LITTLE ROCK, Ark—The search for escaped inmate Grant Hardin is ongoing as teams continue to focus their efforts in the north central Arkansas region while investigating tips as they are received. With over a week passing since Hardin escaped the North Central Unit, we are releasing a possible updated headshot which could reflect how he might look today.

The combined reward for information that leads to the capture of Grant Hardin is $25,000 – up to a $20,000 reward from the FBI with an additional $5,000 from the U.S. Marshals.Anyone with information is asked to call 1-800-CALL-FBI or submit a tip online at&nbsp;<a href="https://tips.fbi.gov/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExY0xOTnduaDR2YzNZeXdVNAEeEWhEXy9dKQbz72ACWbAUQ_ZfHoJ5tKtoxbLvFFLgQsQCNUrb4Mju7JdEXok_aem_Ju9bgFweKR2HTKuq_A6tPA" target="_blank">tips.fbi.gov.</a>

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748998437729.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>Arkansas Dept. of CorrectionsLITTLE ROCK, Ark—The search for escaped inmate Grant Hardin is ongoing as teams continue to focus their efforts in the north central Arkansas region while investigating tips as they are received. With over a week passing since Hardin escaped the North Central Unit, we are releasing a possible updated headshot which could reflect how he might look today.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748998090150.png" alt="Hardin photo ADC" />
 <figcaption>Hardin photo ADC</figcaption>
 </figure>The combined reward for information that leads to the capture of Grant Hardin is $25,000 – up to a $20,000 reward from the FBI with an additional $5,000 from the U.S. Marshals.Anyone with information is asked to call 1-800-CALL-FBI or submit a tip online at&nbsp;<a href="https://tips.fbi.gov/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExY0xOTnduaDR2YzNZeXdVNAEeEWhEXy9dKQbz72ACWbAUQ_ZfHoJ5tKtoxbLvFFLgQsQCNUrb4Mju7JdEXok_aem_Ju9bgFweKR2HTKuq_A6tPA" target="_blank">tips.fbi.gov.</a>

Manhunt continues: Reward increased for 'Devil in the Ozarks' prison escapee

DETROIT&nbsp;– Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, citizens of the People’s Republic of China, were charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud, announced United States Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr.

Gorgon was joined in the announcement by Special Agent in Charge Cheyvoryea Gibson, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Detroit Division and Marty C. Raybon, Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The FBI arrested Jian in connection with allegations related to Jian’s and Liu’s smuggling into America a fungus called Fusarium graminearum, which scientific literature classifies as a potential agroterrorism weapon. This noxious fungus causes “head blight,” a disease of wheat, barley, maize, and rice, and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year. Fusarium graminearum’s toxins cause vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive defects in humans and livestock.

According to the complaint, Jian received Chinese government funding for her work on this pathogen in China. The complaint also alleges that Jian’s electronics contain information describing her membership in and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. It is further alleged that Jian’s boyfriend, Liu, works at a Chinese university where he conducts research on the same pathogen and that he first lied but then admitted to smuggling Fusarium graminearum into America—through the Detroit Metropolitan Airport—so that he could conduct research on it at the laboratory at the University of Michigan where his girlfriend, Jian, worked.

United States Attorney Gorgon stated: “The alleged actions of these Chinese nationals—including a loyal member of the Chinese Communist Party—are of the gravest national security concerns. These two aliens have been charged with smuggling a fungus that has been described as a ‘potential agroterrorism weapon’ into the heartland of America, where they apparently intended to use a University of Michigan laboratory to further their scheme.”

“The federal charges announced today against Yunqing Jian and Zunyong Liu, both residents of the People’s Republic of China, signify a crucial advancement in our efforts to safeguard our communities and uphold national security,” said Cheyvoryea Gibson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. “These individuals exploited their access to laboratory facilities at a local university to engage in the smuggling of biological pathogens, an act that posed an imminent threat to public safety. Thanks to the exceptional investigative efforts of the FBI Detroit Counterintelligence Task Force, in close cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations these dangerous activities have been effectively halted. The FBI remains resolutely committed to collaborating with our law enforcement partners to protect the residents of Michigan and defend the United States against such grave threats.”

U.S. Custom and Border Protection, Director of Field Operations Marty C. Raybon stated, “Today’s criminal charges levied upon Yunqing Jian and Zunyong Liu are indicative of CBP’s critical role in protecting the American people from biological threats that could devastate our agricultural economy and cause harm to humans; especially when it involves a researcher from a major university attempting to clandestinely bring potentially harmful biological materials into the United States. This was a complex investigation involving CBP offices from across the country, alongside our federal partners. I’m grateful for their tireless efforts, ensuring our borders remain secure from all types of threats while safeguarding America’s national security interests.”

Jian will be appearing this afternoon in federal court in Detroit for her initial appearance on the complaint.

A complaint is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Trial cannot be held on felony charges in a complaint. When the investigation is completed, a determination will be made whether to seek a felony indictment.

The FBI and CBP are investigating this case.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1749002066377.png" alt="Photo United State's District Court" />
 <figcaption>Photo United State's District Court</figcaption>
 </figure>DETROIT&nbsp;– Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, citizens of the People’s Republic of China, were charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud, announced United States Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">New... I can confirm that the FBI arrested a Chinese national within the United States who allegedly smuggled a dangerous biological pathogen into the country. The individual, Yunqing Jian, is alleged to have smuggled a dangerous fungus called &quot;Fusarium graminearum,&quot; which is an…&mdash; FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1930044884284523001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Gorgon was joined in the announcement by Special Agent in Charge Cheyvoryea Gibson, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Detroit Division and Marty C. Raybon, Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.The FBI arrested Jian in connection with allegations related to Jian’s and Liu’s smuggling into America a fungus called Fusarium graminearum, which scientific literature classifies as a potential agroterrorism weapon. This noxious fungus causes “head blight,” a disease of wheat, barley, maize, and rice, and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year. Fusarium graminearum’s toxins cause vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive defects in humans and livestock.According to the complaint, Jian received Chinese government funding for her work on this pathogen in China. The complaint also alleges that Jian’s electronics contain information describing her membership in and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. It is further alleged that Jian’s boyfriend, Liu, works at a Chinese university where he conducts research on the same pathogen and that he first lied but then admitted to smuggling Fusarium graminearum into America—through the Detroit Metropolitan Airport—so that he could conduct research on it at the laboratory at the University of Michigan where his girlfriend, Jian, worked.United States Attorney Gorgon stated: “The alleged actions of these Chinese nationals—including a loyal member of the Chinese Communist Party—are of the gravest national security concerns. These two aliens have been charged with smuggling a fungus that has been described as a ‘potential agroterrorism weapon’ into the heartland of America, where they apparently intended to use a University of Michigan laboratory to further their scheme.”“The federal charges announced today against Yunqing Jian and Zunyong Liu, both residents of the People’s Republic of China, signify a crucial advancement in our efforts to safeguard our communities and uphold national security,” said Cheyvoryea Gibson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. “These individuals exploited their access to laboratory facilities at a local university to engage in the smuggling of biological pathogens, an act that posed an imminent threat to public safety. Thanks to the exceptional investigative efforts of the FBI Detroit Counterintelligence Task Force, in close cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations these dangerous activities have been effectively halted. The FBI remains resolutely committed to collaborating with our law enforcement partners to protect the residents of Michigan and defend the United States against such grave threats.”U.S. Custom and Border Protection, Director of Field Operations Marty C. Raybon stated, “Today’s criminal charges levied upon Yunqing Jian and Zunyong Liu are indicative of CBP’s critical role in protecting the American people from biological threats that could devastate our agricultural economy and cause harm to humans; especially when it involves a researcher from a major university attempting to clandestinely bring potentially harmful biological materials into the United States. This was a complex investigation involving CBP offices from across the country, alongside our federal partners. I’m grateful for their tireless efforts, ensuring our borders remain secure from all types of threats while safeguarding America’s national security interests.”Jian will be appearing this afternoon in federal court in Detroit for her initial appearance on the complaint.A complaint is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Trial cannot be held on felony charges in a complaint. When the investigation is completed, a determination will be made whether to seek a felony indictment.The FBI and CBP are investigating this case.

Chinese couple charged with smuggling biological pathogen into the U.S.

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/mchilson/">MORGAN CHILSON</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/02/24/gov-laura-kelly-skeptical-kansas-houses-anti-tenure-legislation-will-reach-her-desk/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — The Trump administration has paused its demand for the personal data of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients after a lawsuit was filed May 22 by national advocacy organizations.

Kansas Department for Children and Families officials received a letter from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early May demanding personal information about SNAP recipients in the state.&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/05/22/kansas-denies-usda-request-for-personal-data-of-residents-receiving-food-assistance/">DCF refused to send the data</a>, stating, “At this time, we are unsure as to the reason for the USDA’s request.”

A motion for a temporary restraining order was filed May 27 by counsel for the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, the National Student Legal Defense Network, Protect Democracy Project, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger. The same group also filed the lawsuit challenging USDA’s access to the protected information, a news release said.

In a sworn declaration, USDA official Shiela Corley said the agency has not collected SNAP recipient data after telling the third-party vendors that maintain the data to hold off on submitting it, the news release said.

“USDA has instructed EBT Processors to refrain from sending any data until USDA completed procedural steps to ensure that data received would be appropriately safeguarded and to satisfy all necessary legal requirements,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.defendstudents.org/news/body/2025.05.30-Dkt-11-1-Corley-Decl..pdf" target="_blank">her testimony said</a>. “In accordance with USDA’s instruction, EBT Processors have not sent any data to USDA in response to the May 6 letter. Before any of the data described in the May 6 Letter is provided to USDA, USDA intends to publish a new SORN (System of Records Notice) in compliance with the Privacy Act.”

Although Corley’s declaration caused the advocacy organizations to drop the motion for the restraining order, the lawsuit will continue, the press release said.

“This is a victory for tens of millions of SNAP recipients and anyone who cares about protecting our personal data against government abuse,” John Davisson, an EPIC official, said in the release. “Although this fight is just beginning, we’re grateful that the USDA acknowledged its legal obligation to safeguard privacy and remain accountable to the public.”

