SEDGWICK COUNTY — Two teens accused in the&nbsp;sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl, which they allegedly recorded and posted on Snapchat are due in court Friday morning, according to the Sedgwick County District Attorney.

&nbsp;David Clark, 18, is being held on requested charges of rape and&nbsp; aggravated sexual battery.

Ethan Garrett, 19, is being held on requested charges of aggravated sexual battery and sexual exploitation of a child.&nbsp;

On May 28, police contacted a 17-year-old girl at a Wichita area hospital regarding a sexual assault report.&nbsp; 

The victim reported being sexually assaulted while at a friend’s home in an incoherent state and the incident being videoed and put on the social media platform Snapchat, according to Officer Charley Davidson.

Wichita Police Domestic violence/sex crimes detectives, crime linkage unit detectives and officers from the Domestic Intervention Violence Reduction Team (DIVRT) collaborated and followed up on the case, identifying Garrett and Clark both of Wichita being involved in the assault.

On June 3, the suspects were booked into the Sedgwick County Jail and released the following day after posting bond.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1622835347409.png" alt="Clark-photo Sedgwick Co." />
 <figcaption>Clark-photo Sedgwick Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>SEDGWICK COUNTY — Two teens accused in the&nbsp;sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl, which they allegedly recorded and posted on Snapchat are due in court Friday morning, according to the Sedgwick County District Attorney.&nbsp;David Clark, 18, is being held on requested charges of rape and&nbsp; aggravated sexual battery.Ethan Garrett, 19, is being held on requested charges of aggravated sexual battery and sexual exploitation of a child.&nbsp;<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1622835416251.png" alt="Garrett" />
 <figcaption>Garrett</figcaption>
 </figure>On May 28, police contacted a 17-year-old girl at a Wichita area hospital regarding a sexual assault report.&nbsp; The victim reported being sexually assaulted while at a friend’s home in an incoherent state and the incident being videoed and put on the social media platform Snapchat, according to Officer Charley Davidson.Wichita Police Domestic violence/sex crimes detectives, crime linkage unit detectives and officers from the Domestic Intervention Violence Reduction Team (DIVRT) collaborated and followed up on the case, identifying Garrett and Clark both of Wichita being involved in the assault.On June 3, the suspects were booked into the Sedgwick County Jail and released the following day after posting bond.

Teens in alleged sex assault on social media set for court

WASHINGTON (AP) — In another victory for religious groups at the Supreme Court, the justices on Thursday&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20949863-fulton-v-philadelphia" target="_blank">unanimously sided with a Catholic foster care agency</a>&nbsp;that says its religious views prevent it from working with same-sex couples. The court said the city of Philadelphia wrongly limited its relationship with the group as a result of the agency’s policy.

The ruling was specific to the facts of the case, sidestepping bigger questions about how to balance religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. Instead, the outcome turned on the language in the city’s foster care contract. Three conservative justices would have gone much further, and LGBTQ groups said they were relieved that the decision was limited.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a majority of the court that Catholic Social Services “seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”

Roberts concluded that Philadelphia’s refusal to “contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents ... violates the First Amendment.”

Roberts noted that no same-sex couple has ever asked to work with Catholic Social Services, which is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. If that were to happen, that couple would be referred to one of the more than 20 other agencies that works with same-sex couples, Catholic Social Services has said.

“For over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs,” said Roberts, one of seven members of the court who is Catholic or attended Catholic schools.

Because of its beliefs, the Catholic agency also does not certify unmarried couples.

In recent years, religious groups have been delighted by victories at the court, often by wide margins. That includes cases in which the court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/courts-constitutions-scholarships-me-state-wire-education-a34a94bd7a81996419400152631c2fd7">lifted a ban on state aid to religious schooling</a>, gave religious schools&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-business-courts-supreme-courts-religion-f5ae6a964560a9d8adf9792eb4803a36">greater leeway to hire and fire teachers</a>&nbsp;and allowed a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117">cross to remain on public land</a>. More recently, the court repeatedly sided with religious groups in fights over coronavirus restrictions.

Philadelphia learned in 2018 from a newspaper reporter that Catholic Social Services would not certify same-sex couples to become foster parents. The city has said it requires the foster care agencies it works with not to discriminate as part of their contracts. The city asked Catholic Social Services to change its policy, but the group declined.

As a result, Philadelphia stopped referring additional children to the agency. Catholic Social Services sued, but&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/84ea70ed3ce045c0991ff4585520f849">lower courts</a>&nbsp;sided with Philadelphia.

In coming to the conclusion that Philadelphia had acted improperly, Roberts said the city gave Catholic Social Services a choice between “curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs.”

He also pointed to language in the city’s standard foster care contract. The contract says that agencies cannot reject prospective foster or adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation “unless an exception is granted.” Because the city created a process for granting exemptions, it cannot then deny Catholic Social Services an exemption, Roberts concluded.

The case’s outcome was similar to a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/north-america-ap-top-news-courts-supreme-courts-politics-459b5e723c4c47ffa40df839097503c9">2018 decision</a>&nbsp;in which the court sided with a Colorado baker who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. That decision, too, was limited to the specific facts of the case and dodged bigger issues of how to balance religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. But the court has grown more conservative since that ruling.

In “both cases the court reached narrow, very fact-specific decisions that leave non-discrimination laws and policies standing and fully enforceable by governments,” said Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ &amp; HIV Project, which was involved in the case on Philadelphia’s side.

