to overrule Casey,” she said. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”

She later declined to characterize the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion as a “super-precedent” that must not be overturned.

“Let’s not make any mistake about it,” said California Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, appearing remotely due to COVID concerns.

Allowing Trump to fill the seat with Barrett “poses a threat to safe and legal abortion in our country,” Harris said.

The Senate, led by Trump’s Republican allies, is pushing Barrett’s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3, and ahead of the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election. Democrats warn that she would be a vote to undo the “Obamacare” law.

“I’m not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett told the senators.

The judge, accompanied by her family, described herself as taking a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-antonin-scalia-038ec1d4de30d1bd97a0ce3823903f0c">conservative, originalist approach to the Constitution</a>. A former law professor, she told the senators that while she admires Scalia, she would bring her own approach.

“You would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett,” she declared.

Overall, Barrett’s conservative views are at odds with the late Ginsburg, a liberal icon. She would be Trump’s third justice.

Underscoring the Republicans’ confidence, Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, the last day of hearings, which would allow final approval by the full Senate by the end of the month.

Protesters rallied outside the Senate building, unable to come inside the hearing room.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/10/1602680635069.png" alt="Barrett waiting for day 3 of questioning to begin before the Senate Judiciary Committee -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Barrett waiting for day 3 of questioning to begin before the Senate Judiciary Committee -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett faced a second day of questions Wednesday from the Senate Judiciary Committee as Democrats kept up their focus on health care three weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election.<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?476317-1/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-3">CLICK here to</a>&nbsp;watch the replay of day 3 of the confirmation hearing.Barrett again avoided taking positions on a variety of subjects and rulings, saying it would be inappropriate to comment on cases that may come before her as a justice. Republicans appear on track to push ahead with her confirmation before the election.Takeaways from Day Three of the hearing:HEALTH CARE PLAYS A STARRING ROLE — AGAINDemocrats again pressed Barrett over her views on the Affordable Care Act, noting that President Donald Trump has made clear he wishes to undo the Obama-era health law. Democrats say Trump and Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm Barrett so she can be seated in time to hear a case next month challenging that law.Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said there’s an “orange cloud” hanging over Barrett’s nomination — a political jab at Trump’s tan and a reference to the president’s oft-stated wish to overturn “Obamacare.”Barrett told senators she is not “hostile” to the law and promised to consider all arguments.Republicans played down the threat to the health law posed by the court case. “This hearing has been more about Obamacare than it has you,″ said the committee chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Barrett. He added: “Obamacare is on the ballot″ next month.Republicans object to the health law because “it was written and passed on a partisan line,″ Graham said. ”Most big changes in society have more buy-in (from the public and the two political parties) than that. You’re talking about one-fifth of the American economy.″Still, Graham and other Republicans stressed that even if parts of the law are struck down, important aspects such as coverage for preexisting conditions could still be preserved, under a concept known as severability. “The doctrine of severability presumes — and its goal is — to preserve (key parts of) the statute if that is possible,″ Graham said.Barrett agreed, saying, “The presumption is always in favor of severability.″Republicans have introduced bills to protect Americans with preexisting conditions and bring down drug prices, said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “And if we act, (voters) don’t have to worry about you doing away with preexisting conditions in some future case down the road,″ he told Barrett.___NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAWOn another issue where Trump’s views and tweets are well-known, Barrett declined to say whether a president can pardon himself. But she said she agrees no one is above the law.Under questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Barrett said the question of a self-pardon has never come before the court. “That question may or may not arise, but it is one that calls for a legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is,″ Barrett said. She said offering an opinion now ”would be opining on an open question ... it’s not one in which I can offer a view.″Multiple investigations are looking into Trump’s taxes, his businesses and his associates, and he has said he has “an absolute right” to pardon himself.While declining to address whether Trump would be able to pardon himself, Barrett said she agreed with Leahy’s assertion “no one is above the law.”___NO PREVIEW OF JUDICIAL VIEWSFor the second straight day, Barrett repeatedly declined to give her personal views, or to preview how she might rule, on issues that could become before the court. Like other Supreme Court nominees, Barrett said she was prohibited from expressing those opinions by the “canons of judicial conduct.”In addition to a possible presidential pardon and whether to overturn the health law, Barrett said she could not give an opinion on whether she would withdraw from any election-related litigation involving Trump. He said when he nominated her that he wanted the full nine justices in place before any possible election decisions.Barrett also said she could not answer whether Trump could delay the general election, an idea the president floated earlier this year even though he does not have authority under the Constitution to unilaterally change the date.___BREAKTHROUGH FOR CONSERVATIVE WOMENGraham opened Wednesday’s hearing by proclaiming Barrett’s expected confirmation a historic victory for conservative women. Like “conservatives of color,” conservative women, he said, are often “marginalized” in public life.“This hearing, to me, is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women,” Graham told Barrett. “You are going to shatter that barrier.’’Graham said he has “never been more proud of a nominee” than he is of Barrett, a federal appeals court judge from Indiana. “This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology, and she is going to the court. This is history being made, folks.”Barrett has declined to say how she would rule on a challenge to the Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion rights, but she has made clear she opposes abortion rights and signed a 2006 letter objecting to “abortion on demand.”