(Radio Iowa) - The eastern side of Iowa is bracing for more rain and a rising Mississippi River. The river has been steadily rising over the past week due to heavy rainfall, prompting flood warnings in parts of southeastern Iowa. 

Northeast Iowa has mostly been spared, but Sarah Moser (MOHZ-sher), the Emergency Management Coordinator in Clayton County, says the ground in the area is already saturated and the river is forecasted to rise just below levels reached during flooding in 2019.

The City of Davenport has deployed temporary barriers and water pumps along the Mississippi River in preparation for flooding and a number of parks and streets near the river have been closed. The Mississippi crest in Davenport is expected around July 4th and current forecasts indicate it will be below the record set in 2019.

(Radio Iowa) - The eastern side of Iowa is bracing for more rain and a rising Mississippi River. The river has been steadily rising over the past week due to heavy rainfall, prompting flood warnings in parts of southeastern Iowa. Northeast Iowa has mostly been spared, but Sarah Moser (MOHZ-sher), the Emergency Management Coordinator in Clayton County, says the ground in the area is already saturated and the river is forecasted to rise just below levels reached during flooding in 2019.The City of Davenport has deployed temporary barriers and water pumps along the Mississippi River in preparation for flooding and a number of parks and streets near the river have been closed. The Mississippi crest in Davenport is expected around July 4th and current forecasts indicate it will be below the record set in 2019.

Eastern Iowans brace for rising Mississippi River

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelciemoseleymorris/">KELCIE MOSELEY-MORRIS</a>&nbsp;

As expected after the court said it inadvertently uploaded the opinion prematurely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/document-indicates-supreme-court-will-punt-idaho-emergency-abortion-case-now" target="_blank">on Wednesday</a>, the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf" target="_blank">issued a decision</a>&nbsp;Thursday remanding a case about emergency abortions in Idaho back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for now.

The decision was 6-3, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting. It was issued “per curiam,” meaning there is no lead author of the overall opinion.

The justices affirming the decision wrote that they determined the court took the case too early in the process. It granted the request to hear the case in January before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could hold its own hearing on an injunction that blocked enforcement of the law against emergency room physicians who might need to perform an abortion to prevent a pregnant patient from experiencing significant health effects from infection or other conditions.

The government argued Idaho could not enforce its criminal abortion ban in emergency rooms because it would violate a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat patients who come to an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay.

When justices agreed to hear the case, the court also dropped the injunction, leaving doctors in Idaho open to prosecution under its criminal abortion ban, which carries penalties of jail time, fines and the loss of a medical license. Idaho’s civil law also allows immediate and extended family members to sue the doctors for up to $20,000 over an abortion procedure.

Idaho’s ban contains only an exception to save the pregnant patient’s life, not to prevent detrimental health outcomes, including the loss of future fertility, which is a risk with severe infection or bleeding. Without further clarity written into the law, doctors have said they can’t confidently assess when to safely intervene to save someone’s life.

Rather than take the chance, high-risk obstetric specialists have airlifted patients to a facility out of state that can freely perform the procedure before it’s too late. In 2023, the state’s largest hospital system said at their facilities such transfers happened once, but occurred six times between January and April, when the injunction was lifted.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is typically conservative in her rulings, said the court’s decisions to hear the case and drop the injunction were premised on the belief that Idaho would suffer “irreparable harm” under the injunction and that the cases were ready for the court’s immediate determination.

She wrote that the briefings and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-justices-appear-split-over-whether-protect-abortion-care-during-emergencies" target="_blank">oral argument in April</a>&nbsp;shed more light on the case, and made it clear that conscience objections were covered under EMTALA and other concerns about an interpretation that would include emergency mental health concerns did not apply.

“I am now convinced that these cases are no longer appropriate for early resolution,” Barrett wrote.

Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, president of a group of Idaho physicians who have spoken out against the ban and submitted a brief to the court in the case, said the decision is not the end of her coalition’s work.

“We are relieved by the Supreme Court’s decision,” Gustafson said. “However, this ruling addresses only a small part of the ever-increasing barriers across the health care landscape. The coalition remains committed to advocating for comprehensive policy updates to fill the gaps in healthcare access created by Idaho’s restrictive laws, which jeopardize patient safety. We will not relent until private healthcare decisions are once again at the discretion of patients and their physicians, free from political interference.”

Ahead of the decision,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/doctors-urge-us-supreme-court-include-abortion-stabilizing-care-under-federal-law" target="_blank">more than 6,000 doctors</a>&nbsp;from around the country also appealed to the court to protect ER physicians, along with medical professionals in Idaho and advocacy organizations.

The case now returns to the Ninth Circuit to resume the process, but it could ultimately return to the Supreme Court at a later date.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719501733752.png" alt=" A protester at a Planned Parenthood Great Northwest rally in Boise, Idaho, holds up a sign about the EMTALA case on April 21, 2024 (Otto Kitsinger/Idaho Capital Sun)." />
 <figcaption> A protester at a Planned Parenthood Great Northwest rally in Boise, Idaho, holds up a sign about the EMTALA case on April 21, 2024 (Otto Kitsinger/Idaho Capital Sun).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelciemoseleymorris/">KELCIE MOSELEY-MORRIS</a>&nbsp;As expected after the court said it inadvertently uploaded the opinion prematurely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/document-indicates-supreme-court-will-punt-idaho-emergency-abortion-case-now" target="_blank">on Wednesday</a>, the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf" target="_blank">issued a decision</a>&nbsp;Thursday remanding a case about emergency abortions in Idaho back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for now.The decision was 6-3, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting. It was issued “per curiam,” meaning there is no lead author of the overall opinion.The justices affirming the decision wrote that they determined the court took the case too early in the process. It granted the request to hear the case in January before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could hold its own hearing on an injunction that blocked enforcement of the law against emergency room physicians who might need to perform an abortion to prevent a pregnant patient from experiencing significant health effects from infection or other conditions.The government argued Idaho could not enforce its criminal abortion ban in emergency rooms because it would violate a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat patients who come to an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay.When justices agreed to hear the case, the court also dropped the injunction, leaving doctors in Idaho open to prosecution under its criminal abortion ban, which carries penalties of jail time, fines and the loss of a medical license. Idaho’s civil law also allows immediate and extended family members to sue the doctors for up to $20,000 over an abortion procedure.Idaho’s ban contains only an exception to save the pregnant patient’s life, not to prevent detrimental health outcomes, including the loss of future fertility, which is a risk with severe infection or bleeding. Without further clarity written into the law, doctors have said they can’t confidently assess when to safely intervene to save someone’s life.Rather than take the chance, high-risk obstetric specialists have airlifted patients to a facility out of state that can freely perform the procedure before it’s too late. In 2023, the state’s largest hospital system said at their facilities such transfers happened once, but occurred six times between January and April, when the injunction was lifted.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is typically conservative in her rulings, said the court’s decisions to hear the case and drop the injunction were premised on the belief that Idaho would suffer “irreparable harm” under the injunction and that the cases were ready for the court’s immediate determination.She wrote that the briefings and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-justices-appear-split-over-whether-protect-abortion-care-during-emergencies" target="_blank">oral argument in April</a>&nbsp;shed more light on the case, and made it clear that conscience objections were covered under EMTALA and other concerns about an interpretation that would include emergency mental health concerns did not apply.“I am now convinced that these cases are no longer appropriate for early resolution,” Barrett wrote.Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, president of a group of Idaho physicians who have spoken out against the ban and submitted a brief to the court in the case, said the decision is not the end of her coalition’s work.“We are relieved by the Supreme Court’s decision,” Gustafson said. “However, this ruling addresses only a small part of the ever-increasing barriers across the health care landscape. The coalition remains committed to advocating for comprehensive policy updates to fill the gaps in healthcare access created by Idaho’s restrictive laws, which jeopardize patient safety. We will not relent until private healthcare decisions are once again at the discretion of patients and their physicians, free from political interference.”Ahead of the decision,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/doctors-urge-us-supreme-court-include-abortion-stabilizing-care-under-federal-law" target="_blank">more than 6,000 doctors</a>&nbsp;from around the country also appealed to the court to protect ER physicians, along with medical professionals in Idaho and advocacy organizations.The case now returns to the Ninth Circuit to resume the process, but it could ultimately return to the Supreme Court at a later date.