Three conservative justices who joined Roberts’ opinion said they would have gone further. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have overruled a 1990 Supreme Court decision that they said improperly allows limits on religious freedom.

Alito called the court’s ruling Thursday a “wisp of a decision.” Gorsuch said it was an “(ir)resolution,” predicting that the litigation would continue, with the city perhaps rewriting its contract.

Philadelphia City Solicitor Diana Cortes said the ruling was a “difficult and disappointing setback.”

In a statement, she said the court had “usurped the City’s judgment that a nondiscrimination policy is in the best interests of the children in its care.” But she said the city was also “gratified” that the justices did not “radically change existing constitutional law to adopt a standard that would force court-ordered religious exemptions from civic obligations in every arena.”

A lawyer with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who argued the case on behalf of Catholic Social Services called it a “common-sense ruling in favor of religious social services.”

“The Supreme Court recognized that CSS has been doing amazing work for many years and can continue that work in the city of Philadelphia,” Lori Windham said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In another victory for religious groups at the Supreme Court, the justices on Thursday&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20949863-fulton-v-philadelphia" target="_blank">unanimously sided with a Catholic foster care agency</a>&nbsp;that says its religious views prevent it from working with same-sex couples. The court said the city of Philadelphia wrongly limited its relationship with the group as a result of the agency’s policy.The ruling was specific to the facts of the case, sidestepping bigger questions about how to balance religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. Instead, the outcome turned on the language in the city’s foster care contract. Three conservative justices would have gone much further, and LGBTQ groups said they were relieved that the decision was limited.Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a majority of the court that Catholic Social Services “seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”Roberts concluded that Philadelphia’s refusal to “contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents ... violates the First Amendment.”Roberts noted that no same-sex couple has ever asked to work with Catholic Social Services, which is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. If that were to happen, that couple would be referred to one of the more than 20 other agencies that works with same-sex couples, Catholic Social Services has said.“For over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs,” said Roberts, one of seven members of the court who is Catholic or attended Catholic schools.Because of its beliefs, the Catholic agency also does not certify unmarried couples.In recent years, religious groups have been delighted by victories at the court, often by wide margins. That includes cases in which the court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/courts-constitutions-scholarships-me-state-wire-education-a34a94bd7a81996419400152631c2fd7">lifted a ban on state aid to religious schooling</a>, gave religious schools&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-business-courts-supreme-courts-religion-f5ae6a964560a9d8adf9792eb4803a36">greater leeway to hire and fire teachers</a>&nbsp;and allowed a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117">cross to remain on public land</a>. More recently, the court repeatedly sided with religious groups in fights over coronavirus restrictions.Philadelphia learned in 2018 from a newspaper reporter that Catholic Social Services would not certify same-sex couples to become foster parents. The city has said it requires the foster care agencies it works with not to discriminate as part of their contracts. The city asked Catholic Social Services to change its policy, but the group declined.As a result, Philadelphia stopped referring additional children to the agency. Catholic Social Services sued, but&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/84ea70ed3ce045c0991ff4585520f849">lower courts</a>&nbsp;sided with Philadelphia.In coming to the conclusion that Philadelphia had acted improperly, Roberts said the city gave Catholic Social Services a choice between “curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs.”He also pointed to language in the city’s standard foster care contract. The contract says that agencies cannot reject prospective foster or adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation “unless an exception is granted.” Because the city created a process for granting exemptions, it cannot then deny Catholic Social Services an exemption, Roberts concluded.The case’s outcome was similar to a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/north-america-ap-top-news-courts-supreme-courts-politics-459b5e723c4c47ffa40df839097503c9">2018 decision</a>&nbsp;in which the court sided with a Colorado baker who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. That decision, too, was limited to the specific facts of the case and dodged bigger issues of how to balance religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. But the court has grown more conservative since that ruling.In “both cases the court reached narrow, very fact-specific decisions that leave non-discrimination laws and policies standing and fully enforceable by governments,” said Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ &amp; HIV Project, which was involved in the case on Philadelphia’s side.Three conservative justices who joined Roberts’ opinion said they would have gone further. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have overruled a 1990 Supreme Court decision that they said improperly allows limits on religious freedom.Alito called the court’s ruling Thursday a “wisp of a decision.” Gorsuch said it was an “(ir)resolution,” predicting that the litigation would continue, with the city perhaps rewriting its contract.Philadelphia City Solicitor Diana Cortes said the ruling was a “difficult and disappointing setback.”In a statement, she said the court had “usurped the City’s judgment that a nondiscrimination policy is in the best interests of the children in its care.” But she said the city was also “gratified” that the justices did not “radically change existing constitutional law to adopt a standard that would force court-ordered religious exemptions from civic obligations in every arena.”A lawyer with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who argued the case on behalf of Catholic Social Services called it a “common-sense ruling in favor of religious social services.”“The Supreme Court recognized that CSS has been doing amazing work for many years and can continue that work in the city of Philadelphia,” Lori Windham said.___

Another victory at the Supreme Court for church groups

SHAWNEE COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities are investigating a fire and have made an arrest.

Just before 5:00 P.M. on June 15, the Topeka Fire Department responded to a possible bedroom fire at 3626 SW Chelsea Drive, according to department spokesperson Alan Stahl. 