___SHIFTING THE SUPREME COURT BALANCESen. Chris Coons, D-Del., asked Barrett whether she would acknowledge that her confirmation would mean a shift to the right on the Supreme Court that would have “profound” implications.Coons referred to an interview that Barrett gave where she spoke of a balance shift if Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge nominated in 2016 by President Barack Obama, were elevated to the high court. Obama picked Garland after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, but Republicans in the Senate refused give Garland a hearing, citing the presidential election that was months away that year.Barrett told Coons she was referring in the interview to Garland’s judicial approach, not his more liberal views. Unlike the conservative Scalia, Garland was not an originalist, which refers to a way of interpreting the Constitution that focuses on the text and Founding Fathers’ intentions in resolving legal disputes. Originalists such as Scalia and Barrett argue that new legislation, rather than a new interpretation of the Constitution, is the best way to bring about social change.“It would be away from one balance and toward another in terms of how judges think about the text,″ Barrett said.Coons noted that Barrett, who claims Scalia as her mentor, would replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was not an originalist and was the court’s liberal leader. Barrett’s confirmation would shift the court’s previous 5-4 conservative majority to 6-3.___SOUNDS OF SILENCEThe hearing paused twice Wednesday because of audio problems in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The sound in the hearing room cut out a little before 2 p.m. and was off for 40 minutes. It cut out again after the hearing resumed, this time for about 15 minutes.The problem happened the first time just after Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked Barrett whether she had gotten some rest after a long day of questioning Tuesday. “I did have a glass of wine. I’ll tell you I needed that at the end of the day,” she said.On that point, “You have a right to remain silent,″ Blumenthal told Barrett.___WASHINGTON (AP) —&nbsp;Supreme Court&nbsp;nominee Amy Coney Barrett returns to Capitol Hill for a third day of confirmation hearings as senators dig deeper into the conservative judge’s outlook on abortion, health care and a potentially disputed presidential election — the Democrats running out of time to stop Republicans pushing her quick confirmation.<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?476317-1/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-3">CLICK here to</a> watch day 3 of the confirmation hear that begins at 8a.m. CDTWednesday’s session is set to be Barrett’s last before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-health-63a2f915b62cf3281f66e80fea9c20e1">batting away questions&nbsp;</a>in long and lively exchanges, insisting she would bring no personal agenda to the court but decide cases “as they come.”Her nomination by President Donald Trump to replace the late&nbsp;Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg&nbsp;has ground other legislative business to a halt as Republicans excited by the prospect of locking in a 6-3 conservative court majority race to confirm her over Democratic objections before&nbsp;Election Day.“We’re going to fill this vacancy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the committee chairman, said late Tuesday after a nearly 12-hour session.Graham said he appreciated that Trump had nominated a judge “who’s unabashedly pro-life, somebody who embraces their faith, but somebody who understands the difference between their personal views and judging.”Barrett’s nomination has been the focus at a Capitol mostly shut down by COVID-19 protocols, frustrating Democrats who are virtually powerless to stop a judge from confirmation. They warn she will be seated on the court in time to cast a vote to undo the Affordable Care Act next month, causing millions of Americans to lose coverage during a pandemic.“People are fed up,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., criticizing GOP priorities in forcing the Senate action as the country suffers from the pandemic and Congress squabbles over approving additional economic aid.The 48-year-old appellate court judge declared her conservative views in often colloquial language, but she refused many specifics Tuesday. She aligns with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative mentor, and declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden.“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett told the committee during its second day of hearings.“It’s not the law of Amy,” she said. “It’s the law of the American people.”Trump seemed pleased with her performance. “I think Amy’s doing incredibly well,” he said at the White House departing for a campaign rally.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/10/1602680732295.png" alt="Judge Barrett's family including 6 of her children arrive for day 3 of the Senate confirmation hearing-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Judge Barrett's family including 6 of her children arrive for day 3 of the Senate confirmation hearing-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>Trump has said he wants a justice seated for any disputes arising from his heated campaign against Biden, but Barrett testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases. Pressed by Democrats, she skipped past questions about ensuring the date of the election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and the peaceful transfer of presidential power. She declined to commit to recusing herself from any post-election cases without first consulting the other justices.“I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process,” she said.A frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, all but implored the nominee to be more specific about how she would handle landmark abortion cases,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-confirmation-hearings-amy-coney-barrett-judiciary-us-supreme-court-4ca09a4f3230eb1aee5a82308cffe8c3">including Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;and the follow-up Pennsylvania case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which confirmed it in large part.“It’s distressing not to get a good answer,” the U.S. senator from California told the judge.Barrett was unmoved. “I don’t have an agenda to try to overrule Casey,” she said. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”She later declined to characterize the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion as a “super-precedent” that must not be overturned.Democrats had no such reticence.“Let’s not make any mistake about it,” said California Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, appearing remotely due to COVID concerns.Allowing Trump to fill the seat with Barrett “poses a threat to safe and legal abortion in our country,” Harris said.The Senate, led by Trump’s Republican allies, is pushing Barrett’s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3, and ahead of the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election. Democrats warn that she would be a vote to undo the “Obamacare” law.“I’m not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett told the senators.The judge, accompanied by her family, described herself as taking a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-antonin-scalia-038ec1d4de30d1bd97a0ce3823903f0c">conservative, originalist approach to the Constitution</a>. A former law professor, she told the senators that while she admires Scalia, she would bring her own approach.“You would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett,” she declared.Overall, Barrett’s conservative views are at odds with the late Ginsburg, a liberal icon. She would be Trump’s third justice.Underscoring the Republicans’ confidence, Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, the last day of hearings, which would allow final approval by the full Senate by the end of the month.Protesters rallied outside the Senate building, unable to come inside the hearing room.___