Abby J. Leibman, president and CEO of MAZON, said in the news release that the USDA must consider how its actions affect those facing hunger in the United States.

“The laws and processes protecting privacy exist for vital reasons. Americans are clear that everyone has a high expectation of privacy regarding their personal information — and SNAP applicants do not cede that expectation in exchange for receiving vital support to meet their basic needs,” she said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748973288419.png" alt="National advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit to stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture from accessing private data of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients." />
 <figcaption>National advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit to stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture from accessing private data of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients.</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/mchilson/">MORGAN CHILSON</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/02/24/gov-laura-kelly-skeptical-kansas-houses-anti-tenure-legislation-will-reach-her-desk/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — The Trump administration has paused its demand for the personal data of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients after a lawsuit was filed May 22 by national advocacy organizations.Kansas Department for Children and Families officials received a letter from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early May demanding personal information about SNAP recipients in the state.&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/05/22/kansas-denies-usda-request-for-personal-data-of-residents-receiving-food-assistance/">DCF refused to send the data</a>, stating, “At this time, we are unsure as to the reason for the USDA’s request.”A motion for a temporary restraining order was filed May 27 by counsel for the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, the National Student Legal Defense Network, Protect Democracy Project, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger. The same group also filed the lawsuit challenging USDA’s access to the protected information, a news release said.In a sworn declaration, USDA official Shiela Corley said the agency has not collected SNAP recipient data after telling the third-party vendors that maintain the data to hold off on submitting it, the news release said.“USDA has instructed EBT Processors to refrain from sending any data until USDA completed procedural steps to ensure that data received would be appropriately safeguarded and to satisfy all necessary legal requirements,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.defendstudents.org/news/body/2025.05.30-Dkt-11-1-Corley-Decl..pdf" target="_blank">her testimony said</a>. “In accordance with USDA’s instruction, EBT Processors have not sent any data to USDA in response to the May 6 letter. Before any of the data described in the May 6 Letter is provided to USDA, USDA intends to publish a new SORN (System of Records Notice) in compliance with the Privacy Act.”Although Corley’s declaration caused the advocacy organizations to drop the motion for the restraining order, the lawsuit will continue, the press release said.“This is a victory for tens of millions of SNAP recipients and anyone who cares about protecting our personal data against government abuse,” John Davisson, an EPIC official, said in the release. “Although this fight is just beginning, we’re grateful that the USDA acknowledged its legal obligation to safeguard privacy and remain accountable to the public.”Abby J. Leibman, president and CEO of MAZON, said in the news release that the USDA must consider how its actions affect those facing hunger in the United States.“The laws and processes protecting privacy exist for vital reasons. Americans are clear that everyone has a high expectation of privacy regarding their personal information — and SNAP applicants do not cede that expectation in exchange for receiving vital support to meet their basic needs,” she said.

USDA pauses request for personal data of SNAP recipients while lawsuit proceeds

ELLLIS COUNTY&nbsp;–&nbsp; The Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) has now canceled the Kansas Blue Alert that was issued after law enforcement were searching for a suspect believed to have shot a Lee’s Summit police officer Sunday night, according to a media release from the KBI.

The alert was canceled Tuesday morning, June 3, after Thomas Eugene Tolbert, 27, was located and apprehended in Ellis, Kansas.

In the early morning hours, law enforcement received information indicating that Tolbert might be inside a hotel at 204 N. Washington St. in Ellis. Officers from the Hays Police Department, deputies from the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office and KBI agents arrived at the hotel and safely took Tolbert into custody at around 4:50 a.m.

Tolbert was arrested on a Missouri warrant for assault first-degree or attempted serious physical injury, armed criminal action, unlawful possession of a firearm, resisting arrest or detention by fleeing, and second-degree domestic assault.

He was booked into the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office Jail.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748958751939.jpeg" alt="Tolbert photo Ellis Co. Jail" />
 <figcaption>Tolbert photo Ellis Co. Jail</figcaption>
 </figure>ELLLIS COUNTY&nbsp;–&nbsp; The Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) has now canceled the Kansas Blue Alert that was issued after law enforcement were searching for a suspect believed to have shot a Lee’s Summit police officer Sunday night, according to a media release from the KBI.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">BLUE ALERT 2025-5 CANCELLED: SUSPECT IS IN CUSTODY <a href="https://t.co/7vH4kYh6hK">pic.twitter.com/7vH4kYh6hK</a>&mdash; Missouri State Highway Patrol Alerts (@MSHPAlerts) <a href="https://twitter.com/MSHPAlerts/status/1929886080242766315?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The alert was canceled Tuesday morning, June 3, after Thomas Eugene Tolbert, 27, was located and apprehended in Ellis, Kansas.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748872142987.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>In the early morning hours, law enforcement received information indicating that Tolbert might be inside a hotel at 204 N. Washington St. in Ellis. Officers from the Hays Police Department, deputies from the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office and KBI agents arrived at the hotel and safely took Tolbert into custody at around 4:50 a.m.Tolbert was arrested on a Missouri warrant for assault first-degree or attempted serious physical injury, armed criminal action, unlawful possession of a firearm, resisting arrest or detention by fleeing, and second-degree domestic assault.He was booked into the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office Jail.

Suspect who shot KC area officer multiple times captured in NW Kan.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — Starting July 1, Iowa drivers will no longer be allowed to hold a cellphone while operating a motor vehicle, as the state’s new hands-free driving law goes into effect.

Passed by the Iowa Legislature and signed into law by Governor Kim Reynolds, the measure brings Iowa in line with 30 other states that have enacted similar laws aimed at reducing distracted driving.

Iowa State Patrol Trooper Ryan Devault, Public Resource Officer for District 3, says the new law requires that all electronic device use while driving must be hands-free. This includes using Bluetooth, voice commands like Siri or Google Assistant, or one-touch activation for phone calls.

The law prohibits watching videos, movies, or making video calls such as FaceTime while driving. Violators will face a $100 fine and the offense will be considered a moving violation—though warnings will be issued instead of citations until January 1, 2026.

Trooper Devault acknowledged that not all vehicles have Bluetooth, but emphasized there are affordable options for hands-free device holders and adapters to keep drivers in compliance.

He pointed to neighboring states like Illinois and Minnesota, where similar laws led to a 20% to 30% drop in traffic fatalities, and stressed that public participation is key.

Drivers causing serious injury while violating the law may face an additional $500 fine and license suspension. If the violation results in death, the fine increases to $1,000, with license suspension also possible.

The Iowa State Patrol urges all motorists to begin adjusting now to hands-free driving to promote safer roads across the state.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — Starting July 1, Iowa drivers will no longer be allowed to hold a cellphone while operating a motor vehicle, as the state’s new hands-free driving law goes into effect.Passed by the Iowa Legislature and signed into law by Governor Kim Reynolds, the measure brings Iowa in line with 30 other states that have enacted similar laws aimed at reducing distracted driving.Iowa State Patrol Trooper Ryan Devault, Public Resource Officer for District 3, says the new law requires that all electronic device use while driving must be hands-free. This includes using Bluetooth, voice commands like Siri or Google Assistant, or one-touch activation for phone calls.The law prohibits watching videos, movies, or making video calls such as FaceTime while driving. Violators will face a $100 fine and the offense will be considered a moving violation—though warnings will be issued instead of citations until January 1, 2026.Trooper Devault acknowledged that not all vehicles have Bluetooth, but emphasized there are affordable options for hands-free device holders and adapters to keep drivers in compliance.He pointed to neighboring states like Illinois and Minnesota, where similar laws led to a 20% to 30% drop in traffic fatalities, and stressed that public participation is key.<h2>Key Exceptions:</h2><ul>
 <li>Emergency personnel and healthcare professionals in the line of duty
</li><li>Reporting emergencies
</li><li>Farm equipment operators
</li><li>Navigation use, provided directions are entered before driving begins
</li>
 </ul>Drivers causing serious injury while violating the law may face an additional $500 fine and license suspension. If the violation results in death, the fine increases to $1,000, with license suspension also possible.The Iowa State Patrol urges all motorists to begin adjusting now to hands-free driving to promote safer roads across the state.

Iowa’s Hands-Free Driving Law Takes Effect July 1

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/blaisemesa/">Blaise Mesa</a>&nbsp;

As Missouri lawmakers prepare to debate a counter offer to keep the teams, economists say Kansas’ proposal may not be financially feasible

Kansas is the only state or local government to pass a plan to fund a Kansas City Chiefs or Royals stadium project.

Dysfunction in the Missouri General Assembly might also mean the Show Me State has nothing to offer. A last-minute plan by Gov. Mike Kehoe to&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/01/missouri-legislature-stalls-bill-state-stadium-funding/" target="_blank">help finance stadium projects for the Royals and Chiefs</a>&nbsp;derailed in the state Senate.

Missouri lawmakers return Monday for a special session to, among other things, pass a stadium proposal. But as it stands now, Kansas is in the driver’s seat to get, in theory, both the Royals and Chiefs. Notably, an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kcur.org/sports/2025-05-29/kansas-city-royals-stadium-aspiria-overland-park" target="_blank">affiliate of the Royals recently purchased a mortgage</a>&nbsp;in Overland Park secured by the Aspiria campus, which is at 119th Street and Nall Avenue.

But economists say Kansas can’t afford both teams.

“You are not going to generate enough net revenue to cover one of the facilities, let alone two,” said Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor of public finance at the University of Colorado Denver.

Propheter did say there’s a way Kansas could afford both stadiums, but that requires “cannibalizing activity from other businesses.”

A majority of Kansas lawmakers disagree, and say getting the Chiefs or Royals is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But whether STAR bonds can support one or two teams depends on who you ask.

<a href="https://www.kansascommerce.gov/program/community-programs/star-bonds/" target="_blank">STAR bonds</a>, or sales and tax revenue bonds, are bonds that are paid by taxes generated in a bond district — hence the name. In a stadium proposal, taxes collected from bars, restaurants or any other businesses in the bond district would pay back the debt. Typically, STAR bonds are paid off in 20 years.