U.S. Supreme Court sends Idaho abortion case back down to lower courts

Attorneys representing transgender youth and the attorney general’s office both claim evidence is being illegally concealed

BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>

Attorneys representing transgender minors and health care providers squabbled with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office Wednesday over thousands of documents both sides say are being wrongfully withheld.

At its core, the case seeks to determine whether the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors is lawful. The lawsuit was filed by the families of three transgender minors, Southampton Healthcare, two of Southampton’s providers and two national advocacy organizations, saying the ban could have “extremely serious, negative health consequences” for transgender youth.

The attorney general filed a counterclaim alleging Southampton Healthcare, which provides gender-affirming care, did not fully disclose risks when treating transgender youth.

A trial is scheduled for late September, and attorneys are in the process of deposing witnesses. The deadline to send responsive documents to the other party passed, but both plaintiffs and defendants were unhappy with how much the other side has willingly turned over.&nbsp;

Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter, who is stepping into Cole County Circuit Court for this case, said it would take time to rule on each exception the parties found to requests for discovery.

Jim Lawrence, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the state has withheld documents citing exceptions not backed by state law.

Lawrence told the judge the parties would “be here until next week” if he were to explain every document he is requesting. He displayed a powerpoint with a chart of the objections from the attorney general’s office and the corresponding evidentiary requests.

Peter Donahue, assistant attorney general for special litigation, said the state went through a “burdensome” process of reviewing 100,000 documents that matched search terms in investigatory requests and spent $25,000 taking the time to narrow the lot to what is relevant and not deemed protected — which ended up being 2.6% of those files.

“If the state reviewed 100,000 (documents) and only 2,600 are relevant… That is an impossible fact to digest,” Lawrence said. “That doesn’t pass the smell test.”

Included in the state’s objections were documents protected by “gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence said. This impacted almost half of the requests for production issued to the office of Gov. Mike Parson.

Gubernatorial privilege, Lawrence argued, doesn’t exist. He said there isn’t legal precedent in Missouri for it.

The idea of an executive privilege was discussed during the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article206546554.html" target="_blank">attorney general’s investigation of former Gov. Eric Greitens</a>, with many dismissing the excuse as illegitimate.

“They are asking you to be the first court in the state of Missouri to declare gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence told the judge.

Donahue said he hadn’t seen the privilege successfully invoked in Missouri, but it was “widely recognized across the nation.”

“We are just talking about communications between the governor and his close circle,” Donahue said. “This is not a unique concept in the gubernatorial process.”

Carter asked what types of documents have been withheld from discovery under gubernatorial privilege. Lawrence listed off a handful of examples, including “policies and procedures related to enforcement of the act.”

“Even if (gubernatorial privilege) does exist, it wouldn’t apply to all that,” he said.

Donahue said the objection was an “add-on privilege” for some of the documents, where another exception would have already protected the information from disclosure.

Lawrence tossed an arm up at the admission, then folding his arms and furrowing his brow.

“His argument really goes to why we are here today,” he said. “If you are asserting a privilege and withholding information based upon a privilege, you have to put that.”

It is written in the privilege log, Donahue said. A privilege log is a file that describes the documents withheld and the privileges asserted to protect them.

Lawrence also took issue with claims of attorney-client privilege that protected Jamie Reed, a witness in the case and whistleblower following her work at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed’s affidavit alleging quick “medicalization” of transgender minors launched the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/therapists-social-workers-face-scrutiny-in-missouri-ag-investigation-of-transgender-care/">attorney general’s investigation of gender-affirming care</a>&nbsp;and was a main talking point when&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/14/proposed-ban-on-medical-transitions-for-minors-gains-renewed-traction-in-missouri-senate/">lawmakers discussed a ban</a>&nbsp;for minors.

The attorney general isn’t Reed’s lawyer, Lawrence said, so his office shouldn’t argue attorney-client privilege for documents related to her.

Plaintiffs subpoenaed Reed separately and received a letter she sent to the attorney general. That letter should have also been sent by the attorney general’s office responsive to the investigative requests, but plaintiffs didn’t get it, Lawrence said.

Other exceptions include external communications allegedly withheld as work product and many documents sealed under investigative privilege.

Lawrence said they did not receive the responses the public gave to a tip line the attorney general opened to report complaints about gender-affirming care, but that information was compiled for outside sources. Indeed,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stlpr.org/show/st-louis-on-the-air/2024-05-03/instead-of-complaints-baileys-trans-tip-line-flooded-with-pro-trans-support" target="_blank">St. Louis Public Radio</a>&nbsp;requested the responses in a Sunshine Request and received the compilation a year later.

Donahue also argued Southampton was withholding documents. He said he received informational pamphlets from Southampton but wanted medical records of four or five patients that received gender-affirming care as minors.

The judge questioned why he needed these particular documents.

“These documents are relevant to our counterclaim that plaintiffs have been inaccurate about the types of harm that can come from these treatments,” Donahue said.&nbsp;

He argued gender-affirming care providers weren’t always truthful — a claim&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/01/transgender-st-louis-whistleblower/">patients have disputed</a>&nbsp;when their care is questioned.

“It essentially amounts to snake-oil salesmanship, if true,” he said.

He wanted to get access to records showing what doctors have discussed with patients and letters of support from mental-health professionals, which he said sometimes have “irregularities.”

Complaints from the attorney general’s office about these letters have<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/therapists-social-workers-face-scrutiny-in-missouri-ag-investigation-of-transgender-care/">&nbsp;led to the investigations of 57 health professionals</a>, putting their licenses at risk. As of early May, 16 cases were open in the probe by the Department of Professional Registration.

Jason Orr, another attorney representing plaintiffs, said the state may ask Southampton’s physicians questions but can’t ask for patients’ private records.

“Southampton does not have the ability to waive their doctor-patient privilege, and in fact, they are required to exercise it on their behalf,” he said.

There are currently four cases open between healthcare providers and the attorney general where providers are&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/18/planned-parenthood-vows-to-fight-missouri-ag-push-for-transgender-youth-medical-records/">fighting requests to hand over medical records</a>.

Southampton’s patients are not the plaintiffs in the case at hand, Orr said.

Plaintiffs PFLAG and GLMA, two advocacy organizations, have not been complying with requests for documents, Donahue argued.

He said he hasn’t received anything from the two organizations, despite the deadline already passing.

Orr said the request led to 20,000 documents that attorneys are “working in good faith” to narrow down and deliver. He hoped for it to be ready by the end of the week, complaining that the request was sent one month before the deadline.