🎥 Pardon power, silent mics on Barrett's final day

LINCOLN&nbsp; — The Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a crash that occurred while a Nebraska State Trooper was in pursuit of a stolen semi-tractor.

At approximately 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, NSP received information about a stolen semi-tractor that was traveling eastbound on Van Dorn, east of Lincoln. A trooper observed the vehicle traveling eastbound near 112th&nbsp;and Van Dorn. The trooper attempted a traffic stop, but the vehicle fled, traveling at 80 miles per hour on the gravel road.

As the vehicle reached 148th&nbsp;street, it failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with the trailer of a semi-tractor/truck trailer. The trooper called for emergency medical personnel and arrived on scene immediately. The trooper then located the driver of the stolen semi-tractor, who was deceased. The driver of the other semi-tractor was not injured.

The Nebraska State Patrol has requested that the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office investigate the incident.

LINCOLN&nbsp; — The Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a crash that occurred while a Nebraska State Trooper was in pursuit of a stolen semi-tractor.At approximately 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, NSP received information about a stolen semi-tractor that was traveling eastbound on Van Dorn, east of Lincoln. A trooper observed the vehicle traveling eastbound near 112th&nbsp;and Van Dorn. The trooper attempted a traffic stop, but the vehicle fled, traveling at 80 miles per hour on the gravel road.As the vehicle reached 148th&nbsp;street, it failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with the trailer of a semi-tractor/truck trailer. The trooper called for emergency medical personnel and arrived on scene immediately. The trooper then located the driver of the stolen semi-tractor, who was deceased. The driver of the other semi-tractor was not injured.The Nebraska State Patrol has requested that the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office investigate the incident.

Suspect of stolen vehicle pursuit dies following crash

NEW YORK — NBC News agreed to put President Donald Trump before voters in a town hall event on Thursday after the president submitted to an independent coronavirus test with the results reviewed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The announcement Wednesday sets up dueling town halls with Democratic opponent Joe Biden on a night the two candidates were supposed to meet for their second debate. Biden is appearing on a similar town hall event in Philadelphia, televised by ABC.