“(Kansans are) not going to pay a dime unless they visit the district,” Rep. Sean Tarwater, a Stilwell Republican,&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/06/18/kansas-star-bonds-chiefs-royals/" target="_blank">said last year</a>.

That’s the logic behind the state’s proposal. Lawmakers last year approved a plan that would authorize Kansas to finance up to 70% of stadium costs with the bonds.

Supporters say the Chiefs and Royals would spark an economic boom that will bring new dollars into Kansas. All that economic activity would literally and figuratively pay off in the long run.

Almost 80% of STAR bonds projects are on track to be paid off early, the Kansas Department of Commerce said in 2024. STAR bonds have been used to finance other sports stadiums like the Kansas Speedway and Sporting Kansas City’s Children’s Mercy Park.

But STAR bonds have never been used for projects of this magnitude. A Chiefs or Royals stadium would be by far the largest project in the program’s history. And previous STAR bonds have only funded at most 50% of construction costs, not 70%.

The Kansas Speedway’s original bond was $24.3 million for a stadium that opened in 2001. That’s equivalent to about a $47 million bond when adjusted for inflation. Children’s Mercy Park received a $150 million bond before its 2011 opening.

Those figures would only cover a small fraction of the construction for a new Chiefs or Royals stadium. New stadiums for the Texas Rangers, Las Vegas Raiders and the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers opened in 2020. They had $1.2 billion, $1.9 billion and $5.5 billion price tags, respectively.

A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kslegislature.gov/li_2022/b2021_22/committees/ctte_h_cmrce_lbr_1/documents/testimony/20220118_01.pdf" target="_blank">2021 audit</a>&nbsp;from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit found questionable returns from some STAR bonds. Notably, the Prairiefire project in Overland Park defaulted on its STAR bonds last year. Topeka Heartland Park and the Schlitterbahn Waterpark in Kansas City, Kansas, also failed to pay back their bonds. And Strataca, the Hutchinson salt museum, is only projected to break even in 43 to 118 years.

Propheter, the University of Colorado Denver associate professor, knows a lot about stadium funding plans. He said they don’t always work as advertised.

He said risk is unavoidable with these types of projects and they never start off profitably. It takes years to build the stadium and the surrounding district. That’s years of debt not being paid back.

Propheter said most of the money generated from the stadiums won’t be new to the metropolitan area. The Royals aren’t going to bring in tens of thousands of out-of-town fans for a Tuesday night game. But they will bring out tens of thousands of people who would already be spending money locally. These fans are spending money at the stadium instead of at a movie theater, bowling alley, restaurant or other local business.

Kansas wants projects financed by STAR bonds to attract 30% of their visitors from 100 miles away and 20% from outside Kansas. The 2021 audit of STAR bonds found that only three of 16 projects — the Hutchinson salt museum, Topeka Heartland Park and Kansas Speedway — met both goals.

A Chiefs or Royals stadium would likely draw a fair share of out-of-state visitors because the teams have been based in Missouri for so long. But Propheter isn’t convinced the economic activity will be worth it.

“A lot more people would travel to Kansas,” he said. “Would it be enough to generate the money needed to pay the debt? No.”

Nathaniel Birkhead, associate professor of political science at Kansas State University, also is wary of sales and other tax dollars being used to pay off bonds.

He said STAR bonds have struggled to pay off up to 50% of project costs before. Now, these bonds could pay up to 70% of one or more billion-dollar projects. That’s concerning to Birkhead.

“There’s some logic behind the STAR bonds,” he said. “However, I still fundamentally think it’s dishonest to say that something will pay for itself.”

Birkhead said the Chiefs, for example, are guaranteed no more than nine regular season games. The teams also could host concerts or other events to keep their stadiums busy, but there is no guarantee that happens.

He wonders how busy the STAR bond district will look when a game is not being played that day.

Then there’s uncertain economic projections. Ongoing concern about inflation and uncertainty around federal tariffs could make construction more expensive. A possible recession also would prevent people from spending money on sports events.

Brian Mayes, a lead political strategist who also worked on the Vote Yes! Keep the Rangers campaign in Texas, said there was a point in his life where he might have agreed that stadium debt is hard to pay off. But Mayes, who has worked on the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers stadium funding, said new stadium development is just different. There’s just so much economic development around these stadiums, he said.

Mayes said Rangers and Cowboys games always keep the businesses around the stadiums busy. But so too do the concerts, conventions and other stadium offerings. The Cowboys offer tours of the locker rooms, and people show up.

That’s not to mention mega events like hosting a Super Bowl.

Mayes remembers when the Cowboys left Irving, Texas, for the new stadium in Arlington. The old site of the Cowboys stadium still sits undeveloped. Meanwhile, Arlington now has a booming tourism district that is helping pay off other government projects.

“(We said) put the Cowboys to work for Arlington,” he said. “It was the economic generator, and the additional tax revenue that was made by the Cowboys helped the city pay for roads and parks and police.”

Scott Sayers is a senior technical architect with Gensler Kansas City. Gensler has worked on dozens of sports projects, including the Rams Village in Los Angeles, Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., and M&amp;T Bank Stadium in Baltimore.

Sayers said more people want to spend time before or after the game hanging around. Maybe they are talking about what they just saw or wanting to enhance the pregame experience.

Sayers doesn’t have specific opinions on STAR bonds and whether Kansas can afford one or two teams. But he does know that the Chiefs or Royals can create a prosperous stadium district if they work toward it — whether that would be in downtown Kansas City or suburban Kansas.

The state already did that when it created The Legends next to the Kansas Speedway and Children’s Mercy Park. Sayers said that area used to be an empty field before becoming a bustling, dense shopping and entertainment district.

The teams can build thriving entertainment districts when they treat the stadium and its surrounding areas as one cohesive community, he said.

“People have expectations,” Sayers said. “No longer are the days where 7:05, the event starts. I get dropped off at 6:40 … I want to start those experiences at 5 o’clock, at 4:30.”