“This was an issue that was created in part by defendants’ timing,” he said.

At the start of the hearing Wednesday, Solicitor General Josh Divine mentioned a federal case that may change their proceedings.

<a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-hear-challenge-ban-transgender-care-minors-2024-06-24/" target="_blank">The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday</a>&nbsp;to hear a case on Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

There are additional claims in the case before Carter, Orr said.

Carter said to keep him updated if the case will be affected.

“We’re going to keep marching on until we hear something different,” he said.

<a href="https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map" target="_blank">Half of U.S. states</a>&nbsp;have a restriction on gender-affirming care for minors, with litigation blocking some states’ bans.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719493597787.png" alt="The Cole County Courthouse in Jefferson City (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)" />
 <figcaption>The Cole County Courthouse in Jefferson City (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Attorneys representing transgender youth and the attorney general’s office both claim evidence is being illegally concealed</h2>BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>Attorneys representing transgender minors and health care providers squabbled with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office Wednesday over thousands of documents both sides say are being wrongfully withheld.At its core, the case seeks to determine whether the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors is lawful. The lawsuit was filed by the families of three transgender minors, Southampton Healthcare, two of Southampton’s providers and two national advocacy organizations, saying the ban could have “extremely serious, negative health consequences” for transgender youth.The attorney general filed a counterclaim alleging Southampton Healthcare, which provides gender-affirming care, did not fully disclose risks when treating transgender youth.A trial is scheduled for late September, and attorneys are in the process of deposing witnesses. The deadline to send responsive documents to the other party passed, but both plaintiffs and defendants were unhappy with how much the other side has willingly turned over.&nbsp;Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter, who is stepping into Cole County Circuit Court for this case, said it would take time to rule on each exception the parties found to requests for discovery.Jim Lawrence, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the state has withheld documents citing exceptions not backed by state law.Lawrence told the judge the parties would “be here until next week” if he were to explain every document he is requesting. He displayed a powerpoint with a chart of the objections from the attorney general’s office and the corresponding evidentiary requests.Peter Donahue, assistant attorney general for special litigation, said the state went through a “burdensome” process of reviewing 100,000 documents that matched search terms in investigatory requests and spent $25,000 taking the time to narrow the lot to what is relevant and not deemed protected — which ended up being 2.6% of those files.“If the state reviewed 100,000 (documents) and only 2,600 are relevant… That is an impossible fact to digest,” Lawrence said. “That doesn’t pass the smell test.”Included in the state’s objections were documents protected by “gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence said. This impacted almost half of the requests for production issued to the office of Gov. Mike Parson.Gubernatorial privilege, Lawrence argued, doesn’t exist. He said there isn’t legal precedent in Missouri for it.The idea of an executive privilege was discussed during the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article206546554.html" target="_blank">attorney general’s investigation of former Gov. Eric Greitens</a>, with many dismissing the excuse as illegitimate.“They are asking you to be the first court in the state of Missouri to declare gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence told the judge.Donahue said he hadn’t seen the privilege successfully invoked in Missouri, but it was “widely recognized across the nation.”“We are just talking about communications between the governor and his close circle,” Donahue said. “This is not a unique concept in the gubernatorial process.”Carter asked what types of documents have been withheld from discovery under gubernatorial privilege. Lawrence listed off a handful of examples, including “policies and procedures related to enforcement of the act.”“Even if (gubernatorial privilege) does exist, it wouldn’t apply to all that,” he said.Donahue said the objection was an “add-on privilege” for some of the documents, where another exception would have already protected the information from disclosure.Lawrence tossed an arm up at the admission, then folding his arms and furrowing his brow.“His argument really goes to why we are here today,” he said. “If you are asserting a privilege and withholding information based upon a privilege, you have to put that.”It is written in the privilege log, Donahue said. A privilege log is a file that describes the documents withheld and the privileges asserted to protect them.Lawrence also took issue with claims of attorney-client privilege that protected Jamie Reed, a witness in the case and whistleblower following her work at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed’s affidavit alleging quick “medicalization” of transgender minors launched the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/therapists-social-workers-face-scrutiny-in-missouri-ag-investigation-of-transgender-care/">attorney general’s investigation of gender-affirming care</a>&nbsp;and was a main talking point when&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/14/proposed-ban-on-medical-transitions-for-minors-gains-renewed-traction-in-missouri-senate/">lawmakers discussed a ban</a>&nbsp;for minors.The attorney general isn’t Reed’s lawyer, Lawrence said, so his office shouldn’t argue attorney-client privilege for documents related to her.Plaintiffs subpoenaed Reed separately and received a letter she sent to the attorney general. That letter should have also been sent by the attorney general’s office responsive to the investigative requests, but plaintiffs didn’t get it, Lawrence said.Other exceptions include external communications allegedly withheld as work product and many documents sealed under investigative privilege.Lawrence said they did not receive the responses the public gave to a tip line the attorney general opened to report complaints about gender-affirming care, but that information was compiled for outside sources. Indeed,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stlpr.org/show/st-louis-on-the-air/2024-05-03/instead-of-complaints-baileys-trans-tip-line-flooded-with-pro-trans-support" target="_blank">St. Louis Public Radio</a>&nbsp;requested the responses in a Sunshine Request and received the compilation a year later.Donahue also argued Southampton was withholding documents. He said he received informational pamphlets from Southampton but wanted medical records of four or five patients that received gender-affirming care as minors.The judge questioned why he needed these particular documents.“These documents are relevant to our counterclaim that plaintiffs have been inaccurate about the types of harm that can come from these treatments,” Donahue said.&nbsp;He argued gender-affirming care providers weren’t always truthful — a claim&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/01/transgender-st-louis-whistleblower/">patients have disputed</a>&nbsp;when their care is questioned.“It essentially amounts to snake-oil salesmanship, if true,” he said.He wanted to get access to records showing what doctors have discussed with patients and letters of support from mental-health professionals, which he said sometimes have “irregularities.”Complaints from the attorney general’s office about these letters have<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/therapists-social-workers-face-scrutiny-in-missouri-ag-investigation-of-transgender-care/">&nbsp;led to the investigations of 57 health professionals</a>, putting their licenses at risk. As of early May, 16 cases were open in the probe by the Department of Professional Registration.Jason Orr, another attorney representing plaintiffs, said the state may ask Southampton’s physicians questions but can’t ask for patients’ private records.“Southampton does not have the ability to waive their doctor-patient privilege, and in fact, they are required to exercise it on their behalf,” he said.There are currently four cases open between healthcare providers and the attorney general where providers are&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/18/planned-parenthood-vows-to-fight-missouri-ag-push-for-transgender-youth-medical-records/">fighting requests to hand over medical records</a>.Southampton’s patients are not the plaintiffs in the case at hand, Orr said.Plaintiffs PFLAG and GLMA, two advocacy organizations, have not been complying with requests for documents, Donahue argued.He said he hasn’t received anything from the two organizations, despite the deadline already passing.Orr said the request led to 20,000 documents that attorneys are “working in good faith” to narrow down and deliver. He hoped for it to be ready by the end of the week, complaining that the request was sent one month before the deadline.“This was an issue that was created in part by defendants’ timing,” he said.At the start of the hearing Wednesday, Solicitor General Josh Divine mentioned a federal case that may change their proceedings.<a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-hear-challenge-ban-transgender-care-minors-2024-06-24/" target="_blank">The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday</a>&nbsp;to hear a case on Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.There are additional claims in the case before Carter, Orr said.Carter said to keep him updated if the case will be affected.“We’re going to keep marching on until we hear something different,” he said.<a href="https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map" target="_blank">Half of U.S. states</a>&nbsp;have a restriction on gender-affirming care for minors, with litigation blocking some states’ bans.

