TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Some Kansas Republican legislators are backing a bill that would make it a felony for anyone besides a family member or caregiver to return another person’s absentee ballot.

The bill is facing pushback from Democratic lawmakers and voting rights advocates who say the legislation would make it harder for many racial minorities, older voters and people with disabilities to cast ballots. Those critics say the move would criminalize nonprofit groups and church volunteers for helping people to vote and would address a problem that doesn’t exist.

Proponents say banning so-called “ballot harvesting” would prevent political groups and candidates from unfairly influencing elections. The House Election Committee has held a hearing on the bill but has not yet voted.

The effort comes as Republican lawmakers across the country are pushing to set&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bills-voting-rights-elections-coronavirus-pandemic-voter-registration-0e94844d72d2a2bf8b51b1c950bd64fc">tougher voting rules</a>&nbsp;after former President Donald Trump and his GOP allies, without evidence, said the 2020 election was marred by fraud. “Ballot harvesting” was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voting-lawsuits-elections-politics-campaigns-e8aecaa434b2b1040525d533e2d3b7ed">among the practices they called out</a>.

Legislators in nine states have proposed bills to impose or increase strict limits on who can help return a voter’s ballot, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute based at New York University School of Law.

University of Kansas political scientist Patrick Miller said Democrat and Republican candidates have historically collected and returned ballots as a campaign strategy. The practice has become an issue within the past decade, he said.

“I think it became more controversial, particularly in places in the South, like Georgia for example or Florida, where you had community groups coming into minority communities and trying to do these ballot collections,” Miller said.

Rep. Blake Carpenter, a Republican from Derby who leads the House Election Committee, said he is concerned with voters losing “custody” of their ballot when they entrust someone to return it for them.

“We do not know what the intention of these third parties are. Sometimes they’re good. Other times they might not be,” Carpenter said.

Rep. Avery Anderson, a Newton Republican who supports the bill, said his 2020 opponent, former state Rep. Tim Hodge, offered to submit voters’ ballots. Hodge said in written legislative testimony that “most of the time, these were constituents who my opponent had no relation to, and who he had helped register to vote just a few weeks earlier.”

“It’s called campaigning, not cheating,” Hodge said in an interview.

The League of Women Voters of Kansas and the NAACP’s Kansas chapter say the bill would make it difficult for Kansans who don’t have family living nearby to vote.

Dr. T. La Mont Holder, president of the Missionary Baptist State Convention of Kansas and the senior pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, which is believed to be the oldest Black Baptist church in Wichita, said his congregation includes people who are disabled and live in neighborhoods that lack mailboxes.

“Why do legislators feel that they have to determine who is the best person to deliver my ballot?” Holder asked. “Republicans talk about they want less government in their business. So why is it around the issue of voter rights? I have a right to ask anybody I want to deliver my ballot to the appropriate place.”

There is no evidence in Kansas that allowing someone to drop off a voter’s ballot has led to fraud. But the bill’s main proponent, Rep. Bill Sutton, a Gardner Republican, points to an incident in a North Carolina congressional race in 2018, in which workers for a Republican operative testified afterward that they were directed to collect blank or incomplete ballots, forge signatures and fill in votes.

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Some Kansas Republican legislators are backing a bill that would make it a felony for anyone besides a family member or caregiver to return another person’s absentee ballot.The bill is facing pushback from Democratic lawmakers and voting rights advocates who say the legislation would make it harder for many racial minorities, older voters and people with disabilities to cast ballots. Those critics say the move would criminalize nonprofit groups and church volunteers for helping people to vote and would address a problem that doesn’t exist.Proponents say banning so-called “ballot harvesting” would prevent political groups and candidates from unfairly influencing elections. The House Election Committee has held a hearing on the bill but has not yet voted.The effort comes as Republican lawmakers across the country are pushing to set&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bills-voting-rights-elections-coronavirus-pandemic-voter-registration-0e94844d72d2a2bf8b51b1c950bd64fc">tougher voting rules</a>&nbsp;after former President Donald Trump and his GOP allies, without evidence, said the 2020 election was marred by fraud. “Ballot harvesting” was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voting-lawsuits-elections-politics-campaigns-e8aecaa434b2b1040525d533e2d3b7ed">among the practices they called out</a>.Legislators in nine states have proposed bills to impose or increase strict limits on who can help return a voter’s ballot, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute based at New York University School of Law.University of Kansas political scientist Patrick Miller said Democrat and Republican candidates have historically collected and returned ballots as a campaign strategy. The practice has become an issue within the past decade, he said.“I think it became more controversial, particularly in places in the South, like Georgia for example or Florida, where you had community groups coming into minority communities and trying to do these ballot collections,” Miller said.Rep. Blake Carpenter, a Republican from Derby who leads the House Election Committee, said he is concerned with voters losing “custody” of their ballot when they entrust someone to return it for them.“We do not know what the intention of these third parties are. Sometimes they’re good. Other times they might not be,” Carpenter said.Rep. Avery Anderson, a Newton Republican who supports the bill, said his 2020 opponent, former state Rep. Tim Hodge, offered to submit voters’ ballots. Hodge said in written legislative testimony that “most of the time, these were constituents who my opponent had no relation to, and who he had helped register to vote just a few weeks earlier.”“It’s called campaigning, not cheating,” Hodge said in an interview.The League of Women Voters of Kansas and the NAACP’s Kansas chapter say the bill would make it difficult for Kansans who don’t have family living nearby to vote.Dr. T. La Mont Holder, president of the Missionary Baptist State Convention of Kansas and the senior pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, which is believed to be the oldest Black Baptist church in Wichita, said his congregation includes people who are disabled and live in neighborhoods that lack mailboxes.“Why do legislators feel that they have to determine who is the best person to deliver my ballot?” Holder asked. “Republicans talk about they want less government in their business. So why is it around the issue of voter rights? I have a right to ask anybody I want to deliver my ballot to the appropriate place.”There is no evidence in Kansas that allowing someone to drop off a voter’s ballot has led to fraud. But the bill’s main proponent, Rep. Bill Sutton, a Gardner Republican, points to an incident in a North Carolina congressional race in 2018, in which workers for a Republican operative testified afterward that they were directed to collect blank or incomplete ballots, forge signatures and fill in votes.___

Bill would limit who could return your absentee ballot

SHAWNEE COUNTY —Nobody was injured in a fire at a home when the resident attempted to heat a frozen water line.

Just after noon Saturday, crews responded to a home at 635 NE Poplar Street in Topeka, according to Fire Marshall Todd Harrison. Upon arrival fire crews found smoke coming from the single story wood frame residence. The man who lived in the home escaped without injury.

&nbsp;A preliminary investigation indicates the fire cause to be accidental, associated with the heating of a frozen water line.

The estimated dollar loss – $36,000.00; of which $35,000.00 is associated with structural loss and $1,000.00 associated with contents loss.Working smoke detectors were not located within the home, according to Harrison.