NBC said Trump would be at least 12 feet from moderator Savannah Guthrie and the audience.

Trump, who tested positive for COVID-19 on Oct. 2 and spent three days at the Walter Reed military hospital, took a coronavirus test Tuesday administered by the National Institutes of Health, NBC said.

Both NIH clinical director Dr. Clifford Lane and Fauci reviewed Trump’s medical records and said they had a high degree of confidence that the president is “not shedding infectious virus.”

Trump's ability to reach a national television audience on Thursday was in part dependent on Fauci, who had expressed anger at the Trump campaign in recent days for using one of his statements in a campaign ad. The coronavirus task force member said a quote used in the campaign ad was taken out of context.

A formal matchup between the Republican president and Biden that was scheduled for Thursday in Miami by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debate was canceled. In light of the president’s infection, the commission shifted the format to a virtual meeting, and Trump declined to participate.

Both town halls will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern, but Biden will have the last word. The ABC event, moderated by George Stephanopoulos, will last 90 minutes with an additional half hour of analysis. Trump's town hall on NBC is scheduled for an hour.

In addition to preventing viewers from getting a side-by-side comparison of the two men, the dueling events will likely be seen by far fewer people.

The first debate between the two men last month was watched by an estimated 73.1 million people, the Nielsen company said.

An estimated 6.7 million people saw Biden at an NBC News-sponsored town hall last week. Like the Trump event on Thursday will be, it was simulcast on MSNBC, CNBC and streamed online.

Trump's town hall with Stephanopoulos on Sept. 15 was seen by 3.8 million people, Nielsen said.

Thursday’s Trump town hall on NBC will be held outdoors at the Perez Art Museum in Miami. Audience members will be socially distanced, required to wear a mask and submit to a temperature check before entering the venue, NBC said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1601463580987.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>NEW YORK — NBC News agreed to put President Donald Trump before voters in a town hall event on Thursday after the president submitted to an independent coronavirus test with the results reviewed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.The announcement Wednesday sets up dueling town halls with Democratic opponent Joe Biden on a night the two candidates were supposed to meet for their second debate. Biden is appearing on a similar town hall event in Philadelphia, televised by ABC.NBC said Trump would be at least 12 feet from moderator Savannah Guthrie and the audience.Trump, who tested positive for COVID-19 on Oct. 2 and spent three days at the Walter Reed military hospital, took a coronavirus test Tuesday administered by the National Institutes of Health, NBC said.Both NIH clinical director Dr. Clifford Lane and Fauci reviewed Trump’s medical records and said they had a high degree of confidence that the president is “not shedding infectious virus.”Trump's ability to reach a national television audience on Thursday was in part dependent on Fauci, who had expressed anger at the Trump campaign in recent days for using one of his statements in a campaign ad. The coronavirus task force member said a quote used in the campaign ad was taken out of context.A formal matchup between the Republican president and Biden that was scheduled for Thursday in Miami by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debate was canceled. In light of the president’s infection, the commission shifted the format to a virtual meeting, and Trump declined to participate.Both town halls will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern, but Biden will have the last word. The ABC event, moderated by George Stephanopoulos, will last 90 minutes with an additional half hour of analysis. Trump's town hall on NBC is scheduled for an hour.In addition to preventing viewers from getting a side-by-side comparison of the two men, the dueling events will likely be seen by far fewer people.The first debate between the two men last month was watched by an estimated 73.1 million people, the Nielsen company said.An estimated 6.7 million people saw Biden at an NBC News-sponsored town hall last week. Like the Trump event on Thursday will be, it was simulcast on MSNBC, CNBC and streamed online.Trump's town hall with Stephanopoulos on Sept. 15 was seen by 3.8 million people, Nielsen said.Thursday’s Trump town hall on NBC will be held outdoors at the Perez Art Museum in Miami. Audience members will be socially distanced, required to wear a mask and submit to a temperature check before entering the venue, NBC said.

Trump, Biden to hold dueling town halls after canceled debate

WASHINGTON (AP) —Independent monitors have paused enrollment in a study testing the COVID-19 antiviral drug remdesivir plus an experimental antibody therapy being developed by Eli Lilly that’s similar to a treatment President Donald Trump recently received.

Lilly confirmed Tuesday that the study had been paused “out of an abundance of caution” and said safety is its top concern. The company would not say more about what led to this step.