Hearing over Missouri’s ban on gender-affirming care focuses on withheld documents

The St. Joseph Mustangs resumed a game with the Carroll Merchants on Wednesday - a game that was suspended in the ninth inning Tuesday night due to weather.

The game was resumed in the top of the ninth at Phil Welch Stadium, and the Mustangs held on to win it 5-3. In that first game, East Buchanan graduate Broncho Witt got the win, tossing eight innings and striking out five. He allowed five hits, three earned runs and five walks.

The Mustangs then played a full game against the Merchants Wednesday, which was a scheduled home game. Carroll won that game 15-11 in 11 innings.

The Merchants scored nine runs in the first three innings, but the game was tied 11-11 after the eighth. Carroll scored four runs in the top of the 11th to put it away.

Darius Freeman was 3-for-6 at the plate with a home run and two runs scored for the Mustangs. Easton Bruce returned to the lineup and scored two runs on a hit and two walks.

The Mustangs sit at 23-3 on the season. The Merchants are still the only team to have beaten St. Joseph this season.

St. Joseph is at Chillicothe Thursday night at 7 p.m.

By TOMMY REZACSt. Joseph PostThe St. Joseph Mustangs resumed a game with the Carroll Merchants on Wednesday - a game that was suspended in the ninth inning Tuesday night due to weather.The game was resumed in the top of the ninth at Phil Welch Stadium, and the Mustangs held on to win it 5-3. In that first game, East Buchanan graduate Broncho Witt got the win, tossing eight innings and striking out five. He allowed five hits, three earned runs and five walks.The Mustangs then played a full game against the Merchants Wednesday, which was a scheduled home game. Carroll won that game 15-11 in 11 innings.The Merchants scored nine runs in the first three innings, but the game was tied 11-11 after the eighth. Carroll scored four runs in the top of the 11th to put it away.Darius Freeman was 3-for-6 at the plate with a home run and two runs scored for the Mustangs. Easton Bruce returned to the lineup and scored two runs on a hit and two walks.The Mustangs sit at 23-3 on the season. The Merchants are still the only team to have beaten St. Joseph this season.St. Joseph is at Chillicothe Thursday night at 7 p.m.

Mustangs win resumed game with Merchants, drop second game in extra innings

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jacob-fischler/">JACOB FISCHLER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/09/21/kansas-board-of-regents-sculpts-plan-for-boosting-state-aid-to-public-higher-education/?emci=78717300-c858-ee11-9937-00224832eb73&amp;emdi=fc107f78-2659-ee11-9937-00224832eb73&amp;ceid=115039">Kansas Reflector</a>

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will get a crucial opportunity to reach undecided voters and set the terms for the 2024 presidential campaign at Thursday night’s debate in Atlanta.

Partisans on either side have already made up their minds about which candidate they’ll support. And with this year’s race serving as a rematch of 2020, many Americans have already formed strong and possibly unchangeable opinions about the candidates.

Yet there is a sizable group of voters who haven’t decided who they’ll support in November, Christopher Stout, a professor of political science at Oregon State University, said in an interview with States Newsroom.

“On one hand, opinions about Joe Biden and Donald Trump are baked in,” Stout said. “On the other hand, there’s a lot of people who aren’t paying any attention to politics and this is their first time thinking about the 2024 election.”

For Biden, a major objective will be to show voters the 81-year-old incumbent can be energetic and forceful, Stout and political strategists said.

Trump, 78, may focus on appealing to voters in the ideological middle and wavering Republicans who want a conservative candidate but are turned off by the former president’s antics.

On policy, each candidate has issues they will capitalize on as strengths. Trump will probably press Biden on immigration and inflation, while Biden undoubtedly will be eager to criticize Trump on reproductive rights.

The debate, sponsored by CNN, will be moderated by the network’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash and begin at 9 p.m. Eastern, with no studio audience. It is set to last for 90 minutes and will air live on CNN with simulcast available for other cable and broadcast networks.

Each candidate’s microphone will be muted while the other is speaking. No props are allowed but each man will be given a pen, pad and bottle of water,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/politics/how-to-watch-cnn-debate/index.html" target="_blank">CNN said.</a>

Trump could gain ground with moderate and independent voters by appearing steady.

After winning the presidency in 2016, Trump lost to Biden in 2020 amid a sense that Republican-leaning voters were weary of his unorthodox style and tendency to create scandal.

“If he’s boring and he looks like a typical politician, that’s going to be a big plus for him,” Stout said. “If he looks like a typical politician and he seems more moderate, then there’s the opportunity to bring back a set of voters who were once Republican who have now left the party.”

At the same time, there’s likely not too much down side for Trump if he does go off-script, as voters have come to expect outlandish comments and behavior, Republican strategist Doug Heye said.

“Donald Trump is gonna say something crazy,” Heye said. “That is all factored in and that’s not changing anybody’s mind.”

Heye cited recent remarks Trump has made about shark attacks, electrocution from oversized batteries and taking his shirt off to reveal psychic wounds inflicted by political opponents.

In a move reminiscent of his reality-show past, Trump has teased a possible announcement of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/calm-conservative-confident-what-gop-senators-want-trumps-vice-presidential-pick" target="_blank">his vice presidential pick</a>&nbsp;at the debate.

But even if voters expect some degree of eccentricity from Trump, that will not help him win over the undecided voters who will decide the election, said Rodell Mollineau, a co-founder and partner at the Washington-based strategy firm ROKK Solutions and a veteran of Democratic campaigns.

“If you’re actually trying to reach voters, I’m not sure how Trump ranting and raving, talking about delusional conspiracy theories, helps him win independent voters,” Mollineau said.

Trump will face an additional unique challenge if he tries to look like a traditional presidential candidate: his&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-found-guilty-34-felony-counts-ny-hush-money-trial-10" target="_blank">34 felony convictions</a>&nbsp;in New York last month and the three other felony prosecutions against him pending, including two related to his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

“I’m watching to see how he talks about or doesn’t talk about his many court dalliances and the conviction and whatever else he has hanging over his head,” Mollineau said.

Biden faces different questions he must answer.

Voters have doubts about the incumbent’s ability, due in part to his age, inclination for misspeaking and a concerted effort by Republicans and GOP-aligned media to portray Biden as past his prime.

“I think Biden in part is going to be trying to overcome the image that Trump and Republicans in general have been very successful in creating,” University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said.&nbsp; “They’ve been working on this now for at least five years, and that is the image of Biden being too old, being not up to it physically or mentally to continue to serve as president for another four years.”

Biden countered that narrative — at least temporarily — with an exuberant performance at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/biden-warns-freedom-and-democracy-are-under-attack-fierce-state-union-address" target="_blank">the State of the Union address</a>&nbsp;this year, several observers said.

Matching that energy will help him have a positive debate, they said.

But Heye noted that despite rave reviews from Democrats, the president’s State of the Union performance did not improve his standing in polls.

“The reaction from Democrats was: game changer,” Heye said. “And if we look at the polling, the game didn’t change at all.”