SHAWNEE COUNTY —Nobody was injured in a fire at a home when the resident attempted to heat a frozen water line.Just after noon Saturday, crews responded to a home at 635 NE Poplar Street in Topeka, according to Fire Marshall Todd Harrison. Upon arrival fire crews found smoke coming from the single story wood frame residence. The man who lived in the home escaped without injury.&nbsp;A preliminary investigation indicates the fire cause to be accidental, associated with the heating of a frozen water line.The estimated dollar loss – $36,000.00; of which $35,000.00 is associated with structural loss and $1,000.00 associated with contents loss.Working smoke detectors were not located within the home, according to Harrison.

Fire Marshal: Heating frozen water line caused Kan. house fire

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday announced plans for tens of thousands of asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico for their next immigration court hearings to be allowed into the United States while their cases proceed. 

The first of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers in Mexico with active cases will be allowed in the United States on Feb. 19, authorities said. They plan to start slowly with two border crossings each processing up to 300 people a day and a third crossing taking fewer. Administration officials declined to name them out of fear they may encourage a rush of people to those locations.

The move is a major step toward dismantling one of former President Donald Trump's most consequential policies to deter asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. About 70,000 asylum-seekers were enrolled in “Remain in Mexico,” officially called “Migrant Protection Protocols,” since it was introduced in January 2019.

On Biden's first day in office, the Homeland Security Department suspended the policy for new arrivals. Since then, some asylum-seekers picked up at the border have been released in the U.S. with notices to appear in court.

Biden is quickly making good on a campaign promise to end the policy, which the Trump administration said was critical to reversing a surge of asylum-seekers that peaked in 2019. But the policy also exposed people to violence in Mexican border cities and made it extremely difficult for them to find lawyers and communicate with courts about their cases.

“As President Biden has made clear, the U.S. government is committed to rebuilding a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “This latest action is another step in our commitment to reform immigration policies that do not align with our nation’s values.”

Homeland Security said the move “should not be interpreted as an opening for people to migrate irregularly to the United States.” Administration officials have said repeatedly that the vast majority of people who cross the border illegally are quickly expelled under a public health order in place since the pandemic struck in March, but releases of some asylum-seeking families in Texas and California has worked against that messaging.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday that she was concerned that limited releases in the U.S. may encourage others to cross illegally because “we don’t want people to put themselves in danger at a time where it is not the right time to come, because we have not had time to put in place a humane and moral system and process.”

Hearings for people enrolled in “Remain in Mexico” have been suspended since June due to the pandemic. Getting word out on when to report to the border for release in the United States may prove a daunting job.

Homeland Security said it would soon announce a “virtual registration process” available online and by phone for people to learn where and when they should report. It urged asylum-seekers not to report to the border unless instructed.

Asylum-seekers will be tested for COVID-19 before entering the U.S.

The announcement provides no relief to people whose cases were dismissed or denied, though administration officials did not rule out additional measures. Advocates argue that communication problems, including lack of working addresses in Mexico, caused some to miss hearings and lose their cases as a result.

More people are getting stopped crossing the border illegally since Biden took office.

Raul Ortiz, deputy chief of the Border Patrol, said Tuesday that more than 3,000 people had been stopped crossing the border illegally in each of the previous 10 days, compared to a daily average of 2,426 in January.

About 50 to 80 adults and children have been arriving daily since Jan. 27 at Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, which temporarily houses people released by the Border Patrol, said Sister Norma Pimentel, the group’s executive director. The charity tests for COVID-19 and sends anyone who tests positive to a hotel for isolation.

Jewish Family Service of San Diego housed 191 asylum-seekers the first 10 days of February after the were released by U.S. authorities, up from 144 in January and 54 in December, said Eitan Peled, the group’s border services advocate. They are quarantined in hotels for 10 days.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/10/1571685357129.png" alt="Photo courtesy Homeland Security&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy Homeland Security&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday announced plans for tens of thousands of asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico for their next immigration court hearings to be allowed into the United States while their cases proceed. The first of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers in Mexico with active cases will be allowed in the United States on Feb. 19, authorities said. They plan to start slowly with two border crossings each processing up to 300 people a day and a third crossing taking fewer. Administration officials declined to name them out of fear they may encourage a rush of people to those locations.The move is a major step toward dismantling one of former President Donald Trump's most consequential policies to deter asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. About 70,000 asylum-seekers were enrolled in “Remain in Mexico,” officially called “Migrant Protection Protocols,” since it was introduced in January 2019.On Biden's first day in office, the Homeland Security Department suspended the policy for new arrivals. Since then, some asylum-seekers picked up at the border have been released in the U.S. with notices to appear in court.Biden is quickly making good on a campaign promise to end the policy, which the Trump administration said was critical to reversing a surge of asylum-seekers that peaked in 2019. But the policy also exposed people to violence in Mexican border cities and made it extremely difficult for them to find lawyers and communicate with courts about their cases.“As President Biden has made clear, the U.S. government is committed to rebuilding a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “This latest action is another step in our commitment to reform immigration policies that do not align with our nation’s values.”Homeland Security said the move “should not be interpreted as an opening for people to migrate irregularly to the United States.” Administration officials have said repeatedly that the vast majority of people who cross the border illegally are quickly expelled under a public health order in place since the pandemic struck in March, but releases of some asylum-seeking families in Texas and California has worked against that messaging.White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday that she was concerned that limited releases in the U.S. may encourage others to cross illegally because “we don’t want people to put themselves in danger at a time where it is not the right time to come, because we have not had time to put in place a humane and moral system and process.”Hearings for people enrolled in “Remain in Mexico” have been suspended since June due to the pandemic. Getting word out on when to report to the border for release in the United States may prove a daunting job.Homeland Security said it would soon announce a “virtual registration process” available online and by phone for people to learn where and when they should report. It urged asylum-seekers not to report to the border unless instructed.Asylum-seekers will be tested for COVID-19 before entering the U.S.The announcement provides no relief to people whose cases were dismissed or denied, though administration officials did not rule out additional measures. Advocates argue that communication problems, including lack of working addresses in Mexico, caused some to miss hearings and lose their cases as a result.More people are getting stopped crossing the border illegally since Biden took office.Raul Ortiz, deputy chief of the Border Patrol, said Tuesday that more than 3,000 people had been stopped crossing the border illegally in each of the previous 10 days, compared to a daily average of 2,426 in January.About 50 to 80 adults and children have been arriving daily since Jan. 27 at Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, which temporarily houses people released by the Border Patrol, said Sister Norma Pimentel, the group’s executive director. The charity tests for COVID-19 and sends anyone who tests positive to a hotel for isolation.Jewish Family Service of San Diego housed 191 asylum-seekers the first 10 days of February after the were released by U.S. authorities, up from 144 in January and 54 in December, said Eitan Peled, the group’s border services advocate. They are quarantined in hotels for 10 days.

Thousands of asylum-seekers to be allowed in US starting this week

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?508959-1/impeachment-trial">Click here to watch</a>&nbsp;the replay of Day 5 of the impeachment trial

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Saturday acquitted Donald Trump of inciting the horrific attack on the U.S. Capitol, concluding a historic impeachment trial that exposed the fragility of America’s democratic traditions and left a divided nation to come to terms with the violence sparked by his defeated presidency.