Upon arrival, fire crews found a small amount of smoke in an upstairs bedroom from a firework discharge. An investigator was called to the scene, and after an initial investigation, he arrested 20-year-old Johnathan Enquist for Attempted Aggravated Arson. He was booked into the Shawnee County Department of Corrections.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623979431101.png" alt="Enquist photo Shawnee Co." />
 <figcaption>Enquist photo Shawnee Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>SHAWNEE COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities are investigating a fire and have made an arrest.Just before 5:00 P.M. on June 15, the Topeka Fire Department responded to a possible bedroom fire at 3626 SW Chelsea Drive, according to department spokesperson Alan Stahl. Upon arrival, fire crews found a small amount of smoke in an upstairs bedroom from a firework discharge. An investigator was called to the scene, and after an initial investigation, he arrested 20-year-old Johnathan Enquist for Attempted Aggravated Arson. He was booked into the Shawnee County Department of Corrections.

Kan. man accused of arson after firework starts fire

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — Missouri's Republican governor and attorney general said in a defiant letter to the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday that they stand by the state's new law that would ban police from enforcing federal gun rules.

<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2021-6-17-ltr-boynton.pdf?sfvrsn=ae1b68e_2">Click here to read&nbsp;</a>the full letter&nbsp;

Gov. Mike Parson and Attorney General Eric Schmitt&nbsp;<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2021-6-17-ltr-boynton.pdf?sfvrsn=ae1b68e_2">wrote</a>&nbsp;that they still plan to enforce the new law, which Parson signed Saturday. The measure penalizes local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.

Schmitt and Parson wrote that they will “fight tooth and nail” to defend the right to own guns as spelled out in the state constitution and the new law.

“We will not tolerate any attempts by the federal government to deprive Missourians of this critical civil right,” they wrote.

In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-michael-brown-gun-politics-laws-government-and-politics-6b8d2b283a6ac997262104899a3b0715">Justice Department officials pointed out</a>&nbsp;that federal law trumps state law under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Brian Boynton, an acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in the letter that Missouri's law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local law enforcement and noted that the state receives federal grants and technical assistance.

Missouri’s new law would subject law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforce federal gun laws to a fine of about $50,000 per violating officer.

Boynton said Missouri’s law “conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulation” and that federal law would supersede the state’s new statute. He said federal agents and the U.S. attorney’s offices in the state would continue to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. He asked that Parson and Schmitt clarify the law and how it would work in a response by Friday.

Republican lawmakers who pushed Missouri’s new law said they were motivated by the potential for more restrictive gun laws under Democratic President Joe Biden.

Republican Sen. Eric Burlison, of Battlefield, helped pass the bill and said he's not aware of any federal gun laws currently enforced that are not also illegal under state law. But he said the legislation, HB 85, will prevent local law enforcement from enforcing any “wild ideas” later enacted under Biden.

“If this administration wants to go down a path of enforcing unconstitutional gun grabs, then our law enforcement officers, through HB 85, will not be lifting a finger to help them," Burlison said.

State Democrats have argued the law is unconstitutional and will likely get overturned if challenged in court.

Similar bills were introduced in more than a dozen other states this year, including Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Iowa. In Texas, the governor has called for the state to become a so-called Second Amendment sanctuary.

Several states passed similar laws under then-president Barack Obama, though judges have ruled against them.

Prosecutors in Missouri's attorney general's office have withdrawn from nearly two dozen federal drug, gun and carjacking cases in St. Louis, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/missouri-attorney-general-schmitts-prosecutors-pulled-from-federal-violent-crime-cases/article_c48b7fa3-cf53-59b9-8db4-b227918db557.html?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=user-share">reported</a>. They had been working with federal counterparts as part of the Safer Streets initiative that Schmitt touted in 2019.

Schmitt spokesman Chris Nuelle said in a statement that the Attorney General's Office has been replacing prosecutors “as is the natural course in the Safer Streets Initiative.”

“We have been and continue to be committed to fighting violent crime, and we’re also committed to protecting law abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Nuelle said.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Governor Mike Parson on Thursday sent a letter to President Biden’s Department of Justice fighting back against potential federal overreach and encroachment on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights, according to a statement from Parson's office.

<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2021-6-17-ltr-boynton.pdf?sfvrsn=ae1b68e_2">Click here to read&nbsp;</a>the full letter&nbsp; “Missourians’ and Americans’ Second Amendment rights are enshrined in the Constitution – I will defend those rights at every turn,” said&nbsp;Attorney General Schmitt. “Our letter to Biden’s Department of Justice sends a clear message: we will fight any attempts from the federal government to encroach on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” “The Second Amendment Preservation Act is about protecting law-abiding Missourians against government overreach&nbsp;and unconstitutional federal mandates,"&nbsp;Governor Parson&nbsp;said. "We will reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property. Throughout my career, I have always stood for the Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, and that will not change today or any day." The letter, which is in response to the Department of Justice’s Wednesday letter to both the Attorney General and the Governor on the recently passed and signed Second Amendment Preservation Act, begins with, “Your letter purporting to ask for clarification of this important legislation, which was purposefully leaked to the news media, is riddled with a misunderstanding of the law and falsehoods. We will not stand by while the federal government tries to tell Missourians how to live our lives. Missouri is not attempting to nullify federal law. Instead, Missouri is defending its people from federal government overreach by prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from being used by the federal government to infringe Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms.”