Biden would also benefit by reminding voters of his policy record, and contrasting it with Trump’s, Stout and Mollineau said.

“It will advantage him if he can talk about policy,” Stout said. “People don’t know the things he has done and so there’s hope maybe to inform people and sway the electorate.”

Biden should target left-leaning voters by reminding them of his achievements on climate and the environment and his administration’s efforts to create jobs, Stout said.

Mollineau added that Biden must remind voters of Trump’s tumultuous time in office and Biden’s achievements thus far, while balancing that message with an acknowledgment that many Americans are unsatisfied.

The debate, which will be broadcast from CNN’s Georgia headquarters, comes much earlier in the election cycle than usual, even before the party conventions that typically symbolize the start of the general election.

The candidates agreed to the unusual schedule after rejecting a proposal from the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan organization that has organized the events for decades, typically with three meetings between presidential candidates and one between would-be vice presidents.

This year’s June schedule could give the candidates a chance to frame the race moving forward, as many voters will be tuning in to the contest for the first time.

But the nearly 19 weeks remaining until Election Day could also mean a candidate with a weak performance has time to recover, or that a strong performance could diminish.

“I do not believe anyone is going to either win or lose the election this week,” Mollineau said.

Bullock, the Georgia professor, differed.

Because of the unpopularity of both candidates, and the sense that voters will be choosing the one they view as “the least of two evils,” either could provide a voter’s “final straw,” he said.

“They may hear something coming out of the mouths of one of these and say, ‘Yeah, that’s it,’” Bullock said. “‘That’s the final straw. I can’t support that one. It helps me make up my mind to go with the other person.’”

Ross Williams contributed to this report.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719402433185.png" alt="The McCamish Pavilion at Georgia Tech in Atlanta on Tuesday, June 25, 2024. It is the site of the press center for media covering the CNN debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Thursday (Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder)." />
 <figcaption>The McCamish Pavilion at Georgia Tech in Atlanta on Tuesday, June 25, 2024. It is the site of the press center for media covering the CNN debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Thursday (Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jacob-fischler/">JACOB FISCHLER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/09/21/kansas-board-of-regents-sculpts-plan-for-boosting-state-aid-to-public-higher-education/?emci=78717300-c858-ee11-9937-00224832eb73&amp;emdi=fc107f78-2659-ee11-9937-00224832eb73&amp;ceid=115039">Kansas Reflector</a>President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will get a crucial opportunity to reach undecided voters and set the terms for the 2024 presidential campaign at Thursday night’s debate in Atlanta.Partisans on either side have already made up their minds about which candidate they’ll support. And with this year’s race serving as a rematch of 2020, many Americans have already formed strong and possibly unchangeable opinions about the candidates.Yet there is a sizable group of voters who haven’t decided who they’ll support in November, Christopher Stout, a professor of political science at Oregon State University, said in an interview with States Newsroom.“On one hand, opinions about Joe Biden and Donald Trump are baked in,” Stout said. “On the other hand, there’s a lot of people who aren’t paying any attention to politics and this is their first time thinking about the 2024 election.”For Biden, a major objective will be to show voters the 81-year-old incumbent can be energetic and forceful, Stout and political strategists said.Trump, 78, may focus on appealing to voters in the ideological middle and wavering Republicans who want a conservative candidate but are turned off by the former president’s antics.On policy, each candidate has issues they will capitalize on as strengths. Trump will probably press Biden on immigration and inflation, while Biden undoubtedly will be eager to criticize Trump on reproductive rights.The debate, sponsored by CNN, will be moderated by the network’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash and begin at 9 p.m. Eastern, with no studio audience. It is set to last for 90 minutes and will air live on CNN with simulcast available for other cable and broadcast networks.Each candidate’s microphone will be muted while the other is speaking. No props are allowed but each man will be given a pen, pad and bottle of water,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/politics/how-to-watch-cnn-debate/index.html" target="_blank">CNN said.</a><h2>Can Trump be boring?</h2>Trump could gain ground with moderate and independent voters by appearing steady.After winning the presidency in 2016, Trump lost to Biden in 2020 amid a sense that Republican-leaning voters were weary of his unorthodox style and tendency to create scandal.“If he’s boring and he looks like a typical politician, that’s going to be a big plus for him,” Stout said. “If he looks like a typical politician and he seems more moderate, then there’s the opportunity to bring back a set of voters who were once Republican who have now left the party.”At the same time, there’s likely not too much down side for Trump if he does go off-script, as voters have come to expect outlandish comments and behavior, Republican strategist Doug Heye said.“Donald Trump is gonna say something crazy,” Heye said. “That is all factored in and that’s not changing anybody’s mind.”Heye cited recent remarks Trump has made about shark attacks, electrocution from oversized batteries and taking his shirt off to reveal psychic wounds inflicted by political opponents.In a move reminiscent of his reality-show past, Trump has teased a possible announcement of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/calm-conservative-confident-what-gop-senators-want-trumps-vice-presidential-pick" target="_blank">his vice presidential pick</a>&nbsp;at the debate.But even if voters expect some degree of eccentricity from Trump, that will not help him win over the undecided voters who will decide the election, said Rodell Mollineau, a co-founder and partner at the Washington-based strategy firm ROKK Solutions and a veteran of Democratic campaigns.“If you’re actually trying to reach voters, I’m not sure how Trump ranting and raving, talking about delusional conspiracy theories, helps him win independent voters,” Mollineau said.Trump will face an additional unique challenge if he tries to look like a traditional presidential candidate: his&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-found-guilty-34-felony-counts-ny-hush-money-trial-10" target="_blank">34 felony convictions</a>&nbsp;in New York last month and the three other felony prosecutions against him pending, including two related to his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.“I’m watching to see how he talks about or doesn’t talk about his many court dalliances and the conviction and whatever else he has hanging over his head,” Mollineau said.<h2>Can Biden be forceful?</h2>Biden faces different questions he must answer.Voters have doubts about the incumbent’s ability, due in part to his age, inclination for misspeaking and a concerted effort by Republicans and GOP-aligned media to portray Biden as past his prime.“I think Biden in part is going to be trying to overcome the image that Trump and Republicans in general have been very successful in creating,” University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said.&nbsp; “They’ve been working on this now for at least five years, and that is the image of Biden being too old, being not up to it physically or mentally to continue to serve as president for another four years.”Biden countered that narrative — at least temporarily — with an exuberant performance at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/biden-warns-freedom-and-democracy-are-under-attack-fierce-state-union-address" target="_blank">the State of the Union address</a>&nbsp;this year, several observers said.Matching that energy will help him have a positive debate, they said.But Heye noted that despite rave reviews from Democrats, the president’s State of the Union performance did not improve his standing in polls.“The reaction from Democrats was: game changer,” Heye said. “And if we look at the polling, the game didn’t change at all.”Biden would also benefit by reminding voters of his policy record, and contrasting it with Trump’s, Stout and Mollineau said.“It will advantage him if he can talk about policy,” Stout said. “People don’t know the things he has done and so there’s hope maybe to inform people and sway the electorate.”Biden should target left-leaning voters by reminding them of his achievements on climate and the environment and his administration’s efforts to create jobs, Stout said.Mollineau added that Biden must remind voters of Trump’s tumultuous time in office and Biden’s achievements thus far, while balancing that message with an acknowledgment that many Americans are unsatisfied.<h2>An early debate</h2>The debate, which will be broadcast from CNN’s Georgia headquarters, comes much earlier in the election cycle than usual, even before the party conventions that typically symbolize the start of the general election.The candidates agreed to the unusual schedule after rejecting a proposal from the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan organization that has organized the events for decades, typically with three meetings between presidential candidates and one between would-be vice presidents.All debates are usually in the fall.This year’s June schedule could give the candidates a chance to frame the race moving forward, as many voters will be tuning in to the contest for the first time.But the nearly 19 weeks remaining until Election Day could also mean a candidate with a weak performance has time to recover, or that a strong performance could diminish.“I do not believe anyone is going to either win or lose the election this week,” Mollineau said.Bullock, the Georgia professor, differed.Because of the unpopularity of both candidates, and the sense that voters will be choosing the one they view as “the least of two evils,” either could provide a voter’s “final straw,” he said.“They may hear something coming out of the mouths of one of these and say, ‘Yeah, that’s it,’” Bullock said. “‘That’s the final straw. I can’t support that one. It helps me make up my mind to go with the other person.’”Ross Williams contributed to this report.