Barely a month since the deadly Jan. 6 riot that stunned the world, the Senate convened for a rare Saturday session to deliver its verdict, voting while armed National Guard troops continued to stand their posts outside the iconic building.

The quick trial, the nation’s first of a former president, showed how perilously close the invaders had come to destroying the nation’s deep tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power after Trump had refused to concede the election. Rallying outside the White House, he unleashed a mob of supporters to “fight like hell” for him at the Capitol just as Congress was certify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. As hundreds stormed the building, some in tactical gear engaging in bloody combat with police, lawmakers fled for their lives. Five people died.

The verdict, on a vote of 57-43, is all but certain to influence not only the former president’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors. Seven Republicans joined all Democrats to convict, but it was far from the two-third threshold required.

The verdict after the uprising leaves unresolved the nation’s wrenching divisions over Trump’s brand of politics that led to the most violent domestic attack on one of America’s three branches of government.

“Senators, we are in a dialogue with history, a conversation with our past, with a hope for our future,” said Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa.., one of the House prosecutors in closing arguments.

“What we do here, what is being asked of each of us here in this moment will be remembered. History has found us.”

Trump, unrepentant, welcomed the his second impeachment acquittal and said his movement “has only just begun.” He slammed the trial as “yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country.”

Though he was acquitted, it was easily the largest number of senators to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty of an impeachment charge.

Voting to find Trump guilty were GOP Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

The trial had been momentarily thrown into confusion when senators suddenly wanted to consider potential witnesses, an hours-long standoff Saturday that stalled the momentum toward a vote. Prolonged proceedings would be politically risky, particularly for Biden’s new presidency and his emerging legislative agenda. The trial came amid the searing COVID-19 crisis, and the Biden White House trying to rush pandemic relief through Congress.

Biden has hardly weighed in on the proceedings and was spending the weekend with family at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland.

Many senators kept their votes closely held until the final moments, Republicans in particularly now thrust into minority status. Democrats took narrow control of the Senate with runoff elections in Georgia on Jan. 5, the day before the siege.

The nearly weeklong trial has delivered a grim and graphic narrative of the riot and its consequences in ways that senators, most of whom fled for their own safety that day, acknowledge they are still coming to grips with.

House prosecutors have argued that Trump’s was the “inciter in chief” stoking a months-long campaign, and orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims that unleashed the mob. Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

Trump’s lawyers countered that Trump’s words were not intended to incite the violence and that impeachment is nothing but a “witch hunt” designed to prevent him from serving in office again.

Only by watching the graphic videos — rioters calling out menacingly for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the vote tally — did senators say they began to understand just how perilously close the country came to chaos.

Many Republicans representing states where the former president remains popular doubt whether Trump was fully responsible or if impeachment is the appropriate response.

In closing arguments, lead prosecutor Michael van der Veen fell back on the procedural argument that Republican senators have embraced in their own reasoning of the case what he said is a “phony impeachment show trial.”

“Mr. Trump is innocent of the charges against him,” said Michael van der Veen. “The act of incitement never happened.”

The House impeached trump on the sole charge of incitement of insurrection one week after the riot, the most bipartisan vote of a presidential impeachment.

The delay Saturday came as senators wanted to hear evidence about Trump’s actions during the riot.

Fresh stories overnight focused onRep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington state, who said in a statement late Friday that Trump rebuffed a plea from House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy to call off the rioters.

Fifty-five senators voted for to consider witnesses, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Once they did, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina changed his vote to join them on the 55-45 vote.

But facing a prolonged trial with defense poised to call many more witnesses, the situation was resolved when Herrera Beutler’s statement on the call was read aloud into the record for senators to consider as evidence. As part of the deal, Democrats dropped their planned deposition and Republicans abandoned their threat to call their own witnesses.

Impeachment trials are rare, senators meeting as the court of impeachment over a president only four times in the nation’s history, for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and now twice for Trump, the only one to be twice impeached.

Unlike last year’s impeachment trial of Trump in the Ukraine affair, a complicated charge of corruption and obstruction over his attempts to have the foreign ally dig up dirt on then-campaign rival Biden, this one brought an emotional punch displayed in graphic videos of the siege that laid bare the unexpected vulnerability of the democratic system.

At the same time, this year’s trial carried similar warnings from the prosecutors pleading with senators that Trump must be held accountable because he has shown repeatedly he has no bounds. Left unchecked, he will further test the norms of civic behavior, even now that he is out of office still commanding loyal supporters.

“This trial in the final analysis is not about Donald Trump,” said lead prosecutor Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. “This trial is about who we are.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats began wrapping up their impeachment case against Donald Trump on Saturday after a tumultuous morning in which they gave up a last-minute plan for witness testimony that could have significantly prolonged the trial and delayed a vote on whether the former president incited the deadly Capitol insurrection.

An unexpected morning vote in favor of hearing witnesses threw the trial into confusion just as it was on the verge of concluding. But both sides ultimately reached a deal to instead enter into the record a statement from a Republican House lawmaker about a heated phone call on the day of the riot between Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy that Democrats say established Trump’s indifference to the violence.

Republicans are anxious to get the trial over with and discussion of Trump and the Capitol invasion behind them. Democrats, too, have a motive to move on since the Senate cannot move ahead on new President Joe Biden's agenda including COVID-19 relief while the impeachment trail is in session.

While most Democrats were expected to vote to convict the former president, acquittal appeared likely with a two-thirds majority required for conviction and the chamber split 50-50 between the parties. Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he would vote to acquit Trump, according to a person familiar with his thinking. Closely watched, the GOP leader’s view could influence others in his party.

At issue at first on Saturday was whether to subpoena Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington state, one of 10 Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment in the House. She said in a statement late Friday that Trump rebuffed a plea from McCarthy to call off the rioters. Democrats consider it key corroborating evidence that confirms the president’s “willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as commander in chief.”

The situation was resolved when Herrera Beutler’s statement on the call was read aloud into the record for senators to consider as evidence. As part of the deal, Democrats dropped their planned deposition and Republicans abandoned their threat to call their own witnesses. The case then proceeded to closing arguments, where Democrats again alleged that Trump was responsible for the deadly Jan 6. siege on the day the Senate was certifying the election results.

“He abused his office by siding with the insurrectionists at almost every point, rather than with the Congress of the United States, rather than with the Constitution,” said lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland.

Raskin earlier said witnesses were necessary to determine Trump's role in inciting the riot. Fifty-five senators voted for his motion to consider witnesses, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Once they did, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina changed his vote to join them on the 55-45 vote.

Trump lawyers opposed calling witnesses, with attorney Michael van der Veen saying it would open the door to him calling about 100 of his own. He said the depositions could be done in his law office in Philadelphia, prompting laughter from senators.

“If you vote for witnesses,” Van der Veen said, crossing his arms and then then raising them in the air for emphasis, “do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that I can have.”

Senators meeting as the court of impeachment are restrained in taking up other business without consent of the Republican minority, which is unlikely. Rules require senators to be present for the proceedings and this past week almost no other major items have been considered as the trial was underway.