This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/30/economists-say-that-kansas-star-bond-stadium-plan-is-flawed/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Kansas</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a&nbsp;<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748716070795.png" alt=" GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, and Kauffman Stadium, home of the Kansas City Royals, are pictured on Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, and Kauffman Stadium, home of the Kansas City Royals, are pictured on Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/blaisemesa/">Blaise Mesa</a>&nbsp;<h2>As Missouri lawmakers prepare to debate a counter offer to keep the teams, economists say Kansas’ proposal may not be financially feasible</h2>Kansas is the only state or local government to pass a plan to fund a Kansas City Chiefs or Royals stadium project.Dysfunction in the Missouri General Assembly might also mean the Show Me State has nothing to offer. A last-minute plan by Gov. Mike Kehoe to&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/01/missouri-legislature-stalls-bill-state-stadium-funding/" target="_blank">help finance stadium projects for the Royals and Chiefs</a>&nbsp;derailed in the state Senate.Missouri lawmakers return Monday for a special session to, among other things, pass a stadium proposal. But as it stands now, Kansas is in the driver’s seat to get, in theory, both the Royals and Chiefs. Notably, an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kcur.org/sports/2025-05-29/kansas-city-royals-stadium-aspiria-overland-park" target="_blank">affiliate of the Royals recently purchased a mortgage</a>&nbsp;in Overland Park secured by the Aspiria campus, which is at 119th Street and Nall Avenue.But economists say Kansas can’t afford both teams.“You are not going to generate enough net revenue to cover one of the facilities, let alone two,” said Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor of public finance at the University of Colorado Denver.Propheter did say there’s a way Kansas could afford both stadiums, but that requires “cannibalizing activity from other businesses.”A majority of Kansas lawmakers disagree, and say getting the Chiefs or Royals is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But whether STAR bonds can support one or two teams depends on who you ask.<h2>The Kansas STAR bonds proposal</h2><a href="https://www.kansascommerce.gov/program/community-programs/star-bonds/" target="_blank">STAR bonds</a>, or sales and tax revenue bonds, are bonds that are paid by taxes generated in a bond district — hence the name. In a stadium proposal, taxes collected from bars, restaurants or any other businesses in the bond district would pay back the debt. Typically, STAR bonds are paid off in 20 years.“(Kansans are) not going to pay a dime unless they visit the district,” Rep. Sean Tarwater, a Stilwell Republican,&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2024/06/18/kansas-star-bonds-chiefs-royals/" target="_blank">said last year</a>.That’s the logic behind the state’s proposal. Lawmakers last year approved a plan that would authorize Kansas to finance up to 70% of stadium costs with the bonds.Supporters say the Chiefs and Royals would spark an economic boom that will bring new dollars into Kansas. All that economic activity would literally and figuratively pay off in the long run.Almost 80% of STAR bonds projects are on track to be paid off early, the Kansas Department of Commerce said in 2024. STAR bonds have been used to finance other sports stadiums like the Kansas Speedway and Sporting Kansas City’s Children’s Mercy Park.But STAR bonds have never been used for projects of this magnitude. A Chiefs or Royals stadium would be by far the largest project in the program’s history. And previous STAR bonds have only funded at most 50% of construction costs, not 70%.The Kansas Speedway’s original bond was $24.3 million for a stadium that opened in 2001. That’s equivalent to about a $47 million bond when adjusted for inflation. Children’s Mercy Park received a $150 million bond before its 2011 opening.Those figures would only cover a small fraction of the construction for a new Chiefs or Royals stadium. New stadiums for the Texas Rangers, Las Vegas Raiders and the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers opened in 2020. They had $1.2 billion, $1.9 billion and $5.5 billion price tags, respectively.A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kslegislature.gov/li_2022/b2021_22/committees/ctte_h_cmrce_lbr_1/documents/testimony/20220118_01.pdf" target="_blank">2021 audit</a>&nbsp;from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit found questionable returns from some STAR bonds. Notably, the Prairiefire project in Overland Park defaulted on its STAR bonds last year. Topeka Heartland Park and the Schlitterbahn Waterpark in Kansas City, Kansas, also failed to pay back their bonds. And Strataca, the Hutchinson salt museum, is only projected to break even in 43 to 118 years.<h2>Economists concerns</h2>Propheter, the University of Colorado Denver associate professor, knows a lot about stadium funding plans. He said they don’t always work as advertised.He said risk is unavoidable with these types of projects and they never start off profitably. It takes years to build the stadium and the surrounding district. That’s years of debt not being paid back.Propheter said most of the money generated from the stadiums won’t be new to the metropolitan area. The Royals aren’t going to bring in tens of thousands of out-of-town fans for a Tuesday night game. But they will bring out tens of thousands of people who would already be spending money locally. These fans are spending money at the stadium instead of at a movie theater, bowling alley, restaurant or other local business.Kansas wants projects financed by STAR bonds to attract 30% of their visitors from 100 miles away and 20% from outside Kansas. The 2021 audit of STAR bonds found that only three of 16 projects — the Hutchinson salt museum, Topeka Heartland Park and Kansas Speedway — met both goals.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748716358227.png" alt="A screenshot of the 2021 analysis of STAR bonds by the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit. Three projects met the tourism goals set out by the state. (Source: Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit)" />
 <figcaption>A screenshot of the 2021 analysis of STAR bonds by the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit. Three projects met the tourism goals set out by the state. (Source: Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit)</figcaption>
 </figure>A Chiefs or Royals stadium would likely draw a fair share of out-of-state visitors because the teams have been based in Missouri for so long. But Propheter isn’t convinced the economic activity will be worth it.“A lot more people would travel to Kansas,” he said. “Would it be enough to generate the money needed to pay the debt? No.”Nathaniel Birkhead, associate professor of political science at Kansas State University, also is wary of sales and other tax dollars being used to pay off bonds.He said STAR bonds have struggled to pay off up to 50% of project costs before. Now, these bonds could pay up to 70% of one or more billion-dollar projects. That’s concerning to Birkhead.“There’s some logic behind the STAR bonds,” he said. “However, I still fundamentally think it’s dishonest to say that something will pay for itself.”Birkhead said the Chiefs, for example, are guaranteed no more than nine regular season games. The teams also could host concerts or other events to keep their stadiums busy, but there is no guarantee that happens.He wonders how busy the STAR bond district will look when a game is not being played that day.Then there’s uncertain economic projections. Ongoing concern about inflation and uncertainty around federal tariffs could make construction more expensive. A possible recession also would prevent people from spending money on sports events.<h2>Building a stadium district</h2>Brian Mayes, a lead political strategist who also worked on the Vote Yes! Keep the Rangers campaign in Texas, said there was a point in his life where he might have agreed that stadium debt is hard to pay off. But Mayes, who has worked on the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers stadium funding, said new stadium development is just different. There’s just so much economic development around these stadiums, he said.Mayes said Rangers and Cowboys games always keep the businesses around the stadiums busy. But so too do the concerts, conventions and other stadium offerings. The Cowboys offer tours of the locker rooms, and people show up.That’s not to mention mega events like hosting a Super Bowl.Mayes remembers when the Cowboys left Irving, Texas, for the new stadium in Arlington. The old site of the Cowboys stadium still sits undeveloped. Meanwhile, Arlington now has a booming tourism district that is helping pay off other government projects.“(We said) put the Cowboys to work for Arlington,” he said. “It was the economic generator, and the additional tax revenue that was made by the Cowboys helped the city pay for roads and parks and police.”Scott Sayers is a senior technical architect with Gensler Kansas City. Gensler has worked on dozens of sports projects, including the Rams Village in Los Angeles, Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., and M&amp;T Bank Stadium in Baltimore.Sayers said more people want to spend time before or after the game hanging around. Maybe they are talking about what they just saw or wanting to enhance the pregame experience.Sayers doesn’t have specific opinions on STAR bonds and whether Kansas can afford one or two teams. But he does know that the Chiefs or Royals can create a prosperous stadium district if they work toward it — whether that would be in downtown Kansas City or suburban Kansas.The state already did that when it created The Legends next to the Kansas Speedway and Children’s Mercy Park. Sayers said that area used to be an empty field before becoming a bustling, dense shopping and entertainment district.The teams can build thriving entertainment districts when they treat the stadium and its surrounding areas as one cohesive community, he said.“People have expectations,” Sayers said. “No longer are the days where 7:05, the event starts. I get dropped off at 6:40 … I want to start those experiences at 5 o’clock, at 4:30.”This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/30/economists-say-that-kansas-star-bond-stadium-plan-is-flawed/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Kansas</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a&nbsp;<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.

Experts question whether Kansas can afford its plan to lure Royals, Chiefs from Missouri

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/author/ropshal/">Robin Opsahl</a> <a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>

PARKERSBURG — At a sometimes raucous town hall meeting Friday morning, U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst faced vocal opposition to her support for spending cuts to programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.

Like many other Republican lawmakers holding events with constituents throughout the country, Ernst faced a crowd at the Aplington-Parkersburg High School who were upset with decisions made by President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress — particularly as they relate to funding for health care and food assistance programs included in the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">narrowly passed the U.S. House</a>&nbsp;earlier in May.

Though Ernst said the Senate would make changes to the measure and advance their own version of the legislation, she defended reductions in spending for Medicaid at the town hall, saying the changes will not impact people in need but will remove from the program “illegals that are receiving Medicaid benefits” and able-bodied adults who are not working.

“People will die,” a woman shouted at the stage as Ernst answered one of several questions about the cuts.

“People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven’s sake,” Ernst said in a response that was met by further shouts and jeering from the crowd.

Ernst said she agrees with most of the provisions on Medicaid included in the House version of the budget reconciliation bill, saying that it was targeted at changes to the public health care program that “made it much easier to get onto Medicaid, but much tougher to take people off of Medicaid.” Ernst said many people on Medicaid currently are working full-time and have access to other benefits.

“What we have to do is make sure that those that are not eligible by the federal standard for Medicaid are not receiving Medicaid,” Ernst said. “What we do need to do is make sure that those that are part of a vulnerable population have access to Medicaid and receive those full benefits. So what we’re trying to do is strengthen Medicaid by directing the dollars to the people that actually meet the requirements of the program.”

In its House form, the bill includes a $625 billion reduction in federal spending for Medicaid over 10 years, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. It also includes 80-hour-per-month work requirements for people between ages 19 and 65 to continue receiving Medicaid health coverage, with several exceptions for people with disabilities and complex medical conditions, pregnant people, tribal community members and parents of dependent children.

Elizabeth Kehret, who works for Lutheran Services in Iowa, said she was troubled by the potential impact of Medicaid cuts for pregnant woman, saying that she was previously enrolled on Medicaid during her four pregnancies before the&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/03/postpartum-medicaid-extension-with-cut-in-eligibility-heads-to-governors-desk/">state revised eligibility for postpartum coverage</a>, changing it from families with incomes of 375% of the federal poverty line to those at 215% of the federal poverty line.

Kehret said she was concerned the federal Medicaid spending cuts would cause similar cuts for care in states across the country, meaning pregnant people, who may also have private health coverage, will struggle to pay for the medical care required both before and after their child is born.

“I heard you say earlier about people who work full time but still get Medicaid — yeah,” Kehret said. “I meet with dozens of women who have dual enrollment, where they have private insurance as well as Medicaid, and it helps cover the things that their private insurance doesn’t, or that high deductible. … Medicaid is extremely important to the smallest and most vulnerable population in Iowa.”

Ernst said there were provisions to allow continued Medicaid coverage for pregnant people in the House bill.

“Because you are part of that vulnerable population, we want to make sure that you have access to Medicaid,” Ernst said. “So you will hear examples of those like the able-bodied, 30-year-old man who is taking advantage of the program, not working. What we’re asking is that please engage in work activities, engage in volunteer activities, be enrolled in a training program, and then that makes you Medicaid eligible.”

Similar concerns were brought up about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, that provides food assistance to low-income individuals. Under the House budget plan, some costs of SNAP would be moved to the states, in addition to adding other work requirements. Ernst said the House bill is correcting “overpayments” from states on SNAP, in addition to removing “people that have not been eligible for these programs by law as it is currently written” from public assistance.

Several veterans also spoke at the event, criticizing Republicans and Elon Musk’s DOGE Service for cuts to veterans’ assistance programs and cuts to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. In response, Ernst said, “We’re not cutting veterans benefits.”

Several veterans have been outspoken about&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/we-call-it-betrayal-veterans-join-dems-dc-protest-trumps-sweeping-va-job-cuts" target="_blank">changes made by DOGE</a>&nbsp;to the VA, including the cut of roughly 2,400 VA jobs in early March.

Ernst has been a major supporter of DOGE and efforts to make government more “efficient,” saying Republicans and Musk are focused on removing areas of unnecessary spending and “streamlining” existing programs and services. Ernst highlighted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an entity that can be made more efficient through DOGE efforts in response to a question on federal support following natural disasters.

“Department of Government Efficiency … the E is not about elimination, it is about efficiency,” Ernst said. “So how can we do better as a federal government to respond to the people on the ground?”