The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which sponsors the study, would not immediately comment.

Antibodies are proteins the body makes when an infection occurs; they attach to a virus and help it be eliminated. The experimental drugs are concentrated versions of one or two specific antibodies that worked best against the coronavirus in lab and animal tests.

<a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04501978?term=ACTIV-3&amp;draw=2&amp;rank=1" target="_blank">This study</a>&nbsp;was testing a single antibody that Lilly is developing with the Canadian company AbCellera. Trump received an experimental two-antibody combo drug from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Lilly and Regeneron have asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant emergency use authorization for their drugs for COVID-19 while late-stage studies continue.

The paused study, called ACTIV-3, started in August and aims to enroll 10,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States, Denmark and Singapore. All are given remdesivir, which has been authorized in the U.S. as an emergency treatment for COVID-19, plus either the Lilly antibody or a placebo.

The main goals are reducing the need for extra oxygen and time to recovery. Deaths, relief of symptoms and other measures also are being tracked. All of the drugs are given through an IV.

Such pauses are not uncommon in long clinical studies. Unlike a study hold imposed by government regulators, a pause is initiated by the sponsor of the drug trial and often can be quickly resolved.

The pause in the Lilly study comes a day after a temporary halt to enrollment in a coronavirus vaccine study. Johnson &amp; Johnson executives said Tuesday that it will be a few days before they know more about an unexplained illness in one participant that caused a pause in its late-stage vaccine study. Johnson &amp; Johnson isn’t disclosing the nature of the illness.

“It may have nothing to do with the vaccine,” said Mathai Mammen, head of research and development for Janssen, Johnson &amp; Johnson’s medicine development business.

Mammen said the company doesn’t know yet whether the ill participant received the experimental vaccine or a dummy shot. He says Johnson &amp; Johnson gave information on the case to the independent monitoring board overseeing the safety of patients in the study, as the research protocol requires. It will recommend next steps.

The study of the one-dose vaccine will include up to 60,000 people from multiple countries. The company expects to complete enrollment in the study in two or three months.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/10/1602636110217.png" alt="photo courtesy Eli Lilly" />
 <figcaption>photo courtesy Eli Lilly</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) —Independent monitors have paused enrollment in a study testing the COVID-19 antiviral drug remdesivir plus an experimental antibody therapy being developed by Eli Lilly that’s similar to a treatment President Donald Trump recently received.Lilly confirmed Tuesday that the study had been paused “out of an abundance of caution” and said safety is its top concern. The company would not say more about what led to this step.The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which sponsors the study, would not immediately comment.Antibodies are proteins the body makes when an infection occurs; they attach to a virus and help it be eliminated. The experimental drugs are concentrated versions of one or two specific antibodies that worked best against the coronavirus in lab and animal tests.<a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04501978?term=ACTIV-3&amp;draw=2&amp;rank=1" target="_blank">This study</a>&nbsp;was testing a single antibody that Lilly is developing with the Canadian company AbCellera. Trump received an experimental two-antibody combo drug from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.Lilly and Regeneron have asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant emergency use authorization for their drugs for COVID-19 while late-stage studies continue.The paused study, called ACTIV-3, started in August and aims to enroll 10,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States, Denmark and Singapore. All are given remdesivir, which has been authorized in the U.S. as an emergency treatment for COVID-19, plus either the Lilly antibody or a placebo.The main goals are reducing the need for extra oxygen and time to recovery. Deaths, relief of symptoms and other measures also are being tracked. All of the drugs are given through an IV.Such pauses are not uncommon in long clinical studies. Unlike a study hold imposed by government regulators, a pause is initiated by the sponsor of the drug trial and often can be quickly resolved.The pause in the Lilly study comes a day after a temporary halt to enrollment in a coronavirus vaccine study. Johnson &amp; Johnson executives said Tuesday that it will be a few days before they know more about an unexplained illness in one participant that caused a pause in its late-stage vaccine study. Johnson &amp; Johnson isn’t disclosing the nature of the illness.“It may have nothing to do with the vaccine,” said Mathai Mammen, head of research and development for Janssen, Johnson &amp; Johnson’s medicine development business.ADVERTISEMENTMammen said the company doesn’t know yet whether the ill participant received the experimental vaccine or a dummy shot. He says Johnson &amp; Johnson gave information on the case to the independent monitoring board overseeing the safety of patients in the study, as the research protocol requires. It will recommend next steps.The study of the one-dose vaccine will include up to 60,000 people from multiple countries. The company expects to complete enrollment in the study in two or three months.