The outcome of the raw and emotional proceedings is expected to reflect a country divided over the former president and the future of his brand of politics. The verdict could influence not only Trump’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors.

“What’s important about this trial is that it’s really aimed to some extent at Donald Trump, but it’s more aimed at some president we don’t even know 20 years from now,” said Sen. Angus King, the independent from Maine.

House prosecutors have argued that Trump's rallying cry to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” for his presidency just as Congress was convening Jan. 6 to certify Biden’s election victory was part of an orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims that unleashed the mob. Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

Trump's lawyers countered in a short three hours Friday that Trump's words were not intended to incite the violence and that impeachment is nothing but a “witch hunt” designed to prevent him from serving in office again.

Only by watching the graphic videos — rioters calling out menacingly for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the vote tally — did senators say they began to understand just how perilously close the country came to chaos. Hundreds of rioters stormed into the building, taking over the Senate. Some engaged in hand-to-hand, bloody combat with police.

Many Republicans representing states where the former president remains popular doubt whether Trump was fully responsible or if impeachment is the appropriate response. Democrats appear all but united toward conviction.

Trump is the only president to be twice impeached and the first to face trial charges after leaving office.

Unlike last year’s impeachment trial of Trump in the Ukraine affair, a complicated charge of corruption and obstruction over his attempts to have the foreign ally dig up dirt on then-campaign rival Biden, this one brought an emotional punch over the unexpected vulnerability of the U.S. tradition of peaceful elections. The charge is singular, incitement of insurrection.

On Friday, Trump’s impeachment lawyers accused Democrats of waging a campaign of “hatred” against the former president as they wrapped up their defense.

His lawyers vigorously denied that Trump had incited the riot and they played out-of-context video clips showing Democrats, some of them senators now serving as jurors, also telling supporters to “fight," aiming to establish a parallel with Trump's overheated rhetoric.

“This is ordinary political rhetoric,” said van der Veen. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”

Democratic senators shook their heads at what many called a false equivalency to their own fiery words. Impeachment managers say that Trump was the “inciter in chief” whose monthslong campaign against the election results was rooted in a “big lie” and laid the groundwork for the riot, a violent domestic attack on the Capitol unparalleled in history.

“Get real,” Raskin said at one point. “We know that this is what happened.”

Six Republican senators who joined Democrats in voting to take up the case are among those most watched for their votes.

Early signals came Friday during questions for the lawyers.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked the first question, Two centrists known for independent streaks, they leaned into a point the prosecutors had made, asking exactly when Trump learned of the breach of the Capitol and what specific actions he took to end the rioting.

Democrats had argued that Trump did nothing as the mob rioted.

Another Republican who voted to launch the trial, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, asked about Trump’s tweet criticizing Pence moments after the then-president was told by another senator that Pence had just been evacuated.

Van der Veen responded that at “no point” was the president informed of any danger. Cassidy told reporters later it was not a very good answer.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Senate has voted to consider hearing from witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This could potentially extend proceedings that had been expected to end with a vote for conviction or acquittal on Saturday. 

The Senate is holding a rare Saturday session for closing arguments in Trump's trial over whether he is guilty of inciting the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Acquittal still appears likely, underscored by news that Republican leader Mitch McConnell plans to vote that way. The trial has laid bare the fragility of the nation’s tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators are poised to vote on whether Donald Trump will be held accountable for inciting the horrific attack at the Capitol after a speedy impeachment trial that laid bare the violence and danger to their own lives and the fragility of the nation's tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power.

Barely a month since the deadly riot on Jan. 6, closing arguments are set for the historic trial in a rare Saturday session, held under the watch of armed National Guard troops still guarding the iconic building.

The outcome of the quick, raw and emotional proceedings is expected to reflect a country divided over the former president and the future of his brand of politics.

Acquittal is expected in the evenly-divided Senate. That verdict could heavily influence not only Trump’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors.

House prosecutors have argued that Trump's rallying cry to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” for his presidency just as Congress was convening Jan. 6 to certify Joe Biden’s election victory was part of an orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims that unleashed the mob. Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

While it is unlikely the Senate would be able to mount the two-thirds vote needed to convict, several senators appear to be still weighing their vote. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will be widely watched for cues, but he is not pressuring his GOP colleagues and is telling senators to vote their conscience.

“This is ordinarily political rhetoric,” said Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”

But the presentation blurred the difference between the general encouragement that politicians make to battle for health care or other causes and Trump’s fight against officially accepted national election results, and minimized Trump’s efforts to undermine those results. The defeated president was telling his supporters to fight on after every state had verified its results, after the Electoral College had affirmed them and after nearly every election lawsuit filed by Trump and his allies had been rejected in court.

Democratic senators shook their heads at what many called a false equivalency to their own fiery words. “We weren’t asking them 'fight like hell' to overthrow an election,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Democrats say that Trump was the “inciter in chief” whose monthslong campaign against the election results was rooted in a “big lie” and laid the groundwork for the riot, a violent domestic attack on the Capitol unparalleled in history.

“Get real,” said the lead prosecutor, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., at one point. “We know that this is what happened.”

The Senate has convened as a court of impeachment for past Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and now twice for Trump. But the unprecedented nature of the case against an out-of-office president has provided Republican senators one of several arguments against conviction.

Republicans maintain the proceedings are unconstitutional, even though the Senate voted at the outset of the trial on this issue and confirmed it has jurisdiction.

🎥 Impeachment Trial Day 5: Senators vote to acquit Trump again

TOPEKA– A Kansas man was sentenced this week to 150 months imprisonment for possessing multiple firearms in connection with drug trafficking, according to U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister.

Aaron Gullick, 30, Topeka, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. In his plea the defendant admitted to possessing a Glock handgun in September of 2018, and a Glock handgun and AR-15 style rifle in December 2018, as well as marijuana and methamphetamine. 

The firearms were possessed to further the distribution of marijuana and methamphetamine.

 “This case demonstrates the effectiveness of ATF’s use of crime gun intelligence and highlights the importance of ATF’s National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) throughout the State of Kansas. NIBIN allowed law enforcement to connect the firearm in this case to a shooting that otherwise would have likely remained unsolved. ATF is committed to utilizing crime gun intelligence in firearms investigation to make our communities safer and to hold accountable those who chose to use firearms in furtherance of their criminal activities” Frederic Winston, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Kansas City Field Division said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1612974487727.png" alt="Gullick has previous convictions for drugs and criminal threat, according to the Kansas Dept. of Corrections" />
 <figcaption>Gullick has previous convictions for drugs and criminal threat, according to the Kansas Dept. of Corrections</figcaption>
 </figure>TOPEKA– A Kansas man was sentenced this week to 150 months imprisonment for possessing multiple firearms in connection with drug trafficking, according to U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister.Aaron Gullick, 30, Topeka, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. In his plea the defendant admitted to possessing a Glock handgun in September of 2018, and a Glock handgun and AR-15 style rifle in December 2018, as well as marijuana and methamphetamine. The firearms were possessed to further the distribution of marijuana and methamphetamine. “This case demonstrates the effectiveness of ATF’s use of crime gun intelligence and highlights the importance of ATF’s National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) throughout the State of Kansas. NIBIN allowed law enforcement to connect the firearm in this case to a shooting that otherwise would have likely remained unsolved. ATF is committed to utilizing crime gun intelligence in firearms investigation to make our communities safer and to hold accountable those who chose to use firearms in furtherance of their criminal activities” Frederic Winston, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Kansas City Field Division said.