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/author/ropshal/">Robin Opsahl</a> <a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>PARKERSBURG — At a sometimes raucous town hall meeting Friday morning, U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst faced vocal opposition to her support for spending cuts to programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">During a town hall meeting, when discussing Medicaid benefits, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) responds to someone: &quot;Well, we all are going to die.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/HDj0w27vHJ">pic.twitter.com/HDj0w27vHJ</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1928477381359972502?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 30, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Like many other Republican lawmakers holding events with constituents throughout the country, Ernst faced a crowd at the Aplington-Parkersburg High School who were upset with decisions made by President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress — particularly as they relate to funding for health care and food assistance programs included in the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">narrowly passed the U.S. House</a>&nbsp;earlier in May.Though Ernst said the Senate would make changes to the measure and advance their own version of the legislation, she defended reductions in spending for Medicaid at the town hall, saying the changes will not impact people in need but will remove from the program “illegals that are receiving Medicaid benefits” and able-bodied adults who are not working.“People will die,” a woman shouted at the stage as Ernst answered one of several questions about the cuts.“People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven’s sake,” Ernst said in a response that was met by further shouts and jeering from the crowd.Ernst said she agrees with most of the provisions on Medicaid included in the House version of the budget reconciliation bill, saying that it was targeted at changes to the public health care program that “made it much easier to get onto Medicaid, but much tougher to take people off of Medicaid.” Ernst said many people on Medicaid currently are working full-time and have access to other benefits.“What we have to do is make sure that those that are not eligible by the federal standard for Medicaid are not receiving Medicaid,” Ernst said. “What we do need to do is make sure that those that are part of a vulnerable population have access to Medicaid and receive those full benefits. So what we’re trying to do is strengthen Medicaid by directing the dollars to the people that actually meet the requirements of the program.”In its House form, the bill includes a $625 billion reduction in federal spending for Medicaid over 10 years, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. It also includes 80-hour-per-month work requirements for people between ages 19 and 65 to continue receiving Medicaid health coverage, with several exceptions for people with disabilities and complex medical conditions, pregnant people, tribal community members and parents of dependent children.Elizabeth Kehret, who works for Lutheran Services in Iowa, said she was troubled by the potential impact of Medicaid cuts for pregnant woman, saying that she was previously enrolled on Medicaid during her four pregnancies before the&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/03/postpartum-medicaid-extension-with-cut-in-eligibility-heads-to-governors-desk/">state revised eligibility for postpartum coverage</a>, changing it from families with incomes of 375% of the federal poverty line to those at 215% of the federal poverty line.Kehret said she was concerned the federal Medicaid spending cuts would cause similar cuts for care in states across the country, meaning pregnant people, who may also have private health coverage, will struggle to pay for the medical care required both before and after their child is born.“I heard you say earlier about people who work full time but still get Medicaid — yeah,” Kehret said. “I meet with dozens of women who have dual enrollment, where they have private insurance as well as Medicaid, and it helps cover the things that their private insurance doesn’t, or that high deductible. … Medicaid is extremely important to the smallest and most vulnerable population in Iowa.”Ernst said there were provisions to allow continued Medicaid coverage for pregnant people in the House bill.“Because you are part of that vulnerable population, we want to make sure that you have access to Medicaid,” Ernst said. “So you will hear examples of those like the able-bodied, 30-year-old man who is taking advantage of the program, not working. What we’re asking is that please engage in work activities, engage in volunteer activities, be enrolled in a training program, and then that makes you Medicaid eligible.”Similar concerns were brought up about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, that provides food assistance to low-income individuals. Under the House budget plan, some costs of SNAP would be moved to the states, in addition to adding other work requirements. Ernst said the House bill is correcting “overpayments” from states on SNAP, in addition to removing “people that have not been eligible for these programs by law as it is currently written” from public assistance.Several veterans also spoke at the event, criticizing Republicans and Elon Musk’s DOGE Service for cuts to veterans’ assistance programs and cuts to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. In response, Ernst said, “We’re not cutting veterans benefits.”Several veterans have been outspoken about&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/we-call-it-betrayal-veterans-join-dems-dc-protest-trumps-sweeping-va-job-cuts" target="_blank">changes made by DOGE</a>&nbsp;to the VA, including the cut of roughly 2,400 VA jobs in early March.Ernst has been a major supporter of DOGE and efforts to make government more “efficient,” saying Republicans and Musk are focused on removing areas of unnecessary spending and “streamlining” existing programs and services. Ernst highlighted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an entity that can be made more efficient through DOGE efforts in response to a question on federal support following natural disasters.“Department of Government Efficiency … the E is not about elimination, it is about efficiency,” Ernst said. “So how can we do better as a federal government to respond to the people on the ground?”

‘Well, we all are going to die’: U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst defends Medicaid cuts at heated town hall

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday said it will allow the Trump administration to remove deportation protections for more than 500,000 nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who were given permission to temporarily remain and work in the United States by the Biden administration.

The move by the high court — which permits the deportations while a lawsuit continues to work its way through the courts — came after a district court in Massachusetts in April blocked the Trump administration from ending the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, or CHNV, program for 532,000 people.

It’s the second decision by the Supreme Court this month stripping immigrants of some form of temporary legal protections, affecting more than 800,000 people in the country without permanent legal status who are now subject to swift deportation.

<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-lets-trump-end-protected-status-350000-venezuelan-migrants" target="_blank">On May 19, the Supreme Court allowed</a>&nbsp;the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted the protection from deportation because their home country was deemed too unstable to return to due to the political regime.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin welcomed the ruling.

“Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First,” she said in a statement.

Todd Schulte, the president of the immigration advocacy group FWD.us, said in a statement that the high court’s decision “penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws.”

“This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences, and is part of a broader attempt by the executive branch to justify further immigration enforcement crackdowns against families across the country,” Schulte said. “The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from a half million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.”&nbsp;

Friday’s case is one of several immigration-related emergency requests the Department of Justice has brought to the high court, as the Trump administration aims to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-permits-trump-use-wartime-law-deportations-now-and-limits" target="_blank">carry out mass deportations</a>, wind down temporary legal pathways for immigrants and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-hear-case-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">redefine the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.</a>

No judicial review for parole, DOJ argues

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1079/358354/20250508121118618_Kristi_Noem_v_Svitlana_Doe_et_al_%20application_stay.pdf" target="_blank">In the emergency filing</a>&nbsp;to the high court in Friday’s case, Solicitor General D. John Sauer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-end-humanitarian-protections-migrants-4-nations" target="_blank">argued&nbsp;</a>that the Immigration Nationality Act bars judicial review of discretionary decisions, such as what is called humanitarian parole, for the CHNV program.

He added that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the program because it does not align with the interests of the Trump administration.

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” Jackson wrote in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1079_p86b.pdf" target="_blank">her dissent.</a>&nbsp;“It undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”

She argued that the Trump administration did not prove it would be harmed by the preliminary injunction.&nbsp;An appeals court previously rejected the government’s request to put the lower court’s order on hold.

“While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties,” Jackson wrote.

President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://georgiarecorder.com/briefs/biden-administration-to-rapidly-expel-more-migrants-at-the-border-add-legal-pathways/" target="_blank">created the CHNV program in 2023</a>. It temporarily granted work permits and allowed thousands of nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to remain in the country if they were sponsored by someone in the United States and passed a background check.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/12/1672235865420.png" alt="Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States" />
 <figcaption>Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday said it will allow the Trump administration to remove deportation protections for more than 500,000 nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who were given permission to temporarily remain and work in the United States by the Biden administration.The move by the high court — which permits the deportations while a lawsuit continues to work its way through the courts — came after a district court in Massachusetts in April blocked the Trump administration from ending the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, or CHNV, program for 532,000 people.It’s the second decision by the Supreme Court this month stripping immigrants of some form of temporary legal protections, affecting more than 800,000 people in the country without permanent legal status who are now subject to swift deportation.<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-lets-trump-end-protected-status-350000-venezuelan-migrants" target="_blank">On May 19, the Supreme Court allowed</a>&nbsp;the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted the protection from deportation because their home country was deemed too unstable to return to due to the political regime.Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin welcomed the ruling.“Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First,” she said in a statement.Todd Schulte, the president of the immigration advocacy group FWD.us, said in a statement that the high court’s decision “penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws.”“This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences, and is part of a broader attempt by the executive branch to justify further immigration enforcement crackdowns against families across the country,” Schulte said. “The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from a half million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.”&nbsp;Friday’s case is one of several immigration-related emergency requests the Department of Justice has brought to the high court, as the Trump administration aims to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-permits-trump-use-wartime-law-deportations-now-and-limits" target="_blank">carry out mass deportations</a>, wind down temporary legal pathways for immigrants and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-hear-case-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">redefine the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.</a><h2>No judicial review for parole, DOJ argues</h2><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1079/358354/20250508121118618_Kristi_Noem_v_Svitlana_Doe_et_al_%20application_stay.pdf" target="_blank">In the emergency filing</a>&nbsp;to the high court in Friday’s case, Solicitor General D. John Sauer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-end-humanitarian-protections-migrants-4-nations" target="_blank">argued&nbsp;</a>that the Immigration Nationality Act bars judicial review of discretionary decisions, such as what is called humanitarian parole, for the CHNV program.He added that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the program because it does not align with the interests of the Trump administration.Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” Jackson wrote in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1079_p86b.pdf" target="_blank">her dissent.</a>&nbsp;“It undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”She argued that the Trump administration did not prove it would be harmed by the preliminary injunction.&nbsp;An appeals court previously rejected the government’s request to put the lower court’s order on hold.“While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties,” Jackson wrote.President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://georgiarecorder.com/briefs/biden-administration-to-rapidly-expel-more-migrants-at-the-border-add-legal-pathways/" target="_blank">created the CHNV program in 2023</a>. It temporarily granted work permits and allowed thousands of nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to remain in the country if they were sponsored by someone in the United States and passed a background check.

US Supreme Court permits deportation of another half million migrants, for now

WASHINGTON— Hormel Foods Corporation, a Tucker, Ga. establishment, is recalling approximately 256,185 pounds of canned beef stew product that may be contaminated with foreign material, specifically wood, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced this week, according to a media release.

The canned beef stew item was produced on February 4, 2025. The following product is subject to recall [<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/food_label_pdf/2025-05/recall-018-2025-labels.pdf">view labels</a>]:

The product subject to recall bears establishment number “EST 199G” printed on the can. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the establishment notified FSIS that they had received three consumer complaints reporting pieces of wood in the beef stew product.