Undecided voters are the prize for Biden and Trump in presidential debate

The co-founder of a so-called Christian health care sharing ministry in St. Joseph was sentenced in federal court Wednesday for his role in an $8 million wire fraud conspiracy that cheated hundreds of members, and to making false statements on a personal tax return.

Sixty-two-year-old Craig Anthony Reynolds of St. Joseph was sentenced to 17.5 years in federal prison without parole. Reynolds was taken into custody at the conclusion of a Wednesday hearing to start serving his sentence. The court also ordered Reynolds to pay more than $8 million in restitution to the victims, the IRS and the Missouri Department of Revenue.

The court also ordered Reynolds to forfeit to the government more than $460,000, which includes proceeds from the sale of a St. Joseph residence and other assets.

Reynolds founded and ran Medical Cost Sharing, a tax-exempt organization, as its president and CEO from 2014-2022. Reynolds pleaded guilty last November to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of making false statements on a tax return.

In a separate but related case, co-defendant and 77-year-old James L. McGinnis of St. Joseph, pleaded guilty on April 2nd to the same charges and awaits sentencing. McGinnis co-founded Medical Cost Sharing.

Reynolds and McGinnis collected more than $8 million in member “contributions,” yet paid only 3.1 percent in health care claims so that they could personally profit and take most of the members’ contributions for themselves.

By TOMMY REZACSt. Joseph PostThe co-founder of a so-called Christian health care sharing ministry in St. Joseph was sentenced in federal court Wednesday for his role in an $8 million wire fraud conspiracy that cheated hundreds of members, and to making false statements on a personal tax return.Sixty-two-year-old Craig Anthony Reynolds of St. Joseph was sentenced to 17.5 years in federal prison without parole. Reynolds was taken into custody at the conclusion of a Wednesday hearing to start serving his sentence. The court also ordered Reynolds to pay more than $8 million in restitution to the victims, the IRS and the Missouri Department of Revenue.The court also ordered Reynolds to forfeit to the government more than $460,000, which includes proceeds from the sale of a St. Joseph residence and other assets.Reynolds founded and ran Medical Cost Sharing, a tax-exempt organization, as its president and CEO from 2014-2022. Reynolds pleaded guilty last November to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of making false statements on a tax return.In a separate but related case, co-defendant and 77-year-old James L. McGinnis of St. Joseph, pleaded guilty on April 2nd to the same charges and awaits sentencing. McGinnis co-founded Medical Cost Sharing.Reynolds and McGinnis collected more than $8 million in member “contributions,” yet paid only 3.1 percent in health care claims so that they could personally profit and take most of the members’ contributions for themselves.

St. Joseph man sentenced in wire fraud scheme Wednesday

(Radio Iowa) - More severe weather stormed across Iowa on Tuesday night, bringing high winds, heavy rain and large hail. 

National Weather Service meteorologist Jim Lee says there were perhaps 30 sightings of funnel clouds statewide and at least three of them touched down to become tornadoes, though they did little damage. 

The storms also brought multiple hail reports, including some stones the size of baseballs near Winterset, while the Council Bluffs area was blasted by wind gusts of around 90 miles an hour. Prior to last night's storms, Lee says Iowa had 86 tornadoes so far this year, with 44 in April and 42 during May. The average in a year is about 50.

(Radio Iowa) - More severe weather stormed across Iowa on Tuesday night, bringing high winds, heavy rain and large hail. National Weather Service meteorologist Jim Lee says there were perhaps 30 sightings of funnel clouds statewide and at least three of them touched down to become tornadoes, though they did little damage. The storms also brought multiple hail reports, including some stones the size of baseballs near Winterset, while the Council Bluffs area was blasted by wind gusts of around 90 miles an hour. Prior to last night's storms, Lee says Iowa had 86 tornadoes so far this year, with 44 in April and 42 during May. The average in a year is about 50.

Storms bring baseball-sized hail, 90 MPH winds and at least three twisters

(Radio Iowa) - A southeast Iowa woman has been charged with murder following a Sunday morning house fire. 

Fire crews were dispatched to a residence in Ottumwa based on the report of a heavy fire. Two people were in the home at the time, one was able to escape, but 59-year-old Ernest Wilson of Ottumwa died. 

Thirty-one-year-old Ashley Lankford of Ottumwa has been arrested and charged with first-degree murder, first-degree arson, attempted murder, first-degree criminal mischief, and animal abuse. Lankford is currently in the Wapello County Jail. Her bond has been set at one million dollars.

(Radio Iowa) - A southeast Iowa woman has been charged with murder following a Sunday morning house fire. Fire crews were dispatched to a residence in Ottumwa based on the report of a heavy fire. Two people were in the home at the time, one was able to escape, but 59-year-old Ernest Wilson of Ottumwa died. Thirty-one-year-old Ashley Lankford of Ottumwa has been arrested and charged with first-degree murder, first-degree arson, attempted murder, first-degree criminal mischief, and animal abuse. Lankford is currently in the Wapello County Jail. Her bond has been set at one million dollars.

Ottumwa woman faces felony charges for fatal house fire

The city of Maryville will hold a graveside memorial service for an infant that was found at Mozingo Lake Recreation Park last month.

On the morning of May 25th, a Park employee discovered the body of a deceased male infant while performing routine maintenance.

Maryville Police responded immediately and identified a non-local person of interest in the case. Law enforcement is awaiting DNA analysis from the Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab.

Once the DNA and autopsy results are received, the case will be forwarded to the Nodaway County Prosecutor’s Office.

The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with additional information is urged to contact Maryville Police.

The City of Maryville will hold a graveside memorial service for the infant this Thursday at 1:00 p.m. at Oak Hill Cemetery.

By TOMMY REZACSt. Joseph PostThe city of Maryville will hold a graveside memorial service for an infant that was found at Mozingo Lake Recreation Park last month.On the morning of May 25th, a Park employee discovered the body of a deceased male infant while performing routine maintenance.Maryville Police responded immediately and identified a non-local person of interest in the case. Law enforcement is awaiting DNA analysis from the Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab.Once the DNA and autopsy results are received, the case will be forwarded to the Nodaway County Prosecutor’s Office.The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with additional information is urged to contact Maryville Police.The City of Maryville will hold a graveside memorial service for the infant this Thursday at 1:00 p.m. at Oak Hill Cemetery.