Kan. man sentenced for using gun while selling marijuana 

JACKSON COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a suspect following a Kansas traffic stop.

Just before 6 a.m. February 11, a sheriff’s deputy stopped a 2008 Chevy van south of 286th and U.S. Highway 75 for a traffic infraction, according to Sheriff Tim Morse.

 The deputy arrested the passenger of the vehicle, Janna Lynn Marshno, 34, of Mayetta, on a Shawnee County warrant. 

Further investigation led to discovering that Marshno was allegedly in possession of methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. Marshno was booked into the Jackson County Jail on requested drug charges.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1613130555122.png" alt="Marshno photo Jackson County" />
 <figcaption>Marshno photo Jackson County</figcaption>
 </figure>JACKSON COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a suspect following a Kansas traffic stop.Just before 6 a.m. February 11, a sheriff’s deputy stopped a 2008 Chevy van south of 286th and U.S. Highway 75 for a traffic infraction, according to Sheriff Tim Morse. The deputy arrested the passenger of the vehicle, Janna Lynn Marshno, 34, of Mayetta, on a Shawnee County warrant. Further investigation led to discovering that Marshno was allegedly in possession of methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. Marshno was booked into the Jackson County Jail on requested drug charges.

Kansas deputies arrest passenger in van after traffic stop

LAWRENCE — It is expected that 2020 will denote the biggest year of gun sales in U.S. history.

“Not only is this significant in how many people bought guns, it is also a banner year for the diverse types of people doing the purchasing,” said Margaret Kelley, associate professor of American studies at the University of Kansas.

The question of who and why these people are making this choice gets examined in extraordinary depth in Kelley’s article titled&nbsp;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/author/AVWFF8MQ8ZJMGQIUFM2N?target=10.1111/soin.12410">“Who Might Buy a Gun? Results from the Guns in American Life Survey.”</a>&nbsp;Her research explores patterns and correlations of such ownership in the United States, with an emphasis on differentiating those who will never own a firearm (“nevers”) and those who are open to ownership in the future (“maybes”). It is published in this month’s issue of Sociological Inquiry.

“Previous work has focused on traditional ways of thinking ‘maybe’ owners must be very similar to owners. We tried to complicate that a bit and show they aren’t just ‘gun owners lite,’ they are a wholly different category,” she said.

With co-author Christopher Ellison of the University of Texas at San Antonio, Kelley launched the Guns in American Life Survey (collected in September 2018 as a collaborative involving UTSA and KU) to explore the role of several classes of factors in shaping experiences and attitudes. These included socialization, fear/victimization, ideology and preparedness.

Kelley said, “We approach the topic thinking this is binary: You own a gun or you don’t, and people have characteristics that go with one of those categories. But it is not that straightforward. For example, there’s evidence that 20% of gun owners are liberals. That goes against our expectations of who might own a gun.”

Among the most common assumptions about gun owners is they gravitate toward the weapon out of fear.

“This is an overgeneralization that people buy guns because they’re afraid,” she said. “That’s part of it. But that’s not all of it.”

Instead, Kelley also delves into the positive aspects of ownership, which she terms “gun gratifications.” She found these are frequently divided by gender, with men feeling more empowered by guns, while women are motivated by the sense of protection granted. (The survey collected responses from more than 3,100 individuals, offering a strong representative data set of the U.S. public.)

On the other end of those studied are persons who claim they will never own a gun. This is mainly populated by respondents wrestling with an ideological issue. Many don’t believe guns are a part of “the good society.”

“Also factoring in is the fear of violence,” Kelley added. “In many studies, guns are specifically equated with violence. In fact, the vast majority of guns will never be involved in a negative outcome. Yet it is hard to disassociate that connection, given the very severe violence that does happen and the fear that is generated by mass shootings and things.”

Much of “Who Might Buy a Gun?” deals with society’s move toward what’s termed Gun Culture 2.0. This shift has fundamentally changed the central reasons for possessing a weapon.

“Our original gun culture is very different than what our current one looks like,” Kelley said.

“It used to be that guns were owned primarily for hunting and recreation. Just a generation before us, people kept shotguns and hunting rifles in their cars. They only had them around the home because they needed them for protection against animals. Since the 1960s, this culture of guns has been changing, and it is in large part an increase in handguns that are owned for personal protection. It is becoming the self-defense culture in a way.”

That includes owners welcoming the empowerment associated with the weapons, which is becoming a less passive condition.

“For people involved in having one for self-defense, it is something you think about when you get up in the morning. You have to ‘dress around the gun.’ You have to know which stores you can go into and which ones you can’t,” she said.

Entering her sixth year at KU, Kelley developed her research in partnership with a parallel ethnographic study examining women and firearms. She’s turning this into a larger book project specifically focusing on the average woman shooter in middle America.

“We don’t know the broader impact of changes in gun culture on social trust in a democratic society,”&nbsp;Kelley said.