There have been no confirmed reports of injury due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider.&nbsp;&nbsp;

FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ pantries. Consumers who have purchased this product are urged not to consume it. This product should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at&nbsp;www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall can contact Hormel Foods Corporation at 800-523-4635 or media@hormel.com.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 888-MPHotline (888-674-6854) or send a question via email to MPHotline@usda.gov. For consumers that need to report a problem with a meat, poultry, or egg product, the online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at https://foodcomplaint.fsis.usda.gov/eCCF/.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748601779129.png" alt="USDA courtesy image" />
 <figcaption>USDA courtesy image</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON— Hormel Foods Corporation, a Tucker, Ga. establishment, is recalling approximately 256,185 pounds of canned beef stew product that may be contaminated with foreign material, specifically wood, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced this week, according to a media release.The canned beef stew item was produced on February 4, 2025. The following product is subject to recall [<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/food_label_pdf/2025-05/recall-018-2025-labels.pdf">view labels</a>]:<ul>
 <li>20-oz. metal cans containing “Dinty Moore BEEF STEW” with “BEST BY FEB 2028” and lot code “T02045” printed on the can. The lot code may have an additional number at the end.</li>
 </ul>The product subject to recall bears establishment number “EST 199G” printed on the can. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide.The problem was discovered after the establishment notified FSIS that they had received three consumer complaints reporting pieces of wood in the beef stew product.There have been no confirmed reports of injury due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider.&nbsp;&nbsp;FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ pantries. Consumers who have purchased this product are urged not to consume it. This product should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at&nbsp;www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall can contact Hormel Foods Corporation at 800-523-4635 or media@hormel.com.Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 888-MPHotline (888-674-6854) or send a question via email to MPHotline@usda.gov. For consumers that need to report a problem with a meat, poultry, or egg product, the online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at https://foodcomplaint.fsis.usda.gov/eCCF/.

USDA recalls 256,000 pounds of Dinty Moore beef stew 

KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating a double-homicide in Kansas City, Missouri.

Just after 9p.m. Wednesday, patrol officers were dispatched to a shooting in the 9600 block of Fremont Street, according to KCPD Sergeant Phil DiMartino.

As officers arrived they were directed to the driveway of a residence where they located a man and woman suffering from gunshot wounds. Officers immediately began performing life saving measures and ordered KCFD EMS to the scene. Medics declared both victims deceased, on scene.

This is being investigated as a homicide and no one is in custody, according to DiMaratino. Preliminary investigation revealed there was an argument that led to a physical confrontation between several individuals. The physical confrontation led to shots being fired and the victims being struck. Police have not released the names of the victims.

KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating a double-homicide in Kansas City, Missouri.Just after 9p.m. Wednesday, patrol officers were dispatched to a shooting in the 9600 block of Fremont Street, according to KCPD Sergeant Phil DiMartino.As officers arrived they were directed to the driveway of a residence where they located a man and woman suffering from gunshot wounds. Officers immediately began performing life saving measures and ordered KCFD EMS to the scene. Medics declared both victims deceased, on scene.This is being investigated as a homicide and no one is in custody, according to DiMaratino. Preliminary investigation revealed there was an argument that led to a physical confrontation between several individuals. The physical confrontation led to shots being fired and the victims being struck. Police have not released the names of the victims.

Homicide: Man, woman found dead in driveway of Kansas City home

Bayer is reportedly considering dropping signature product as litigation costs mount and company fails in effort to obtain legal shelter from lawmakers

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

German chemical giant Bayer received no relief from runaway litigation costs associated with Roundup herbicide Tuesday when the Western District Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $611 million judgment that its product causes cancer.

The decision, in a case&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=WD87059&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_WAP" target="_blank">involving three plaintiffs</a>&nbsp;who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=22AC-CC00043&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0004_CT19#header" target="_blank">sued in Cole County</a>, is one of the reasons the company, which acquired Roundup as a product when it merged with Monsanto, in 2018, is considering&nbsp;<a href="https://www.producer.com/news/bayer-says-it-could-halt-roundup-weedkiller-sales-over-legal-risks/" target="_blank">dropping the product entirely</a>. The company faces 67,000 lawsuits claiming the main ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with many of those cases awaiting trial in St. Louis County, where the company has its Bayer Crop Science headquarters.

The company&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/18/missouri-house-debate-shows-gop-split-over-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">failed to win passage</a>&nbsp;of a bill intended to shield it from litigation in Missouri. The bill narrowly passed the House but lobbying missteps, including a campaign targeting some of the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/25/political-attacks-stiffen-opposition-to-missouri-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">most conservative members</a>&nbsp;of the state Senate, doomed it. The company did win passage of similar legislation&nbsp;<a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/04/14/bill-protecting-pesticide-availability-prevails-in-north-dakota-senate/" target="_blank">in North Dakota</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJXrKePs5Wk" target="_blank">in Georgia</a>.

In November 2023, a Cole County jury awarded $1.6 billion to three plaintiffs who claimed their cancer was caused by glyphosate exposure while using Roundup. Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green reduced the $500 million punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff, instead reducing each award by varying amounts.

Green did not change the amounts awarded for actual damages, which ranged from $5.6 million to $38 million and totaled $61.1 million.

With post-judgment interest, the total Bayer owes is now in excess of $700 million.

“We’re certainly pleased with the court of appeals decision that vindicates the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment,” said attorney Matthew Clement of Jefferson City, who represented the plaintiffs in the case. “We’re happy that nothing happened in the legislature, this year at least, that will affect future cases and and will continue to litigate our cases like we had been.”

In a statement issued through Bayer spokesman Brian Leake, the company said it would continue to appeal the case.

“We continue to believe that the trial court committed significant errors by allowing inadmissible and prejudicial testimony into the courtroom which poisoned the jury against the company,” the statement read.

Bayer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take its appeal of a 2024 Missouri case awarding $1.25 million in damages to John Durnell of St. Louis. The Eastern District Court of Appeals upheld that decision in February and on April 1 the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given parties until June 9 to file arguments on whether it should accept the case.

“The overwhelming weight of science as well as the assessments of the EPA and leading health regulators and scientists worldwide that support the safety and non-carcinogenicity of Roundup and we will continue to defend our products in court,” the company stated.

Bayer has paid out at least $10 billion for jury awards and settlements and earlier this year said it had an additional $6 billion set aside. That fund will be depleted quickly if decisions like the one upheld Tuesday are allowed to stand and the company suffers more losses like a&nbsp; $2.1 billion judgment handed down in March&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/georgia-jury-orders-monsanto-parent-to-pay-nearly-2-1-billion-in-roundup-weedkiller-lawsuit#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,to%20attorneys%20representing%20the%20plaintiff." target="_blank">by a jury in Georgia</a>.&nbsp;

According to a report from Reuters, Roundup produced $2.8 billion in revenue for Bayer in 2024.

The bill protecting glyphosate from litigation passed the Georgia legislature a few weeks after the $2.1 billion award.

Gov. Mike Kehoe, at a news conference after lawmakers adjourned earlier this month, blamed defeat of the Missouri legislation on trial attorneys who have made “tens of millions of dollars” off the lawsuits.

“If, for some reason, that particular product is not produced anymore in the United States, farmers are still going to need that type of product, that type of weed control, and so that, glyphosate I think is what it’s called, will be produced somewhere,” Kehoe said. “And if it is, it won’t be produced in this country, and farmers will not have the same protections and liability recourse back on the companies who make it, if it’s made in China or somewhere overseas.”

Bayer is also being sued by shareholders in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.thenewlede.org/2023/05/investors-awarded-class-action-status-in-new-bayer-lawsuit/" target="_blank">class action lawsuit</a>&nbsp;over its decision to spend $68 billion to acquire Monsanto in 2018. The lawsuit alleges Bayer misled investors over the risks of the acquisition and failed to properly perform due diligence before buying Monsanto,

When Bayer acquired Monsanto in June 2018, its stock price was about $30 a share. On Tuesday afternoon, the company’s shares were selling for $7 apiece.

In the appeal of the Cole County decision, Bayer argued that Green made numerous errors in the trial and in rulings on post-trial motions. The company’s lawyers’ main points challenged the admissibility of testimony about a case over EPA evaluations of glyphosate; surprise findings from an expert; the use made of medical billing records; and whether the punitive damages were unconstitutionally duplicative.

At the heart of most glyphosate cases, and the target of legislation, is the label and whether it includes a proper notice that glyphosate may cause cancer.

“The misconduct complained about in the complaints in the three California cases Monsanto relies on, and in (one plaintiff’s) petition, includes allegations that despite scientific evidence that Roundup was carcinogenic, Monsanto continued to sell Roundup, and that Monsanto failed to warn of the dangerous effects of using Roundup,” Judge Cynthia Martin wrote in the Western District opinion delivered Tuesday.

In a discussion of whether the punitive damage award should have been reduced more, Martin wrote that “Monsanto’s degree of reprehensibility was high.”

Martin noted that the evidence shows that while the EPA has registered Roundup “for sale since 1974, Monsanto has been aware since 1985 that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has the potential to cause cancer.”

Each of the plaintiffs suffered damages because Monsanto sold a product that was “unreasonably dangerous when used as reasonably anticipated” without altering the labeling to provide a warning.