The letter argues that, under the Second and Tenth Amendments, the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable, and that Missouri has the right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional infringements by the federal government. The letter states, “Likewise, the Tenth Amendment directly limits the Federal Government’s ability to shift the balance of power within the federal system away from the States… the State of Missouri has every right under our system of government and the Tenth Amendment to place limitations on what state and local officials may do.” The letter also notes the Department of Justice’s June 16 letter conflicts with their own policy toward “sanctuary cities,” stating, “On his first day in office, President Biden rescinded President Trump’s executive order that prohibited federal grant awards to sanctuary jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with the federal government to enforcement immigration laws. In April, the Office of Justice Programs reportedly repealed the Department of Justice’s policy that required recipients of a law enforcement grant to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a condition of their funding… President Biden and the Department of Justice have decided to reward states and cities that refuse to cooperate with enforcing constitutional immigration laws that protect our citizens against foreign threats, but now they attack Missouri for refusing to cooperate with enforcing unconstitutional gun confiscation laws that put our citizens in danger and degrade their rights.” The letter ends with, “We will fight tooth and nail to defend the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, Article I, § 23 of the Missouri Constitution, and the Second Amendment Preservation Act.&nbsp; And we will not tolerate any attempt by the federal government to deprive Missourians of this critical civil right.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623963444576.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — Missouri's Republican governor and attorney general said in a defiant letter to the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday that they stand by the state's new law that would ban police from enforcing federal gun rules.<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2021-6-17-ltr-boynton.pdf?sfvrsn=ae1b68e_2">Click here to read&nbsp;</a>the full letter&nbsp;<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623695079192.png" alt="Gov. Parson celebrated signing the gun rights bill June 12" />
 <figcaption>Gov. Parson celebrated signing the gun rights bill June 12</figcaption>
 </figure>Gov. Mike Parson and Attorney General Eric Schmitt&nbsp;<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2021-6-17-ltr-boynton.pdf?sfvrsn=ae1b68e_2">wrote</a>&nbsp;that they still plan to enforce the new law, which Parson signed Saturday. The measure penalizes local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.Schmitt and Parson wrote that they will “fight tooth and nail” to defend the right to own guns as spelled out in the state constitution and the new law.“We will not tolerate any attempts by the federal government to deprive Missourians of this critical civil right,” they wrote.In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-michael-brown-gun-politics-laws-government-and-politics-6b8d2b283a6ac997262104899a3b0715">Justice Department officials pointed out</a>&nbsp;that federal law trumps state law under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.Brian Boynton, an acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in the letter that Missouri's law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local law enforcement and noted that the state receives federal grants and technical assistance.Missouri’s new law would subject law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforce federal gun laws to a fine of about $50,000 per violating officer.Boynton said Missouri’s law “conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulation” and that federal law would supersede the state’s new statute. He said federal agents and the U.S. attorney’s offices in the state would continue to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. He asked that Parson and Schmitt clarify the law and how it would work in a response by Friday.Schmitt is running for U.S. Senate.Republican lawmakers who pushed Missouri’s new law said they were motivated by the potential for more restrictive gun laws under Democratic President Joe Biden.Republican Sen. Eric Burlison, of Battlefield, helped pass the bill and said he's not aware of any federal gun laws currently enforced that are not also illegal under state law. But he said the legislation, HB 85, will prevent local law enforcement from enforcing any “wild ideas” later enacted under Biden.“If this administration wants to go down a path of enforcing unconstitutional gun grabs, then our law enforcement officers, through HB 85, will not be lifting a finger to help them," Burlison said.State Democrats have argued the law is unconstitutional and will likely get overturned if challenged in court.Similar bills were introduced in more than a dozen other states this year, including Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Iowa. In Texas, the governor has called for the state to become a so-called Second Amendment sanctuary.Several states passed similar laws under then-president Barack Obama, though judges have ruled against them.Prosecutors in Missouri's attorney general's office have withdrawn from nearly two dozen federal drug, gun and carjacking cases in St. Louis, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/missouri-attorney-general-schmitts-prosecutors-pulled-from-federal-violent-crime-cases/article_c48b7fa3-cf53-59b9-8db4-b227918db557.html?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=user-share">reported</a>. They had been working with federal counterparts as part of the Safer Streets initiative that Schmitt touted in 2019.Schmitt spokesman Chris Nuelle said in a statement that the Attorney General's Office has been replacing prosecutors “as is the natural course in the Safer Streets Initiative.”“We have been and continue to be committed to fighting violent crime, and we’re also committed to protecting law abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Nuelle said.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Governor Mike Parson on Thursday sent a letter to President Biden’s Department of Justice fighting back against potential federal overreach and encroachment on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights, according to a statement from Parson's office.<a href="https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2021-6-17-ltr-boynton.pdf?sfvrsn=ae1b68e_2">Click here to read&nbsp;</a>the full letter&nbsp; “Missourians’ and Americans’ Second Amendment rights are enshrined in the Constitution – I will defend those rights at every turn,” said&nbsp;Attorney General Schmitt. “Our letter to Biden’s Department of Justice sends a clear message: we will fight any attempts from the federal government to encroach on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” “The Second Amendment Preservation Act is about protecting law-abiding Missourians against government overreach&nbsp;and unconstitutional federal mandates,"&nbsp;Governor Parson&nbsp;said. "We will reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property. Throughout my career, I have always stood for the Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, and that will not change today or any day." The letter, which is in response to the Department of Justice’s Wednesday letter to both the Attorney General and the Governor on the recently passed and signed Second Amendment Preservation Act, begins with, “Your letter purporting to ask for clarification of this important legislation, which was purposefully leaked to the news media, is riddled with a misunderstanding of the law and falsehoods. We will not stand by while the federal government tries to tell Missourians how to live our lives. Missouri is not attempting to nullify federal law. Instead, Missouri is defending its people from federal government overreach by prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from being used by the federal government to infringe Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms.”The letter argues that, under the Second and Tenth Amendments, the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable, and that Missouri has the right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional infringements by the federal government. The letter states, “Likewise, the Tenth Amendment directly limits the Federal Government’s ability to shift the balance of power within the federal system away from the States… the State of Missouri has every right under our system of government and the Tenth Amendment to place limitations on what state and local officials may do.” The letter also notes the Department of Justice’s June 16 letter conflicts with their own policy toward “sanctuary cities,” stating, “On his first day in office, President Biden rescinded President Trump’s executive order that prohibited federal grant awards to sanctuary jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with the federal government to enforcement immigration laws. In April, the Office of Justice Programs reportedly repealed the Department of Justice’s policy that required recipients of a law enforcement grant to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a condition of their funding… President Biden and the Department of Justice have decided to reward states and cities that refuse to cooperate with enforcing constitutional immigration laws that protect our citizens against foreign threats, but now they attack Missouri for refusing to cooperate with enforcing unconstitutional gun confiscation laws that put our citizens in danger and degrade their rights.” The letter ends with, “We will fight tooth and nail to defend the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, Article I, § 23 of the Missouri Constitution, and the Second Amendment Preservation Act.&nbsp; And we will not tolerate any attempt by the federal government to deprive Missourians of this critical civil right.