“But it is timely for us to recognize who is open to gun ownership. KU research has shown that those who own guns are more politically involved and might influence the future of politics. It is important to know the reasons that lead to owning – or not owning – a gun.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1612817809930.jpeg" alt="(Photo by Pexels)" />
 <figcaption>(Photo by Pexels)</figcaption>
 </figure>LAWRENCE — It is expected that 2020 will denote the biggest year of gun sales in U.S. history.<figure>
 <img src="https://news.ku.edu/sites/news.ku.edu/files/images/general/faculty_portraits/Margaret_Kelley_172.jpg" alt="Margaret Kelley" />
 <figcaption>Margaret Kelley</figcaption>
 </figure>“Not only is this significant in how many people bought guns, it is also a banner year for the diverse types of people doing the purchasing,” said Margaret Kelley, associate professor of American studies at the University of Kansas.The question of who and why these people are making this choice gets examined in extraordinary depth in Kelley’s article titled&nbsp;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/author/AVWFF8MQ8ZJMGQIUFM2N?target=10.1111/soin.12410">“Who Might Buy a Gun? Results from the Guns in American Life Survey.”</a>&nbsp;Her research explores patterns and correlations of such ownership in the United States, with an emphasis on differentiating those who will never own a firearm (“nevers”) and those who are open to ownership in the future (“maybes”). It is published in this month’s issue of Sociological Inquiry.“Previous work has focused on traditional ways of thinking ‘maybe’ owners must be very similar to owners. We tried to complicate that a bit and show they aren’t just ‘gun owners lite,’ they are a wholly different category,” she said.With co-author Christopher Ellison of the University of Texas at San Antonio, Kelley launched the Guns in American Life Survey (collected in September 2018 as a collaborative involving UTSA and KU) to explore the role of several classes of factors in shaping experiences and attitudes. These included socialization, fear/victimization, ideology and preparedness.Kelley said, “We approach the topic thinking this is binary: You own a gun or you don’t, and people have characteristics that go with one of those categories. But it is not that straightforward. For example, there’s evidence that 20% of gun owners are liberals. That goes against our expectations of who might own a gun.”Among the most common assumptions about gun owners is they gravitate toward the weapon out of fear.“This is an overgeneralization that people buy guns because they’re afraid,” she said. “That’s part of it. But that’s not all of it.”Instead, Kelley also delves into the positive aspects of ownership, which she terms “gun gratifications.” She found these are frequently divided by gender, with men feeling more empowered by guns, while women are motivated by the sense of protection granted. (The survey collected responses from more than 3,100 individuals, offering a strong representative data set of the U.S. public.)On the other end of those studied are persons who claim they will never own a gun. This is mainly populated by respondents wrestling with an ideological issue. Many don’t believe guns are a part of “the good society.”“Also factoring in is the fear of violence,” Kelley added. “In many studies, guns are specifically equated with violence. In fact, the vast majority of guns will never be involved in a negative outcome. Yet it is hard to disassociate that connection, given the very severe violence that does happen and the fear that is generated by mass shootings and things.”Much of “Who Might Buy a Gun?” deals with society’s move toward what’s termed Gun Culture 2.0. This shift has fundamentally changed the central reasons for possessing a weapon.“Our original gun culture is very different than what our current one looks like,” Kelley said.“It used to be that guns were owned primarily for hunting and recreation. Just a generation before us, people kept shotguns and hunting rifles in their cars. They only had them around the home because they needed them for protection against animals. Since the 1960s, this culture of guns has been changing, and it is in large part an increase in handguns that are owned for personal protection. It is becoming the self-defense culture in a way.”That includes owners welcoming the empowerment associated with the weapons, which is becoming a less passive condition.“For people involved in having one for self-defense, it is something you think about when you get up in the morning. You have to ‘dress around the gun.’ You have to know which stores you can go into and which ones you can’t,” she said.Entering her sixth year at KU, Kelley developed her research in partnership with a parallel ethnographic study examining women and firearms. She’s turning this into a larger book project specifically focusing on the average woman shooter in middle America.“We don’t know the broader impact of changes in gun culture on social trust in a democratic society,”&nbsp;Kelley said.“But it is timely for us to recognize who is open to gun ownership. KU research has shown that those who own guns are more politically involved and might influence the future of politics. It is important to know the reasons that lead to owning – or not owning – a gun.”

Survey reveals diverse motives behind American gun ownership

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) — Members of five fraternities have been banned from the University of Kansas campus for 10 days after they violated public health guidelines aimed at stemming the spread of the coronavirus. In a campus message Friday announcing the ban, Vice Provost for Student Affairs Tammara Durham wrote that the university was “disappointed in the poor judgement demonstrated by these individuals.” 

The ban affects members of Delta Tau Delta, Phi Delta Theta, Phi Kappa Psi, Sigma Chi and Sigma Phi Epsilon. University spokesperson Erinn Barcomb-Peterson said the members of those fraternities would be prohibited from entering any “property, buildings, or other facilities of the University of Kansas, excluding Watkins Health Center.”

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) — Members of five fraternities have been banned from the University of Kansas campus for 10 days after they violated public health guidelines aimed at stemming the spread of the coronavirus. In a campus message Friday announcing the ban, Vice Provost for Student Affairs Tammara Durham wrote that the university was “disappointed in the poor judgement demonstrated by these individuals.” The ban affects members of Delta Tau Delta, Phi Delta Theta, Phi Kappa Psi, Sigma Chi and Sigma Phi Epsilon. University spokesperson Erinn Barcomb-Peterson said the members of those fraternities would be prohibited from entering any “property, buildings, or other facilities of the University of Kansas, excluding Watkins Health Center.”

5 frats banned from KU campus over alleged health violations 

TOPEKA —Kansas Senator Bud Estes has died, according to his family in a media release from Senate President Ty Masterson.

Estes, 74, of Dodge City was first elected to serve the<a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/members/sen_estes_bud_1/"> state's 38th District</a> in 2016 and reelected in 2020. Prior to his time in the Senate, Estes served in the House for four years representing the 119th District.

During his time in the Kansas Senate, Estes was chairman of the Federal and State Affairs Committee and Vice Chair of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1613236213367.png" alt="State Senator Bud Estes" />
 <figcaption>State Senator Bud Estes</figcaption>
 </figure>TOPEKA —Kansas Senator Bud Estes has died, according to his family in a media release from Senate President Ty Masterson.Estes, 74, of Dodge City was first elected to serve the<a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/members/sen_estes_bud_1/"> state's 38th District</a> in 2016 and reelected in 2020. Prior to his time in the Senate, Estes served in the House for four years representing the 119th District.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">My deepest sympathy to the family of Republican State Sen. Bud Estes, who passed away early this morning. We may not have always agreed, but we could always talk and his voice, on the floor and in our lives, will be missed. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ksleg?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ksleg</a>&mdash; Lynn Rogers (@LynnRogers4KS) <a href="https://twitter.com/LynnRogers4KS/status/1360629269265854468?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 13, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>During his time in the Kansas Senate, Estes was chairman of the Federal and State Affairs Committee and Vice Chair of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Republican State Senator from SW Kansas has died

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A proposal aimed at keeping transgender students out of girls’ and women’s sports is attracting enough interest in the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature to worry LGBTQ advocates.

A conservative Republican lawmaker introduced&nbsp;<a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/sb208/" target="_blank">the measure</a>&nbsp;this week in the state Senate. An Education Committee hearing hasn’t been set, but the committee chair said the bill is designed to ensure “the playing field is fair” in girls’ and women’s sports.

“It’s been a hot topic,” said Senate Majority Leader Gene Suellentrop, a Wichita Republican. “There’s a great interest in that by a large segment of the Republican caucus.”

The Kansas State High School Activities Association, which oversees sports and other activities, has been notified of five transgender students who are active in middle school or high school activities. Bill Faflick, its executive director, said Friday that he assumes most or all are athletes, because other activities are gender-neutral. The association does not track the individual students’ performance, and there’s no record of a transgender athlete winning a championship.

Kansas is among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/montana-bills-judiciary-helena-060d274f606d9e8e08b786be0398efd3">at least eight states</a>&nbsp;that are considering banning transgender girls and women from competing in girls’ or women’s sports in K-12 schools and colleges. In Tennessee, Republican&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-judiciary-75aecf3b586e90f590944a54094d394a">Gov. Bill Lee said Wednesday</a>&nbsp;that allowing participation by transgender students “will destroy women’s sports.”

An executive order from Democratic President Joe Biden prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in school sports and elsewhere sparked a backlash from conservative groups. In the U.S. Senate, Kansas Republican Roger Marshall is also backing legislation that would keep transgender athletes from participating in girls’ or women’s sports.