Possible safety issue spurs pause of COVID-19 antibody study

LEXINGTON, Neb. (AP) — A jury has begun deliberations in the capital murder case against a woman accused of killing another woman who disappeared after a Tinder date and whose dismembered remains were later found in trash bags along rural Nebraska roads. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports the defense attorney for 26-year-old Bailey Boswell told the jury Tuesday in closing arguments that she was forced by her ex-convict boyfriend to go along with the killing and dismemberment of 24-year-old Sydney Loofe in 2017. But state prosecutor Mike Guinan said Boswell acted in tandem with 54-year-old Aubrey Trail to meet and kill Loofe. 

Boswell faces the death penalty if convicted of first-degree murder. 

Trail was convicted last year and also faces a possible death penalty.

LEXINGTON, Neb. (AP) — A jury has begun deliberations in the capital murder case against a woman accused of killing another woman who disappeared after a Tinder date and whose dismembered remains were later found in trash bags along rural Nebraska roads. The Omaha World-Herald reports the defense attorney for 26-year-old Bailey Boswell told the jury Tuesday in closing arguments that she was forced by her ex-convict boyfriend to go along with the killing and dismemberment of 24-year-old Sydney Loofe in 2017. But state prosecutor Mike Guinan said Boswell acted in tandem with 54-year-old Aubrey Trail to meet and kill Loofe. Boswell faces the death penalty if convicted of first-degree murder. Trail was convicted last year and also faces a possible death penalty.

Jury begins deliberations in dismemberment killing of woman

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A former Lincoln television reporter has been found guilty of attempted second-degree sexual assault. 

Zachery Worthington, who used to work for KLKN-TV in Lincoln, pleaded no contest to the charge as part of a deal with prosecutors. 

Originally, Worthington had been charged with first-degree sexual assault. 

Prosecutors said the victim was a woman who had previously dated Worthington before the night of the assault in October 2018. 

Murphy said the woman refused several requests from Worthington to have sex. 

The woman told authorities she later awoke to find Worthington having sex with her, and she immediately left his home.

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A former Lincoln television reporter has been found guilty of attempted second-degree sexual assault. Zachery Worthington, who used to work for KLKN-TV in Lincoln, pleaded no contest to the charge as part of a deal with prosecutors. Originally, Worthington had been charged with first-degree sexual assault. Prosecutors said the victim was a woman who had previously dated Worthington before the night of the assault in October 2018. Murphy said the woman refused several requests from Worthington to have sex. The woman told authorities she later awoke to find Worthington having sex with her, and she immediately left his home.

Former TV reporter found guilty of attempted sexual assault

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A 17-year-old was taken to a hospital in critical condition following a shooting in North Omaha, Nebraska. 

Police say the shooting happened just before 10 a.m. Tuesday at a residence. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports the male victim was taken to a local hospital where it was determined that his injuries were not life threatening. 

Police have not released the victim’s name or any information about the suspected shooter.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A 17-year-old was taken to a hospital in critical condition following a shooting in North Omaha, Nebraska. Police say the shooting happened just before 10 a.m. Tuesday at a residence. The Omaha World-Herald reports the male victim was taken to a local hospital where it was determined that his injuries were not life threatening. Police have not released the victim’s name or any information about the suspected shooter.

Injured teen taken to hospital after shooting in Nebraska

WASHINGTON (AP)—The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stopped the once-a-decade head count of every U.S. resident from continuing through the end of October.

President Donald Trump’s administration had asked the nation’s high court to suspend a district court’s order permitting the 2020 census to continue through the end of the month. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately so the U.S. Census Bureau had enough time to crunch the numbers before a congressionally mandated year-end deadline for turning in figures used for deciding how many congressional seats each state gets.

A coalition of local governments and civil rights groups had sued the Trump administration, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the count ended early. They said the census schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from the numbers used to decide how many congressional seats each state gets.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“Moreover, meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying, especially when the Government has failed to show why it could not bear the lesser cost of expending more resources to meet the deadline or continuing its prior efforts to seek an extension from Congress,” Sotomayor wrote.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction which suspended a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting numbers used to determine how many congressional seats each state gets — a process known as apportionment. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.