Missouri responds defiantly to Justice Dept. over gun law

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is devoting $3.2 billion to speed development of antiviral pills to treat COVID-19 and other dangerous viruses that could turn into pandemics.

The new program will invest in “accelerating things that are already in progress” for COVID-19 but also would work to come up with treatments for other viruses, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert. He announced the investment Thursday at a White House briefing.

“There are few treatments that exist for many of the viruses that have pandemic potential,” he said, including Ebola, dengue, West Nile and Middle East respiratory syndrome.

But he added, “vaccines clearly remain the centerpiece of our arsenal.

The U.S. has approved one antiviral drug, remdesivir, specifically for COVID-19, and allowed emergency use of three antibody therapies that help the immune system fight the virus. But all the drugs have to given by IV at hospitals or medical clinics, and demand has been low due to these logistical hurdles.

Health experts have increasingly called for a convenient pill that patients could take themselves when symptoms first appear. Some drugmakers are testing such medications, but initial results aren’t expected for several more months. The new funds will speed those tests and support private sector research, development and manufacturing.

Last week, the U.S. said it would purchase 1.7 million doses of an experimental antiviral pill from Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, if it is shown to be safe and effective. Results from a large study of the drug, molnupiravir, are expected this fall. Early research suggests the drug may reduce the risk of hospitalization if used shortly after infection by stopping the coronavirus from quickly reproducing. It did not benefit patients who were already hospitalized with severe disease.

Several other companies, including Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca, are also testing antiviral pills.

The currently available drugs have mostly been shown to help patients avoid hospitalization or shorten their recovery time by several days.

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. poured more than $19 billion into rapidly developing multiple vaccines. But less than half that amount went toward developing new treatments. That shortfall has become increasingly concerning as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-62342c09ad0a50f77739846fd25850e7">the vaccination campaign slows</a>&nbsp;and experts emphasize the need to manage the disease in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-0f0b89c8060da6dcce74057d2324dc44">millions of Americans who may never get the shots.</a>

Until this week, the only medicines shown to boost survival were steroids given to patients sick enough to need extra oxygen and intensive care. But on Wednesday, U.K. researchers reported that one of the antibody combinations successfully reduced deaths in a large study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623944137417.png" alt="Dr. Fauci during Thursday White House COVID-19 briefing-photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>Dr. Fauci during Thursday White House COVID-19 briefing-photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is devoting $3.2 billion to speed development of antiviral pills to treat COVID-19 and other dangerous viruses that could turn into pandemics.The new program will invest in “accelerating things that are already in progress” for COVID-19 but also would work to come up with treatments for other viruses, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert. He announced the investment Thursday at a White House briefing.“There are few treatments that exist for many of the viruses that have pandemic potential,” he said, including Ebola, dengue, West Nile and Middle East respiratory syndrome.But he added, “vaccines clearly remain the centerpiece of our arsenal.The U.S. has approved one antiviral drug, remdesivir, specifically for COVID-19, and allowed emergency use of three antibody therapies that help the immune system fight the virus. But all the drugs have to given by IV at hospitals or medical clinics, and demand has been low due to these logistical hurdles.Health experts have increasingly called for a convenient pill that patients could take themselves when symptoms first appear. Some drugmakers are testing such medications, but initial results aren’t expected for several more months. The new funds will speed those tests and support private sector research, development and manufacturing.Last week, the U.S. said it would purchase 1.7 million doses of an experimental antiviral pill from Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, if it is shown to be safe and effective. Results from a large study of the drug, molnupiravir, are expected this fall. Early research suggests the drug may reduce the risk of hospitalization if used shortly after infection by stopping the coronavirus from quickly reproducing. It did not benefit patients who were already hospitalized with severe disease.Several other companies, including Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca, are also testing antiviral pills.The currently available drugs have mostly been shown to help patients avoid hospitalization or shorten their recovery time by several days.Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. poured more than $19 billion into rapidly developing multiple vaccines. But less than half that amount went toward developing new treatments. That shortfall has become increasingly concerning as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-62342c09ad0a50f77739846fd25850e7">the vaccination campaign slows</a>&nbsp;and experts emphasize the need to manage the disease in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-0f0b89c8060da6dcce74057d2324dc44">millions of Americans who may never get the shots.</a>Until this week, the only medicines shown to boost survival were steroids given to patients sick enough to need extra oxygen and intensive care. But on Wednesday, U.K. researchers reported that one of the antibody combinations successfully reduced deaths in a large study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 treatment: US to spend $3B to speed development

SHAWNEE COUNTY—Authorities are working to determine the cause of a Kansas house fire.