“I just want to ensure that women have the same opportunity that I had a college athlete, to have a fair and equitable playing field,” said state Sen. Renee Erickson, a former college basketball point guard, the Wichita Republican behind the measure. “It’s protecting discrimination against women.”

Proposals&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/legislature-kansas-legislation-topeka-state-legislature-9f41644482b94ad9224f9064f403b3ae">to criminalize medical treatments</a>&nbsp;that help transgender minors transition to their gender identities also have been introduced in the Kansas House and Senate but appear unlikely to get hearings.

Equality Kansas, the state’s leading LGBTQ-rights group, has in recent years fought to keep such proposals from getting even a committee hearing, arguing that greater visibility for them spurs more harassment of kids who already face a high level of bullying.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2c46ae35e332f7ebc9d90267055f8cf6">A similar House bill&nbsp;</a>on transgender athletes last year never got a hearing.

Tom Witt, the group’s executive director, sees such measures as conservatives’ reaction to being unable to bar gay marriage since a 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Almost every single anti-LGBT bill that’s been introduced since marriage was legalized has been targeted at children,” Witt said. “They’re schoolkids — they’re in school. They can’t be up here fighting this stuff.”

Freshman Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Byers, of Wichita, the Legislature’s first transgender member, said the dearth of transgender champions in girl’s and women’s sports shows that there’s no fairness-in-competition issue. The Kansas activities association has for about a decade&nbsp;<a href="http://www.kshsaa.org/Public/PDF/TransgenderPolicyRecommendations.pdf" target="_blank">had a policy&nbsp;</a>under which schools can allow transgender students to play on teams associated with their gender identities. Schools are supposed to notify the association when they do.

Byers said the push for the measure contrasts with lawmakers’ concerns about how K-12 schools’ move to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic has potentially damaged kids’ mental health because, among other things, some have restricted sports.

“Now, we see them intentionally trying to prevent kids from participating in athletics because of gender identity, completely unaware that it’s going to cause mental health issues that are completely unrepairable,” Byers said.

Republicans hold supermajorities in both legislative chambers, but some GOP lawmakers have misgivings about pursuing the measure on transgender athletes, including some conservatives.

At least a few worry that allowing a debate could spark a broader fight over LGBTQ rights — and force lawmakers to discuss expanding the state law against discrimination in employment and housing, which doesn’t specifically bar bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Might not like it — careful what you ask for,” said House Majority Leader Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican.

By JOHN HANNATOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A proposal aimed at keeping transgender students out of girls’ and women’s sports is attracting enough interest in the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature to worry LGBTQ advocates.A conservative Republican lawmaker introduced&nbsp;<a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/sb208/" target="_blank">the measure</a>&nbsp;this week in the state Senate. An Education Committee hearing hasn’t been set, but the committee chair said the bill is designed to ensure “the playing field is fair” in girls’ and women’s sports.“It’s been a hot topic,” said Senate Majority Leader Gene Suellentrop, a Wichita Republican. “There’s a great interest in that by a large segment of the Republican caucus.”The Kansas State High School Activities Association, which oversees sports and other activities, has been notified of five transgender students who are active in middle school or high school activities. Bill Faflick, its executive director, said Friday that he assumes most or all are athletes, because other activities are gender-neutral. The association does not track the individual students’ performance, and there’s no record of a transgender athlete winning a championship.Kansas is among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/montana-bills-judiciary-helena-060d274f606d9e8e08b786be0398efd3">at least eight states</a>&nbsp;that are considering banning transgender girls and women from competing in girls’ or women’s sports in K-12 schools and colleges. In Tennessee, Republican&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-judiciary-75aecf3b586e90f590944a54094d394a">Gov. Bill Lee said Wednesday</a>&nbsp;that allowing participation by transgender students “will destroy women’s sports.”An executive order from Democratic President Joe Biden prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in school sports and elsewhere sparked a backlash from conservative groups. In the U.S. Senate, Kansas Republican Roger Marshall is also backing legislation that would keep transgender athletes from participating in girls’ or women’s sports.“I just want to ensure that women have the same opportunity that I had a college athlete, to have a fair and equitable playing field,” said state Sen. Renee Erickson, a former college basketball point guard, the Wichita Republican behind the measure. “It’s protecting discrimination against women.”Proposals&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/legislature-kansas-legislation-topeka-state-legislature-9f41644482b94ad9224f9064f403b3ae">to criminalize medical treatments</a>&nbsp;that help transgender minors transition to their gender identities also have been introduced in the Kansas House and Senate but appear unlikely to get hearings.Equality Kansas, the state’s leading LGBTQ-rights group, has in recent years fought to keep such proposals from getting even a committee hearing, arguing that greater visibility for them spurs more harassment of kids who already face a high level of bullying.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2c46ae35e332f7ebc9d90267055f8cf6">A similar House bill&nbsp;</a>on transgender athletes last year never got a hearing.Tom Witt, the group’s executive director, sees such measures as conservatives’ reaction to being unable to bar gay marriage since a 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.“Almost every single anti-LGBT bill that’s been introduced since marriage was legalized has been targeted at children,” Witt said. “They’re schoolkids — they’re in school. They can’t be up here fighting this stuff.”Freshman Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Byers, of Wichita, the Legislature’s first transgender member, said the dearth of transgender champions in girl’s and women’s sports shows that there’s no fairness-in-competition issue. The Kansas activities association has for about a decade&nbsp;<a href="http://www.kshsaa.org/Public/PDF/TransgenderPolicyRecommendations.pdf" target="_blank">had a policy&nbsp;</a>under which schools can allow transgender students to play on teams associated with their gender identities. Schools are supposed to notify the association when they do.Byers said the push for the measure contrasts with lawmakers’ concerns about how K-12 schools’ move to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic has potentially damaged kids’ mental health because, among other things, some have restricted sports.“Now, we see them intentionally trying to prevent kids from participating in athletics because of gender identity, completely unaware that it’s going to cause mental health issues that are completely unrepairable,” Byers said.Republicans hold supermajorities in both legislative chambers, but some GOP lawmakers have misgivings about pursuing the measure on transgender athletes, including some conservatives.At least a few worry that allowing a debate could spark a broader fight over LGBTQ rights — and force lawmakers to discuss expanding the state law against discrimination in employment and housing, which doesn’t specifically bar bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity.“Might not like it — careful what you ask for,” said House Majority Leader Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican.

LGBTQ advocates watching Kan. proposal against transgender athletes

NEW YORK (AP) — About 1 in 3 Americans say they definitely or probably won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new poll that some experts say is discouraging news if the U.S. hopes to achieve herd immunity and vanquish the outbreak.

The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that while 67% of Americans plan to get vaccinated or have already done so, 15% are certain they won’t and 17% say probably not. Many expressed doubts about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.

The poll suggests that substantial skepticism persists more than a month and a half into a U.S. vaccination drive that has encountered few if any serious side effects. It found that resistance runs higher among younger people, people without college degrees, Black Americans and Republicans.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s leading infectious-disease scientist, has estimated that somewhere between 70% and 85% of the U.S. population needs to get inoculated to stop the scourge that has killed close to 470,000 Americans. More recently, he said the spread of more contagious variants of the virus increases the need for more people to get their shots — and quickly.