When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”

An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.

With plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.

The Republicans’ inaction coincided with a July order from Trump directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration is appealing that case to the Supreme Court.

By sticking to the Dec. 31 deadline, control of the apportionment count would remain in the hands of the Trump administration no matter who wins the presidential election next month.

WASHINGTON (AP)—The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stopped the once-a-decade head count of every U.S. resident from continuing through the end of October.President Donald Trump’s administration had asked the nation’s high court to suspend a district court’s order permitting the 2020 census to continue through the end of the month. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately so the U.S. Census Bureau had enough time to crunch the numbers before a congressionally mandated year-end deadline for turning in figures used for deciding how many congressional seats each state gets.A coalition of local governments and civil rights groups had sued the Trump administration, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the count ended early. They said the census schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from the numbers used to decide how many congressional seats each state gets.Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.“Moreover, meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying, especially when the Government has failed to show why it could not bear the lesser cost of expending more resources to meet the deadline or continuing its prior efforts to seek an extension from Congress,” Sotomayor wrote.Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction which suspended a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting numbers used to determine how many congressional seats each state gets — a process known as apportionment. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.ADVERTISEMENTWith plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.The Republicans’ inaction coincided with a July order from Trump directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration is appealing that case to the Supreme Court.By sticking to the Dec. 31 deadline, control of the apportionment count would remain in the hands of the Trump administration no matter who wins the presidential election next month.

Supreme Court halts census in latest twist of 2020 count

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Officials in South Dakota say state Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg had no alcohol in his bloodstream when he was tested the day after his car struck and killed a pedestrian. 

Ravnsborg initially told a county sheriff that he thought he struck a deer the night of Sept. 12 on U.S. Highway 14 near Highmore in central South Dakota. 

He said it was only the next morning, when he had returned to the scene, when he found he had struck a man. 

The family of the man killed, 55-year-old Joseph Boever, has questioned Ravnsborg’s account. 

State officials on Tuesday offered just a few of their investigative findings so far and said the inquiry could take several more weeks.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Officials in South Dakota say state Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg had no alcohol in his bloodstream when he was tested the day after his car struck and killed a pedestrian. Ravnsborg initially told a county sheriff that he thought he struck a deer the night of Sept. 12 on U.S. Highway 14 near Highmore in central South Dakota. He said it was only the next morning, when he had returned to the scene, when he found he had struck a man. The family of the man killed, 55-year-old Joseph Boever, has questioned Ravnsborg’s account. State officials on Tuesday offered just a few of their investigative findings so far and said the inquiry could take several more weeks.

South Dakota AG had no alcohol in system day after crash

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Omaha police say a woman has been arrested, accused of shooting her husband. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports the shooting happened Monday afternoon at a home in north-central Omaha. 

The 25-year-old man was taken to an Omaha hospital in critical condition. 

Police say his wife, 27-year-old Jacqueline Windham, was arrested later Monday night on suspicion of first-degree domestic violence assault and use of a gun in a felony. 

Police have not said what may have led to the shooting.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Omaha police say a woman has been arrested, accused of shooting her husband. The Omaha World-Herald reports the shooting happened Monday afternoon at a home in north-central Omaha. The 25-year-old man was taken to an Omaha hospital in critical condition. Police say his wife, 27-year-old Jacqueline Windham, was arrested later Monday night on suspicion of first-degree domestic violence assault and use of a gun in a felony. Police have not said what may have led to the shooting.

Police say Omaha woman accused of shooting husband

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A Lincoln police officer has been put on unpaid suspension after he was cited on suspicion of drunken driving and assault. 

The Lincoln Journal Star reports that police believe Officer Austin Espinoza was seated in his vehicle in the parking lot of a Lincoln bar around 2:30 a.m. Sunday when he argued with two acquaintances, a man and a woman. 

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A Lincoln police officer has been put on unpaid suspension after he was cited on suspicion of drunken driving and assault. The Lincoln Journal Star reports that police believe Officer Austin Espinoza was seated in his vehicle in the parking lot of a Lincoln bar around 2:30 a.m. Sunday when he argued with two acquaintances, a man and a woman. Espinoza reported being assaulted by the man, and the woman reported being assaulted by Espinoza. Officers who questioned Espinoza suspected he had been drinking, and police say a breath test showed he had a blood alcohol content of .112%. The legal limit to drive is .08%.