Just before 4:30a.m. Thursday, fire crews responded to the&nbsp;fire in a home at 1105 SW Western Avenue in Topeka, according to Fire Marshal Todd Harrison.

When they arrived, fire crews found heavy smoke and flames coming from the front of the two story house.&nbsp;

During the search, fire crews were able to locate two dogs and they were rescued alive from the home.&nbsp;

A preliminary investigation indicates the cause of the fire as intentionally set pending further investigation. The estimated dollar loss – $12,000; of which $10,000 is associated with structural loss to the house, and $2,000 is associated with loss of contents in the garage.

Working smoke detectors were located within the home. There were no injuries reported, according to Harrison.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1624011554381.png" alt="Thursday morning house fire photo courtesy WIBW TV" />
 <figcaption>Thursday morning house fire photo courtesy WIBW TV</figcaption>
 </figure>SHAWNEE COUNTY—Authorities are working to determine the cause of a Kansas house fire.Just before 4:30a.m. Thursday, fire crews responded to the&nbsp;fire in a home at 1105 SW Western Avenue in Topeka, according to Fire Marshal Todd Harrison.When they arrived, fire crews found heavy smoke and flames coming from the front of the two story house.&nbsp;During the search, fire crews were able to locate two dogs and they were rescued alive from the home.&nbsp;A preliminary investigation indicates the cause of the fire as intentionally set pending further investigation. The estimated dollar loss – $12,000; of which $10,000 is associated with structural loss to the house, and $2,000 is associated with loss of contents in the garage.Working smoke detectors were located within the home. There were no injuries reported, according to Harrison.

2 dogs rescued from intentionally set fire at Kansas home

KANSAS CITY (AP) — A Kansas teenager will be tried as an adult for murder in the shooting death of a Kansas City, Missouri, man, Jackson County prosecutors said Wednesday.

Jayvon Hunter, 16, was charged Tuesday with second-degree murder and three other counts in the Oct. 19 death of 44-year-old Cristobal Gutierrez-Castillas.

The Jackson County Prosecutor’s office said in a news release that surveillance video shows Hunter and others arriving at the shooting scene on scooters. Hunter is seen arguing with the men before firing a shot that hit Gutierrez-Castillas, according to charging documents.

The video shows Hunter going through the victim’s pockets and taking his cell phone before leaving the scene, according to the documents.

It was not immediately clear if Hunter had an attorney.

Prosecutors recommended $150,000 cash bail.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623881194361.png" alt="Hunter photo Jackson County" />
 <figcaption>Hunter photo Jackson County</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY (AP) — A Kansas teenager will be tried as an adult for murder in the shooting death of a Kansas City, Missouri, man, Jackson County prosecutors said Wednesday.Jayvon Hunter, 16, was charged Tuesday with second-degree murder and three other counts in the Oct. 19 death of 44-year-old Cristobal Gutierrez-Castillas.The Jackson County Prosecutor’s office said in a news release that surveillance video shows Hunter and others arriving at the shooting scene on scooters. Hunter is seen arguing with the men before firing a shot that hit Gutierrez-Castillas, according to charging documents.The video shows Hunter going through the victim’s pockets and taking his cell phone before leaving the scene, according to the documents.It was not immediately clear if Hunter had an attorney.Prosecutors recommended $150,000 cash bail.

16-year-old Kan. boy rode to murder scene on scooter

GEARY COUNTY —Bond has been set at $1 million cash for 21-year-old Willie Powell Jr. of Grandview Plaza in connection with the fatal June 11 shooting of 23-year-old Lavincent Perdue in the parking lot of a barber shop in the 700 Block of west 6th Street in Junction City, according to the Geary County Attorney's Office.

On Saturday, Powell turned himself into police in Topeka. He is being held on the requested charge of Second Degree Murder 

&nbsp;Powell is scheduled for a status hearing on June 24, according to the County Attorney.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623518539114.png" alt="Powell photo Geary Co." />
 <figcaption>Powell photo Geary Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>GEARY COUNTY —Bond has been set at $1 million cash for 21-year-old Willie Powell Jr. of Grandview Plaza in connection with the fatal June 11 shooting of 23-year-old Lavincent Perdue in the parking lot of a barber shop in the 700 Block of west 6th Street in Junction City, according to the Geary County Attorney's Office.Perdue was a Fort Riley soldier.On Saturday, Powell turned himself into police in Topeka. He is being held on the requested charge of Second Degree Murder &nbsp;Powell is scheduled for a status hearing on June 24, according to the County Attorney.

$1M bond for fatal Kansas barber shop parking lot killing

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed legislation Thursday establishing a new federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery, saying he believes it will go down as one of the greatest honors he has as president.

Biden signed into law a bill to make&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/juneteenth">Juneteenth, or June 19,</a>&nbsp;the 12th federal holiday. The House voted 415-14 on Wednesday to send the bill to Biden, while the Senate passed the bill unanimously the day before.

“This is a day of profound weight and profound power, a day in which we remember the moral stain, the terrible toll that slavery took on the country and continues to take,” Biden said.

Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to enslaved Black people in Galveston, Texas — two months after the Confederacy had surrendered. That was also about 2 1/2 years after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/juneteenth-lifestyle-travel-museums-arts-and-entertainment-0dcf208da47cd761985bbfb8e58e23fc">the Emancipation Proclamation</a>&nbsp;freed slaves in the Southern states.

It’s the first new federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was created in 1983. One of the federal holidays, Inauguration Day, happens every four years.

The U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/USOPM/status/1405537166684352518?s=20" target="_blank">Office of Personnel Management, which is the human resources office for the federal government, tweeted Thursday</a>&nbsp;that most federal employees will observe the new holiday — Juneteenth National Independence Day — on Friday since June 19 falls on a Saturday this year.

Biden noted the overwhelming support for the bill from lawmakers in both parties. He had run for president promising to unite the country and work with Republicans, but his first major legislation to provide more COVID relief to American consumers and businesses was passed along party lines and he has struggled to unite lawmakers to support a major public works bill.

“I hope this is the beginning of a change in the way we deal with one another,” Biden said.

Biden signed the legislation surrounded by members of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the lead sponsors of the legislation in the Senate, Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and John Cornyn, R-Texas. He was introduced by Vice President Kamala Harris, the nation’s first African-American vice president.

“We have come far and we have far to go, but today is a day of celebration,” Harris said.

The White House moved quickly to hold the signing ceremony after the House debated the bill and then voted for it Wednesday.

“Our federal holidays are purposely few in number and recognize the most important milestones,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. “I cannot think of a more important milestone to commemorate than the end of slavery in the United States.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, speaking next to a large poster of a Black man whose back bore massive scarring from being whipped, said she would be in Galveston on Saturday to celebrate along with Cornyn.

“Can you imagine?” said Jackson Lee. “I will be standing maybe taller than Sen. Cornyn, forgive me for that, because it will be such an elevation of joy.”

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/senate-approves-juneteenth-federal-holiday-58d4fbd343f17df0b03dd0d0a221e452">The Senate passed the bill</a>&nbsp;Tuesday under a unanimous consent agreement that expedites the process for considering legislation. It takes just one senator’s objection to block such agreements.

The vote comes as lawmakers struggle to overcome divisions on police reform legislation following the killing of George Floyd by police and as Republican state legislators push what experts say is an unprecedented number of bills aimed at restricting access to the ballot box. While Republicans say the goal is to prevent voter fraud, Democrats contend that the measures are aimed at undermining minority voting rights.

Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus went to the floor Wednesday to speak in favor of the bill. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., said she viewed Juneteenth as a commemoration rather than a celebration because it represented something that was delayed in happening.

“It also reminds me of what we don’t have today,” she said. “And that is full access to justice, freedom and equality. All these are often in short supply as it relates to the Black community.”

Some Republican lawmakers opposed the effort. Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., said creating the federal holiday was an effort to celebrate “identity politics.”

“Since I believe in treating everyone equally, regardless of race, and that we should be focused on what unites us rather than our differences, I will vote no,” he said in a press release.

The vast majority of states recognize Juneteenth as a holiday or have an official observance of the day, and most states hold celebrations. Juneteenth is a paid holiday for state employees in Texas, New York, Virginia and Washington.

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., said he would vote for the bill and that he supported the establishment of a federal holiday, but he was upset that the name of the holiday included the word “independence” rather than “emancipation.”

“Why would the Democrats want to politicize this by coopting the name of our sacred holiday of Independence Day?” Higgins asked.

Rep. Brenda Lawrence, D-Mich., replied, “I want to say to my white colleagues on the other side: Getting your independence from being enslaved in a country is different from a country getting independence to rule themselves.”

She added, “We have a responsibility to teach every generation of Black and white Americans the pride of a people who have survived, endured and succeeded in these United States of America despite slavery.”