“No. No, no, no, no,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University expert on disease dynamics. He added: “You’re going to need to get quite large proportions of the population vaccinated before you see a real effect.”

Nearly 33 million Americans, or about 10% of the population, have received at least one dose, and 9.8 million have been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

The poll of 1,055 adults, taken Jan. 28 through Feb. 1, provides insight into the skepticism.

Of those who said they definitely will not get the vaccine, 65% cited worries about side effects, despite the shots’ safety record over the past months. About the same percentage said they don’t trust COVID-19 vaccines. And 38% said they don’t believe they need a vaccine, with a similar share saying that they don’t know if a COVID-19 vaccine will work and that they don’t trust the government.

Of those who probably will not get the vaccine but have not ruled it out completely, 63% said they are waiting to see if it is safe, and 60% said they are concerned about possible side effects.

“I don’t trust pharmaceuticals. I really don’t. And it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be safe,” said Debra Nanez, a 67-year-old retired nurse from Tucson, Arizona.

Nanez said she has gotten flu and pneumonia shots but is concerned about rumors about what’s in the coronavirus vaccine, and her friends have the same hesitation.

“It would take a while for me to do research on it to make sure it’s safe. I just don’t want to take anything that’s going to harm me,” she said.

Baron Walker, a 42-year-old laid-off insulation installer from Parkersburg, West Virginia, said he is in the “probably not” column, at least for now.

He said that if he were elderly, or lived in a densely populated area, he might consider the vaccine more strongly. But he is in rural part of the country, he has been wearing a mask and social-distancing, and he feels there is a good chance the nation will achieve herd immunity, he said.

“I feel like I have plenty of time before I get a chance to get (the vaccine) anyway, to find out if there are bad side effects and whether it’s even worth getting it,” Walker said.

In interviews, some Americans expressed concerns about the revolutionary speed with which the vaccines were developed — less than a year.

“I feel like they rushed it,” Walker said.

That was echoed by Matt Helderman, 31, of Greer, South Carolina.

“I’d like to see more safety data,” said Helderman, a video editor and associate producer for a Christian TV program. He also said that he would like to see more clarity on whether the vaccine is effective against new variants.

Health officials are trying to counter concerns about the vaccine with science.

The latest evidence indicates that the two vaccines being used in the U.S. — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — are effective even against the variants, Fauci said.

Also, while the development of the vaccines was unusually fast, it was the culmination of many years of research. And the vaccines went through clinical trials involving thousands of people who were monitored for 60 days after their last dose. Studies of other vaccines have found that harmful side effects almost always materialize within 45 days.

“Safety certainly was not compromised, nor was scientific integrity compromised,” Fauci said. “Many have reason for skepticism. But I think that when you explain the facts and the data to them, you can win them over.”

NEW YORK (AP) — About 1 in 3 Americans say they definitely or probably won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new poll that some experts say is discouraging news if the U.S. hopes to achieve herd immunity and vanquish the outbreak.The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that while 67% of Americans plan to get vaccinated or have already done so, 15% are certain they won’t and 17% say probably not. Many expressed doubts about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.The poll suggests that substantial skepticism persists more than a month and a half into a U.S. vaccination drive that has encountered few if any serious side effects. It found that resistance runs higher among younger people, people without college degrees, Black Americans and Republicans.Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s leading infectious-disease scientist, has estimated that somewhere between 70% and 85% of the U.S. population needs to get inoculated to stop the scourge that has killed close to 470,000 Americans. More recently, he said the spread of more contagious variants of the virus increases the need for more people to get their shots — and quickly.So is 67% of Americans enough?“No. No, no, no, no,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University expert on disease dynamics. He added: “You’re going to need to get quite large proportions of the population vaccinated before you see a real effect.”Nearly 33 million Americans, or about 10% of the population, have received at least one dose, and 9.8 million have been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.The poll of 1,055 adults, taken Jan. 28 through Feb. 1, provides insight into the skepticism.Of those who said they definitely will not get the vaccine, 65% cited worries about side effects, despite the shots’ safety record over the past months. About the same percentage said they don’t trust COVID-19 vaccines. And 38% said they don’t believe they need a vaccine, with a similar share saying that they don’t know if a COVID-19 vaccine will work and that they don’t trust the government.Of those who probably will not get the vaccine but have not ruled it out completely, 63% said they are waiting to see if it is safe, and 60% said they are concerned about possible side effects.“I don’t trust pharmaceuticals. I really don’t. And it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be safe,” said Debra Nanez, a 67-year-old retired nurse from Tucson, Arizona.Nanez said she has gotten flu and pneumonia shots but is concerned about rumors about what’s in the coronavirus vaccine, and her friends have the same hesitation.“It would take a while for me to do research on it to make sure it’s safe. I just don’t want to take anything that’s going to harm me,” she said.Baron Walker, a 42-year-old laid-off insulation installer from Parkersburg, West Virginia, said he is in the “probably not” column, at least for now.He said that if he were elderly, or lived in a densely populated area, he might consider the vaccine more strongly. But he is in rural part of the country, he has been wearing a mask and social-distancing, and he feels there is a good chance the nation will achieve herd immunity, he said.“I feel like I have plenty of time before I get a chance to get (the vaccine) anyway, to find out if there are bad side effects and whether it’s even worth getting it,” Walker said.In interviews, some Americans expressed concerns about the revolutionary speed with which the vaccines were developed — less than a year.“I feel like they rushed it,” Walker said.That was echoed by Matt Helderman, 31, of Greer, South Carolina.“I’d like to see more safety data,” said Helderman, a video editor and associate producer for a Christian TV program. He also said that he would like to see more clarity on whether the vaccine is effective against new variants.Health officials are trying to counter concerns about the vaccine with science.The latest evidence indicates that the two vaccines being used in the U.S. — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — are effective even against the variants, Fauci said.Also, while the development of the vaccines was unusually fast, it was the culmination of many years of research. And the vaccines went through clinical trials involving thousands of people who were monitored for 60 days after their last dose. Studies of other vaccines have found that harmful side effects almost always materialize within 45 days.“Safety certainly was not compromised, nor was scientific integrity compromised,” Fauci said. “Many have reason for skepticism. But I think that when you explain the facts and the data to them, you can win them over.”The survey found that older Americans, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19, are especially likely to say they have received a shot or will probably or definitely get vaccinated. Four in 10 of those under 45 say they will probably or definitely not get a vaccine, compared with a quarter of those older.Black Americans appear less likely than white Americans to say they have received the shot or will definitely or probably get vaccinated, 57% versus 68%. Among Hispanic Americans, 65% say they have gotten or plan to get the vaccine.Public health experts have long known that some Black Americans are distrustful of the medical establishment because of its history of abuses, including the infamous Tuskegee study, in which Black patients with syphilis were left untreated so that doctors could study the disease.Americans without a college degree are more likely than college-educated ones to say they will definitely or probably not get vaccinated, 40% versus 17%. And Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that, 44% versus 17%.___