“Monsanto’s awareness,” Martin wrote, “of studies demonstrating the possibility of a causal relationship between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and cancer, particularly NHL, and then its decision to double down on its defense of Roundup in lieu of changing the product’s formulation or adding a warning label regarding the risk posed by Roundup demonstrates, at best, Monsanto’s indifference to or reckless disregard of the health of its customers.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/6/1593022262288.png" alt="Post File photo" />
 <figcaption>Post File photo</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Bayer is reportedly considering dropping signature product as litigation costs mount and company fails in effort to obtain legal shelter from lawmakers</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>German chemical giant Bayer received no relief from runaway litigation costs associated with Roundup herbicide Tuesday when the Western District Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $611 million judgment that its product causes cancer.The decision, in a case&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=WD87059&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_WAP" target="_blank">involving three plaintiffs</a>&nbsp;who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=22AC-CC00043&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0004_CT19#header" target="_blank">sued in Cole County</a>, is one of the reasons the company, which acquired Roundup as a product when it merged with Monsanto, in 2018, is considering&nbsp;<a href="https://www.producer.com/news/bayer-says-it-could-halt-roundup-weedkiller-sales-over-legal-risks/" target="_blank">dropping the product entirely</a>. The company faces 67,000 lawsuits claiming the main ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with many of those cases awaiting trial in St. Louis County, where the company has its Bayer Crop Science headquarters.The company&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/18/missouri-house-debate-shows-gop-split-over-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">failed to win passage</a>&nbsp;of a bill intended to shield it from litigation in Missouri. The bill narrowly passed the House but lobbying missteps, including a campaign targeting some of the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/25/political-attacks-stiffen-opposition-to-missouri-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">most conservative members</a>&nbsp;of the state Senate, doomed it. The company did win passage of similar legislation&nbsp;<a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/04/14/bill-protecting-pesticide-availability-prevails-in-north-dakota-senate/" target="_blank">in North Dakota</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJXrKePs5Wk" target="_blank">in Georgia</a>.In November 2023, a Cole County jury awarded $1.6 billion to three plaintiffs who claimed their cancer was caused by glyphosate exposure while using Roundup. Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green reduced the $500 million punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff, instead reducing each award by varying amounts.Green did not change the amounts awarded for actual damages, which ranged from $5.6 million to $38 million and totaled $61.1 million.With post-judgment interest, the total Bayer owes is now in excess of $700 million.“We’re certainly pleased with the court of appeals decision that vindicates the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment,” said attorney Matthew Clement of Jefferson City, who represented the plaintiffs in the case. “We’re happy that nothing happened in the legislature, this year at least, that will affect future cases and and will continue to litigate our cases like we had been.”In a statement issued through Bayer spokesman Brian Leake, the company said it would continue to appeal the case.“We continue to believe that the trial court committed significant errors by allowing inadmissible and prejudicial testimony into the courtroom which poisoned the jury against the company,” the statement read.Bayer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take its appeal of a 2024 Missouri case awarding $1.25 million in damages to John Durnell of St. Louis. The Eastern District Court of Appeals upheld that decision in February and on April 1 the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.The U.S. Supreme Court has given parties until June 9 to file arguments on whether it should accept the case.“The overwhelming weight of science as well as the assessments of the EPA and leading health regulators and scientists worldwide that support the safety and non-carcinogenicity of Roundup and we will continue to defend our products in court,” the company stated.Bayer has paid out at least $10 billion for jury awards and settlements and earlier this year said it had an additional $6 billion set aside. That fund will be depleted quickly if decisions like the one upheld Tuesday are allowed to stand and the company suffers more losses like a&nbsp; $2.1 billion judgment handed down in March&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/georgia-jury-orders-monsanto-parent-to-pay-nearly-2-1-billion-in-roundup-weedkiller-lawsuit#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,to%20attorneys%20representing%20the%20plaintiff." target="_blank">by a jury in Georgia</a>.&nbsp;According to a report from Reuters, Roundup produced $2.8 billion in revenue for Bayer in 2024.The bill protecting glyphosate from litigation passed the Georgia legislature a few weeks after the $2.1 billion award.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748460279946.png" alt=" State Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair speaks at a news conference Feb. 25 about flyers sent to his constituents attacking his opposition to a bill limiting lawsuits against Bayer over its herbicide Roundup. Joining Hudson, from left, are Sens. Nick Schroer of Defiance, Ben Brown of Washington, Joe Nicola of Independence, Mike Moon of Ash Grove, Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Adam Schnelting of St. Charles, Jill Carter of Joplin and David Gregory of Chesterfield (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> State Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair speaks at a news conference Feb. 25 about flyers sent to his constituents attacking his opposition to a bill limiting lawsuits against Bayer over its herbicide Roundup. Joining Hudson, from left, are Sens. Nick Schroer of Defiance, Ben Brown of Washington, Joe Nicola of Independence, Mike Moon of Ash Grove, Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Adam Schnelting of St. Charles, Jill Carter of Joplin and David Gregory of Chesterfield (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>Gov. Mike Kehoe, at a news conference after lawmakers adjourned earlier this month, blamed defeat of the Missouri legislation on trial attorneys who have made “tens of millions of dollars” off the lawsuits.“If, for some reason, that particular product is not produced anymore in the United States, farmers are still going to need that type of product, that type of weed control, and so that, glyphosate I think is what it’s called, will be produced somewhere,” Kehoe said. “And if it is, it won’t be produced in this country, and farmers will not have the same protections and liability recourse back on the companies who make it, if it’s made in China or somewhere overseas.”Bayer is also being sued by shareholders in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.thenewlede.org/2023/05/investors-awarded-class-action-status-in-new-bayer-lawsuit/" target="_blank">class action lawsuit</a>&nbsp;over its decision to spend $68 billion to acquire Monsanto in 2018. The lawsuit alleges Bayer misled investors over the risks of the acquisition and failed to properly perform due diligence before buying Monsanto,When Bayer acquired Monsanto in June 2018, its stock price was about $30 a share. On Tuesday afternoon, the company’s shares were selling for $7 apiece.In the appeal of the Cole County decision, Bayer argued that Green made numerous errors in the trial and in rulings on post-trial motions. The company’s lawyers’ main points challenged the admissibility of testimony about a case over EPA evaluations of glyphosate; surprise findings from an expert; the use made of medical billing records; and whether the punitive damages were unconstitutionally duplicative.At the heart of most glyphosate cases, and the target of legislation, is the label and whether it includes a proper notice that glyphosate may cause cancer.“The misconduct complained about in the complaints in the three California cases Monsanto relies on, and in (one plaintiff’s) petition, includes allegations that despite scientific evidence that Roundup was carcinogenic, Monsanto continued to sell Roundup, and that Monsanto failed to warn of the dangerous effects of using Roundup,” Judge Cynthia Martin wrote in the Western District opinion delivered Tuesday.In a discussion of whether the punitive damage award should have been reduced more, Martin wrote that “Monsanto’s degree of reprehensibility was high.”Martin noted that the evidence shows that while the EPA has registered Roundup “for sale since 1974, Monsanto has been aware since 1985 that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has the potential to cause cancer.”Each of the plaintiffs suffered damages because Monsanto sold a product that was “unreasonably dangerous when used as reasonably anticipated” without altering the labeling to provide a warning.“Monsanto’s awareness,” Martin wrote, “of studies demonstrating the possibility of a causal relationship between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and cancer, particularly NHL, and then its decision to double down on its defense of Roundup in lieu of changing the product’s formulation or adding a warning label regarding the risk posed by Roundup demonstrates, at best, Monsanto’s indifference to or reckless disregard of the health of its customers.”

Appeals court upholds $611M judgment in Roundup liability case

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/charlotte-rene-woods/">Charlotte Rene Woods</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/03/30/u-s-judge-rules-insurers-dont-have-to-cover-many-free-preventive-health-services/">States Newsroom</a>

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Abortion pills — and questions over their inherent safety — were back in federal court Monday. Unlike a lawsuit rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, plaintiffs this time are not anti-abortion activists arguing medication abortion should be banned, but abortion providers arguing the remaining restrictions should be lifted to match the drug’s 25-year record of safety and efficacy.

The suit seeks to make abortion pills more accessible by removing several existing restrictions on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone-misoprostol regimen first approved in 2000. The drug was approved under the FDA’s drug safety program called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), provisions of which have been steadily eliminated over time but not fully.

On behalf of independent providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas, Center for Reproductive Rights senior counsel Linda Goldstein argued the FDA’s most recent evaluations did not properly assess whether remaining restrictions are still medically necessary. She argued that the biggest risks the FDA has identified with mifepristone — serious bleeding and infection — are not exclusive to the drug but with all pregnancy terminations, including spontaneous miscarriages, which she said affected about 25% of all pregnancies. Beyond abortion, for which the drug has captured attention, mifepristone is also used to treat miscarriages so that they conclude safely to help prevent infection.

“The FDA has acknowledged that staying pregnant is more dangerous than not staying pregnant,” said Goldstein, arguing that at minimum the FDA should be required to explain why drugs that pose similar risks are not subject to the same restrictions.

She noted that of the 20,000 drugs the FDA has approved,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;oq=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOdIBBzMyNGowajmoAgCwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">only 73</a>&nbsp;have REMS provisions, and that mifepristone has proven to be a safe drug over time. About 7.5 million U.S. patients have taken it as of the end of last year, Goldstein said. As of December 2024, the FDA has reported&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation#:~:text=As%20of%20December%2031%2C%202024,several%20fatal%20cases%20of%20severe" target="_blank">36 patient deaths</a>&nbsp;associated with mifepristone since it was first approved in 2000.

Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. FDA is the first time the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing a position on mifepristone in court since the Trump administration took office. Justice Department attorneys said current regulations are necessary for the most common form of pregnancy termination to be considered safe. When asked by the judge, DOJ attorney Noah Katzen did not confirm or deny whether or not the FDA still considers the drug to be safe and effective overall.

“That is what the FDA determined in the past,” Katzen said during the hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville, where the case was originally filed in 2023.

Katzen, the FDA’s former associate chief counsel until 2021 and currently a trial attorney for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said the FDA has found that the evidence was “not sufficient” to conclude the REMS are no longer necessary.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, appeared more sympathetic to plaintiffs’ argument that some of the requirements appear arbitrary in that they don’t apply to other drugs with equal or greater risk, including drugs his parents have taken.&nbsp;

Ballou did not rule at the end of Monday’s hearing but said he would as soon as possible.

After the hearing, Whole Woman’s Health Alliance founder and president Amy Hagstrom Miller told States Newsroom she took note of Katzen’s response about whether the FDA considers mifepristone to be safe and effective.

“It was an interesting choice of words,” she said.

This<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/https:/www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/" target="_blank">&nbsp;lawsuit</a>&nbsp;is among several federal cases involving mifepristone. Earlier this month, the Trump administration filed a brief in the case Missouri v. FDA, requesting the court<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-asks-dismiss-suit-3-gop-states-trying-limit-abortion-pill" target="_blank">&nbsp;dismiss three states’ lawsuit</a>&nbsp;to restrict mifepristone on procedural grounds, but did not comment on the merits of the case or explicitly defend the FDA’s current medication abortion policy.

While the Missouri v. FDA lawsuit seeks to reinstate regulations loosened between 2016 and 2021, the Whole Woman’s Health v. FDA lawsuit takes aim at restrictions that require: medical professionals who prescribe mifepristone to register with the drug manufacturer; pharmacies to apply for special certification and maintain copious records, and patients to review and sign a counseling form.