City of Maryville to hold memorial service for infant found at Mozingo Lake Park

Totally Cool, Inc. of Owings Mills, Maryland is recalling multiple brands of ice cream products, because they have the potential to be contaminated with&nbsp;Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, according to a media release from the FDA.

<a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/179567/download?attachment">Click here to view</a>&nbsp;the complete list of recalled products

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,&nbsp;Listeria&nbsp;infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Products were distributed nationwide, and available in retail locations and direct delivery.

Product can be identified by comparing the date and plant information on the product. Example photographs of the impacted product are provided below.

Totally Cool, Inc. has ceased the production and distribution of the affected products due to FDA sampling which discovered the presence of&nbsp;Listeria monocytogenes. The company continues its investigation and is taking preventive actions. No other products produced by Totally Cool, Inc. are impacted by this recall.

Consumers who have recalled product in their possession are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Totally Cool, Inc. at 410-363- 7801 and&nbsp;<a href="mailto:regulatory@totallycoolicecream.com">regulatory@totallycoolicecream.com</a>, between 8am and 4pm eastern, Monday to Friday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719415576254.png" alt="Image courtesy FDA" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy FDA</figcaption>
 </figure>Totally Cool, Inc. of Owings Mills, Maryland is recalling multiple brands of ice cream products, because they have the potential to be contaminated with&nbsp;Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, according to a media release from the FDA.<a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/179567/download?attachment">Click here to view</a>&nbsp;the complete list of recalled productsAlthough healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,&nbsp;Listeria&nbsp;infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.Products were distributed nationwide, and available in retail locations and direct delivery.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719415555369.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Product can be identified by comparing the date and plant information on the product. Example photographs of the impacted product are provided below.No illnesses have been reported to date.Totally Cool, Inc. has ceased the production and distribution of the affected products due to FDA sampling which discovered the presence of&nbsp;Listeria monocytogenes. The company continues its investigation and is taking preventive actions. No other products produced by Totally Cool, Inc. are impacted by this recall.Consumers who have recalled product in their possession are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Totally Cool, Inc. at 410-363- 7801 and&nbsp;<a href="mailto:regulatory@totallycoolicecream.com">regulatory@totallycoolicecream.com</a>, between 8am and 4pm eastern, Monday to Friday.

Ice cream products from major brands recalled for listeria risk

Two men who were instrumental in bringing Kansas City Chiefs training camp to Missouri Western State University in St. Joseph are now members of the St. Joseph Area Sports Hall of Fame.

Dirck Clark, former president of the Missouri Western Board of Governors, and Charlie Shields, former State Senator of the 34th District, were among the inductees in this year’s St. Joseph Area Sports Hall of Fame Class.

Shields, a St. Joseph resident, says he was surprised by the honor, but humbled nonetheless.

"It's been awhile since we actually got training camp to St. Joseph," Shields told KFEQ Radio. "It's a great honor and I know Dirck (Clark) feels the same thing to be recognized for our efforts to help bring the camp to St. Joseph."

Training camp has been in St. Joseph since 2010. Leading up that, Shields says it was a years-long process of getting the agreement done.

The idea and vision of camp being held at Missouri Western really started several years before 2010, when the team held OTAs on campus.

"A few years before we located the camp, we had summer OTAs at Missouri Western," Shields recalled. "And the community just turned out. It was a beautiful summer morning, and I think the Chiefs were impressed with how the community turned out, what the facilities looked like and I think they started to see the possibility."

Talks continued between Shields, then President Pro Tem of the Missouri Senate, the Missouri Western Board of Governors and Chiefs ownership about moving training camp from River Falls, Wisconsin to St. Joseph.

 Shields says there was a meeting with then Chiefs General Manager Carl Peterson and team chairman Clark Hunt at halftime of a preseason game with the St. Louis Rams.

Part of the agreement was Shields securing $25 million in tax credits from the Missouri Development Finance Board to help with Arrowhead Stadium renovations.

"But, there's really one thing that was going to make this attractive - bringing the camp back to St. Joseph and Missouri," Shields said, "and they agreed that it was a great idea. That if we put a package together, they would do that. That's exactly how the whole thing got started."

As part of the plan, the Chiefs donated $10 million to Missouri Western to help with construction of the Griffon Indoor Sports Complex and other facilities to help lure the Chiefs to campus.

The original deal was for five seasons. Now, 14 years later, Shields says all of Chiefs Kingdom can see how beneficial and impactful having the camp at Missouri Western has been.

"The indoor training facility with the weight rooms, conditioning rooms, therapy rooms, all top notch. All of that adds together as to why that thing has been there 14 years. It's good for the Chiefs, the community and Missouri Western."

"And the fans, all you have to do is watch on one of those practice mornings, the trail of cars coming up from Kansas City to see training camp. It shows that it makes a huge impact."

You can follow Tommy on Twitter @TommyKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719427664252.jpeg" alt="Stock photo by&nbsp; Tommy Rezac." />
 <figcaption>Stock photo by&nbsp; Tommy Rezac.</figcaption>
 </figure>By TOMMY REZACSt. Joseph PostTwo men who were instrumental in bringing Kansas City Chiefs training camp to Missouri Western State University in St. Joseph are now members of the St. Joseph Area Sports Hall of Fame.Dirck Clark, former president of the Missouri Western Board of Governors, and Charlie Shields, former State Senator of the 34th District, were among the inductees in this year’s St. Joseph Area Sports Hall of Fame Class.Shields, a St. Joseph resident, says he was surprised by the honor, but humbled nonetheless."It's been awhile since we actually got training camp to St. Joseph," Shields told KFEQ Radio. "It's a great honor and I know Dirck (Clark) feels the same thing to be recognized for our efforts to help bring the camp to St. Joseph."Training camp has been in St. Joseph since 2010. Leading up that, Shields says it was a years-long process of getting the agreement done.The idea and vision of camp being held at Missouri Western really started several years before 2010, when the team held OTAs on campus."A few years before we located the camp, we had summer OTAs at Missouri Western," Shields recalled. "And the community just turned out. It was a beautiful summer morning, and I think the Chiefs were impressed with how the community turned out, what the facilities looked like and I think they started to see the possibility."Talks continued between Shields, then President Pro Tem of the Missouri Senate, the Missouri Western Board of Governors and Chiefs ownership about moving training camp from River Falls, Wisconsin to St. Joseph. Shields says there was a meeting with then Chiefs General Manager Carl Peterson and team chairman Clark Hunt at halftime of a preseason game with the St. Louis Rams.Part of the agreement was Shields securing $25 million in tax credits from the Missouri Development Finance Board to help with Arrowhead Stadium renovations."But, there's really one thing that was going to make this attractive - bringing the camp back to St. Joseph and Missouri," Shields said, "and they agreed that it was a great idea. That if we put a package together, they would do that. That's exactly how the whole thing got started."As part of the plan, the Chiefs donated $10 million to Missouri Western to help with construction of the Griffon Indoor Sports Complex and other facilities to help lure the Chiefs to campus.The original deal was for five seasons. Now, 14 years later, Shields says all of Chiefs Kingdom can see how beneficial and impactful having the camp at Missouri Western has been."The indoor training facility with the weight rooms, conditioning rooms, therapy rooms, all top notch. All of that adds together as to why that thing has been there 14 years. It's good for the Chiefs, the community and Missouri Western.""And the fans, all you have to do is watch on one of those practice mornings, the trail of cars coming up from Kansas City to see training camp. It shows that it makes a huge impact."Charlie Shields interview<div><iframe src="https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kfeq-sports/embed/episodes/Charlie-Shields---history-of-Chiefs-camp-e2lbfbj" height="102px" width="400px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719427899002.jpeg" alt="Stock photo." />
 <figcaption>Stock photo.</figcaption>
 </figure>You can follow Tommy on Twitter @TommyKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Charlie Shields recalls the agreement that first brought Chiefs camp to St. Joseph

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Missouri and Louisiana, along with seven people who were either banned or throttled by social media companies

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected arguments by Missouri and Louisiana that the federal government violated the First Amendment in its efforts to combat false, misleading and dangerous information online.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court held that neither the states nor seven individuals who were co-plaintiffs in the case were able to demonstrate any harm or substantial risk that they will suffer an injury in the future.