On behalf of plaintiffs, which include Whole Woman’s Health Alliance in Virginia and other states, All Families Healthcare and Blue Mountain Clinic in Montana, and Trust Women in Kansas, Goldstein argued that these existing rules are burdensome and make these medications harder to access by limiting the number of providers and pharmacies who can provide and dispense it and impede access to time-sensitive care.

Goldstein noted the “political climate” surrounding mifepristone and pointed to how abortion opponents seek either rescinding of FDA approval for mifepristone or a return to the in-person dispensing requirements. She added how efforts to make abortion medication more&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">difficult to obtain</a>&nbsp;are outlined in Project 2025 — the conservative Heritage Foundation’s playbook.

Before and especially since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, anti-abortion groups have tried to convince courts that abortion pills, in addition to ending the lives of embryos and fetuses, harm pregnant people at rates that warrant being pulled from the market or at the very least heavily restricted.

During his presidential campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump and his health appointees have messaged strategically on medication abortion, on the one hand promising to retain its access while also open to examining new evidence suggesting it is unsafe.

Just last week, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would direct the FDA to review abortion pill safety and potentially change its drug label, following the release of an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/hhs-agrees-review-mifepristone-safety-based-anti-abortion-white-papers" target="_blank">anti-abortion white paper</a>&nbsp;commissioned by far-right funders, whose analysis has been widely criticized by reproductive health scientists and is outflanked by hundreds of studies showing a very low rate of serious adverse events.

Hagstrom Miller called the current restrictions “politically motivated” and said overturning them would be especially significant for Virginia, which as the least restrictive state in the South, has seen an uptick in people traveling from elsewhere to receive care.

“They’re not related to the safety of the medication,”&nbsp;Hagstrom Miller&nbsp;said, of the current restrictions. “We just want to ensure that the most popular method for abortion in Virginia and beyond is protected no matter who sits at the White House and who sits in the FDA.”

Virginia is in the process of amending its state constitution to enshrine abortion and other reproductive health care procedures or medications. The&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/02/13/virginia-moves-to-protect-reproductive-and-voting-rights-but-the-fight-is-far-from-over/" target="_blank">constitutional amendment</a>&nbsp;passed the legislature on party-line votes this year and must pass again next year before appearing on ballots for voters statewide. Its continued success or failure hinges on the outcome of the state’s competitive House of Delegates elections — where Democrats hold a slim majority.

While governors don’t have a say in constitutional amendments, the issue is a&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/04/02/virginia-march-for-life-tees-up-constitutional-amendment-ahead-of-this-years-elections/" target="_blank">divergence</a>&nbsp;between gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/05/08/earle-sears-morally-opposed-to-virginias-reproductive-rights-amendment-note-shows/" target="_blank">Winsome Earle-Sears</a>&nbsp;and Democratic challenger former Congresswoman&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">Abigail Spanberger</a>. This means that should the amendment fail and partisan control of the House shift, whoever is the next governor could advance or block potential future efforts to walk back Virginia’s current abortion access laws.&nbsp;

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/charlotte-rene-woods/">Charlotte Rene Woods</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/03/30/u-s-judge-rules-insurers-dont-have-to-cover-many-free-preventive-health-services/">States Newsroom</a>CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Abortion pills — and questions over their inherent safety — were back in federal court Monday. Unlike a lawsuit rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, plaintiffs this time are not anti-abortion activists arguing medication abortion should be banned, but abortion providers arguing the remaining restrictions should be lifted to match the drug’s 25-year record of safety and efficacy.The suit seeks to make abortion pills more accessible by removing several existing restrictions on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone-misoprostol regimen first approved in 2000. The drug was approved under the FDA’s drug safety program called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), provisions of which have been steadily eliminated over time but not fully.On behalf of independent providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas, Center for Reproductive Rights senior counsel Linda Goldstein argued the FDA’s most recent evaluations did not properly assess whether remaining restrictions are still medically necessary. She argued that the biggest risks the FDA has identified with mifepristone — serious bleeding and infection — are not exclusive to the drug but with all pregnancy terminations, including spontaneous miscarriages, which she said affected about 25% of all pregnancies. Beyond abortion, for which the drug has captured attention, mifepristone is also used to treat miscarriages so that they conclude safely to help prevent infection.“The FDA has acknowledged that staying pregnant is more dangerous than not staying pregnant,” said Goldstein, arguing that at minimum the FDA should be required to explain why drugs that pose similar risks are not subject to the same restrictions.She noted that of the 20,000 drugs the FDA has approved,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;oq=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOdIBBzMyNGowajmoAgCwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">only 73</a>&nbsp;have REMS provisions, and that mifepristone has proven to be a safe drug over time. About 7.5 million U.S. patients have taken it as of the end of last year, Goldstein said. As of December 2024, the FDA has reported&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation#:~:text=As%20of%20December%2031%2C%202024,several%20fatal%20cases%20of%20severe" target="_blank">36 patient deaths</a>&nbsp;associated with mifepristone since it was first approved in 2000.Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. FDA is the first time the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing a position on mifepristone in court since the Trump administration took office. Justice Department attorneys said current regulations are necessary for the most common form of pregnancy termination to be considered safe. When asked by the judge, DOJ attorney Noah Katzen did not confirm or deny whether or not the FDA still considers the drug to be safe and effective overall.“That is what the FDA determined in the past,” Katzen said during the hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville, where the case was originally filed in 2023.Katzen, the FDA’s former associate chief counsel until 2021 and currently a trial attorney for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said the FDA has found that the evidence was “not sufficient” to conclude the REMS are no longer necessary.U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, appeared more sympathetic to plaintiffs’ argument that some of the requirements appear arbitrary in that they don’t apply to other drugs with equal or greater risk, including drugs his parents have taken.&nbsp;Ballou did not rule at the end of Monday’s hearing but said he would as soon as possible.After the hearing, Whole Woman’s Health Alliance founder and president Amy Hagstrom Miller told States Newsroom she took note of Katzen’s response about whether the FDA considers mifepristone to be safe and effective.“It was an interesting choice of words,” she said.This<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/https:/www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/" target="_blank">&nbsp;lawsuit</a>&nbsp;is among several federal cases involving mifepristone. Earlier this month, the Trump administration filed a brief in the case Missouri v. FDA, requesting the court<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-asks-dismiss-suit-3-gop-states-trying-limit-abortion-pill" target="_blank">&nbsp;dismiss three states’ lawsuit</a>&nbsp;to restrict mifepristone on procedural grounds, but did not comment on the merits of the case or explicitly defend the FDA’s current medication abortion policy.While the Missouri v. FDA lawsuit seeks to reinstate regulations loosened between 2016 and 2021, the Whole Woman’s Health v. FDA lawsuit takes aim at restrictions that require: medical professionals who prescribe mifepristone to register with the drug manufacturer; pharmacies to apply for special certification and maintain copious records, and patients to review and sign a counseling form.On behalf of plaintiffs, which include Whole Woman’s Health Alliance in Virginia and other states, All Families Healthcare and Blue Mountain Clinic in Montana, and Trust Women in Kansas, Goldstein argued that these existing rules are burdensome and make these medications harder to access by limiting the number of providers and pharmacies who can provide and dispense it and impede access to time-sensitive care.Goldstein noted the “political climate” surrounding mifepristone and pointed to how abortion opponents seek either rescinding of FDA approval for mifepristone or a return to the in-person dispensing requirements. She added how efforts to make abortion medication more&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">difficult to obtain</a>&nbsp;are outlined in Project 2025 — the conservative Heritage Foundation’s playbook.Before and especially since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, anti-abortion groups have tried to convince courts that abortion pills, in addition to ending the lives of embryos and fetuses, harm pregnant people at rates that warrant being pulled from the market or at the very least heavily restricted.During his presidential campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump and his health appointees have messaged strategically on medication abortion, on the one hand promising to retain its access while also open to examining new evidence suggesting it is unsafe.Just last week, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would direct the FDA to review abortion pill safety and potentially change its drug label, following the release of an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/hhs-agrees-review-mifepristone-safety-based-anti-abortion-white-papers" target="_blank">anti-abortion white paper</a>&nbsp;commissioned by far-right funders, whose analysis has been widely criticized by reproductive health scientists and is outflanked by hundreds of studies showing a very low rate of serious adverse events.<h2>Significant for the South&nbsp;</h2>Hagstrom Miller called the current restrictions “politically motivated” and said overturning them would be especially significant for Virginia, which as the least restrictive state in the South, has seen an uptick in people traveling from elsewhere to receive care.“They’re not related to the safety of the medication,”&nbsp;Hagstrom Miller&nbsp;said, of the current restrictions. “We just want to ensure that the most popular method for abortion in Virginia and beyond is protected no matter who sits at the White House and who sits in the FDA.”Virginia is in the process of amending its state constitution to enshrine abortion and other reproductive health care procedures or medications. The&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/02/13/virginia-moves-to-protect-reproductive-and-voting-rights-but-the-fight-is-far-from-over/" target="_blank">constitutional amendment</a>&nbsp;passed the legislature on party-line votes this year and must pass again next year before appearing on ballots for voters statewide. Its continued success or failure hinges on the outcome of the state’s competitive House of Delegates elections — where Democrats hold a slim majority.While governors don’t have a say in constitutional amendments, the issue is a&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/04/02/virginia-march-for-life-tees-up-constitutional-amendment-ahead-of-this-years-elections/" target="_blank">divergence</a>&nbsp;between gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/05/08/earle-sears-morally-opposed-to-virginias-reproductive-rights-amendment-note-shows/" target="_blank">Winsome Earle-Sears</a>&nbsp;and Democratic challenger former Congresswoman&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">Abigail Spanberger</a>. This means that should the amendment fail and partisan control of the House shift, whoever is the next governor could advance or block potential future efforts to walk back Virginia’s current abortion access laws.&nbsp;“It’s really important that we protect that safe access to medication abortion no matter where people live — Virginia is playing a key role in the South right now,”&nbsp;Hagstrom Miller said.