Therefore, they do not have legal standing to bring a case against the federal government.

Plaintiffs failed to prove that social media platforms acted due to government coercion, Barrett wrote, rather than their own judgment and policies.&nbsp;In fact, she wrote, social media platforms “began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.”

Plaintiffs cannot “manufacture standing,” Barrett wrote, “merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.”

The ruling overturns a lower court decision that concluded officials under Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump unlawfully coerced social media companies to remove deceptive or inaccurate content out of fears it would fuel vaccine hesitancy or upend elections.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who inherited the lawsuit from his predecessor, has called the federal government’s actions “the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history.”

But those arguments were&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/18/suit-alleging-suppression-of-free-speech-met-with-skepticism-at-u-s-supreme-court/">greeted with skepticism by the court in March</a>, with justices from across the ideological spectrum punching holes in the lawsuit and raising concerns about the consequences for public safety and national security.

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s actions in this case were not ” ham-handed censorship” that the court has routinely rejected, but they were coercive and illegal all the same.

“It was blatantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “and the country may come to regret the court’s failure to say so… If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this court should send.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill released a statement on social media calling Wednesday’s ruling “<a href="https://x.com/AGLizMurrill/status/1805986131021836757" target="_blank">unfortunate and disappointing</a>.”

“A majority of the Supreme Court gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment,” Murril said. “The majority waves off the worst government coercion scheme in history.”

In an emailed statement, Bailey made no mention of the court’s decision to dismiss the case, instead declaring that his office will continue to pursue evidence of social media censorship by the federal government.

“Missouri is not done,” Bailey said. “We are going back to the district court to obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise once and for all.”

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Missouri and Louisiana, along with seven people who either were banned from a platform or whose posts were not prominently featured on social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and X, then known as Twitter.

Among the co-plaintiffs is Jim Hoft, founder of the St. Louis-based right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit. Hoft has built a career on promulgating false conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

His company&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/conservative-news-site-gateway-pundit-files-bankruptcy-2024-04-25/" target="_blank">recently filed for bankruptcy</a>&nbsp;as it faces defamation lawsuits in Missouri and Colorado filed by people who say they faced threats after being vilified by Gateway Pundit in false stories.

During appeals court arguments last year, the attorneys general specifically cited Hoft, claiming that he is “currently subjected to an ongoing campaign by federal officials to target the content on his website.”

Hoft claims claims that Twitter, in December 2020, censored content about the Hunter Biden laptop story at the urging of the federal government. But Barrett wrote that Twitter acted according to its own rules against posting or sharing “privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent.”

There is no evidence, Barrett wrote, that Twitter adopted its policy in response to pressure from the federal government.

Benjamin Aguiñaga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general, argued before the court in March that the government has no right to try to persuade social media platforms to violate Americans’ constitutional rights, “and pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That is just being a bully.”

<h2>The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Missouri and Louisiana, along with seven people who were either banned or throttled by social media companies</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected arguments by Missouri and Louisiana that the federal government violated the First Amendment in its efforts to combat false, misleading and dangerous information online.In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court held that neither the states nor seven individuals who were co-plaintiffs in the case were able to demonstrate any harm or substantial risk that they will suffer an injury in the future.Therefore, they do not have legal standing to bring a case against the federal government.Plaintiffs failed to prove that social media platforms acted due to government coercion, Barrett wrote, rather than their own judgment and policies.&nbsp;In fact, she wrote, social media platforms “began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.”Plaintiffs cannot “manufacture standing,” Barrett wrote, “merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.”The ruling overturns a lower court decision that concluded officials under Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump unlawfully coerced social media companies to remove deceptive or inaccurate content out of fears it would fuel vaccine hesitancy or upend elections.Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who inherited the lawsuit from his predecessor, has called the federal government’s actions “the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history.”But those arguments were&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/18/suit-alleging-suppression-of-free-speech-met-with-skepticism-at-u-s-supreme-court/">greeted with skepticism by the court in March</a>, with justices from across the ideological spectrum punching holes in the lawsuit and raising concerns about the consequences for public safety and national security.In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s actions in this case were not ” ham-handed censorship” that the court has routinely rejected, but they were coercive and illegal all the same.“It was blatantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “and the country may come to regret the court’s failure to say so… If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this court should send.”Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill released a statement on social media calling Wednesday’s ruling “<a href="https://x.com/AGLizMurrill/status/1805986131021836757" target="_blank">unfortunate and disappointing</a>.”“A majority of the Supreme Court gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment,” Murril said. “The majority waves off the worst government coercion scheme in history.”In an emailed statement, Bailey made no mention of the court’s decision to dismiss the case, instead declaring that his office will continue to pursue evidence of social media censorship by the federal government.“Missouri is not done,” Bailey said. “We are going back to the district court to obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise once and for all.”The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Missouri and Louisiana, along with seven people who either were banned from a platform or whose posts were not prominently featured on social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and X, then known as Twitter.Among the co-plaintiffs is Jim Hoft, founder of the St. Louis-based right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit. Hoft has built a career on promulgating false conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.His company&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/conservative-news-site-gateway-pundit-files-bankruptcy-2024-04-25/" target="_blank">recently filed for bankruptcy</a>&nbsp;as it faces defamation lawsuits in Missouri and Colorado filed by people who say they faced threats after being vilified by Gateway Pundit in false stories.During appeals court arguments last year, the attorneys general specifically cited Hoft, claiming that he is “currently subjected to an ongoing campaign by federal officials to target the content on his website.”Hoft claims claims that Twitter, in December 2020, censored content about the Hunter Biden laptop story at the urging of the federal government. But Barrett wrote that Twitter acted according to its own rules against posting or sharing “privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent.”There is no evidence, Barrett wrote, that Twitter adopted its policy in response to pressure from the federal government.Benjamin Aguiñaga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general, argued before the court in March that the government has no right to try to persuade social media platforms to violate Americans’ constitutional rights, “and pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That is just being a bully.”Emails obtained as part of the lawsuit, Aguiñaga argued, show the government badgered platforms behind closed doors, abused them with profanity and “ominously says that the White House is considering its options… all to get the platforms to censor more speech.”“Under this onslaught,” he said, “the platforms routinely cave.”The federal government, represented by Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general, argued Aguiñaga’s accusations simply don’t hold water.&nbsp;There is no evidence that decisions by social media companies to remove or deprioritize content can be attributed to the government. Instead, Fletcher argued, the companies made their own decisions relying on their own content moderation policies.There was no coercion or attempted intimidation, Fletcher said, and the best proof is that social media companies “routinely said ‘no’ to the government.”

Kbct