The 14 House Republicans who voted against the bill are Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Ronny Jackson of Texas, Doug LaMalfa of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom McClintock of California, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Mike Rogers of Alabama, Matt Rosendale of Montana, Chip Roy of Texas and Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623965896151.png" alt="President Biden during Thursday bill signing ceremony -photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>President Biden during Thursday bill signing ceremony -photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed legislation Thursday establishing a new federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery, saying he believes it will go down as one of the greatest honors he has as president.Biden signed into law a bill to make&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/juneteenth">Juneteenth, or June 19,</a>&nbsp;the 12th federal holiday. The House voted 415-14 on Wednesday to send the bill to Biden, while the Senate passed the bill unanimously the day before.“This is a day of profound weight and profound power, a day in which we remember the moral stain, the terrible toll that slavery took on the country and continues to take,” Biden said.Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to enslaved Black people in Galveston, Texas — two months after the Confederacy had surrendered. That was also about 2 1/2 years after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/juneteenth-lifestyle-travel-museums-arts-and-entertainment-0dcf208da47cd761985bbfb8e58e23fc">the Emancipation Proclamation</a>&nbsp;freed slaves in the Southern states.It’s the first new federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was created in 1983. One of the federal holidays, Inauguration Day, happens every four years.The U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/USOPM/status/1405537166684352518?s=20" target="_blank">Office of Personnel Management, which is the human resources office for the federal government, tweeted Thursday</a>&nbsp;that most federal employees will observe the new holiday — Juneteenth National Independence Day — on Friday since June 19 falls on a Saturday this year.Biden noted the overwhelming support for the bill from lawmakers in both parties. He had run for president promising to unite the country and work with Republicans, but his first major legislation to provide more COVID relief to American consumers and businesses was passed along party lines and he has struggled to unite lawmakers to support a major public works bill.“I hope this is the beginning of a change in the way we deal with one another,” Biden said.Biden signed the legislation surrounded by members of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the lead sponsors of the legislation in the Senate, Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and John Cornyn, R-Texas. He was introduced by Vice President Kamala Harris, the nation’s first African-American vice president.“We have come far and we have far to go, but today is a day of celebration,” Harris said.The White House moved quickly to hold the signing ceremony after the House debated the bill and then voted for it Wednesday.“Our federal holidays are purposely few in number and recognize the most important milestones,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. “I cannot think of a more important milestone to commemorate than the end of slavery in the United States.”Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, speaking next to a large poster of a Black man whose back bore massive scarring from being whipped, said she would be in Galveston on Saturday to celebrate along with Cornyn.“Can you imagine?” said Jackson Lee. “I will be standing maybe taller than Sen. Cornyn, forgive me for that, because it will be such an elevation of joy.”<a href="https://apnews.com/article/senate-approves-juneteenth-federal-holiday-58d4fbd343f17df0b03dd0d0a221e452">The Senate passed the bill</a>&nbsp;Tuesday under a unanimous consent agreement that expedites the process for considering legislation. It takes just one senator’s objection to block such agreements.The vote comes as lawmakers struggle to overcome divisions on police reform legislation following the killing of George Floyd by police and as Republican state legislators push what experts say is an unprecedented number of bills aimed at restricting access to the ballot box. While Republicans say the goal is to prevent voter fraud, Democrats contend that the measures are aimed at undermining minority voting rights.Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus went to the floor Wednesday to speak in favor of the bill. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., said she viewed Juneteenth as a commemoration rather than a celebration because it represented something that was delayed in happening.“It also reminds me of what we don’t have today,” she said. “And that is full access to justice, freedom and equality. All these are often in short supply as it relates to the Black community.”Some Republican lawmakers opposed the effort. Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., said creating the federal holiday was an effort to celebrate “identity politics.”“Since I believe in treating everyone equally, regardless of race, and that we should be focused on what unites us rather than our differences, I will vote no,” he said in a press release.The vast majority of states recognize Juneteenth as a holiday or have an official observance of the day, and most states hold celebrations. Juneteenth is a paid holiday for state employees in Texas, New York, Virginia and Washington.Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., said he would vote for the bill and that he supported the establishment of a federal holiday, but he was upset that the name of the holiday included the word “independence” rather than “emancipation.”“Why would the Democrats want to politicize this by coopting the name of our sacred holiday of Independence Day?” Higgins asked.Rep. Brenda Lawrence, D-Mich., replied, “I want to say to my white colleagues on the other side: Getting your independence from being enslaved in a country is different from a country getting independence to rule themselves.”She added, “We have a responsibility to teach every generation of Black and white Americans the pride of a people who have survived, endured and succeeded in these United States of America despite slavery.”The 14 House Republicans who voted against the bill are Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Ronny Jackson of Texas, Doug LaMalfa of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom McClintock of California, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Mike Rogers of Alabama, Matt Rosendale of Montana, Chip Roy of Texas and Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin.

President Biden signs bill, Juneteenth is a new federal holiday

By BRIAN GRIMMETT <a href="https://www.kmuw.org/post/why-cyber-criminals-are-interested-attacking-vital-kansas-companies">Kansas News Service</a>

Hackers pose a growing threat to nearly any network, including the power grid that lets you reliably turn on the lights.

Experts say utilities offer an attractive target: operations with money to extort and that simply can’t afford a shutdown.

Yet
 the two largest utility companies in Kansas, Evergy and Kansas Gas 
Service, declined interviews on their cyber defenses. Instead, they 
issued statements that they take threats seriously. They say they work 
with experts and maintain ongoing conversations across their industry to
 ward off attacks.

Still, the danger remains that attacks that 
shut down the country’s largest fuel pipeline last month and the world’s
 largest meat processor — attacks overcome only after combined ransom 
payments topping $15 million — could hit electric companies.

“Any electronic device that is attached to the internet is at risk,” said Phil Kirk, regional director for the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/ransomware" target="_blank">Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency</a>.

Utility
 companies that provide a service that needs to operate uninterrupted 
are particularly interesting targets for cyber criminals looking to 
steal a company's information and extort them for a ransom.

In 
response to the latest high-profile attacks, Kansas utilities, large and
 small, say they’re doing what they can to keep themselves protected.

Ransomware
 hackers typically tap into a corporate or government system, seize 
control of its data or even its controls, and demand payment to back 
off. It’s not a new kind of attack, but has seen a considerable uptick 
in use in the past few years.

A <a href="https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/ransomware-threat-report-highlights/" target="_blank">report from the cybersecurity company Palo Alto Networks</a>
 says that U.S. companies paid about $115,000 in ransomware attack 
payments in 2019. That increased to more than $310,000 in 2020. The 2020
 number includes a <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/4/21353842/garmin-ransomware-attack-wearables-wastedlocker-evil-corp" target="_blank">$10 million dollar ransom payment</a> from Kansas-based tracking and fitness company Garmin.

Recently,
 a ransomware attack in May forced Colonial Pipeline to shut down one of
 its major pipelines leading to gasoline shortages on the East Coast. A 
Russian-tied hacker group known as DarkSide is linked to the attack that
 targeted the company’s financial systems. Colonial paid a $4.4 million 
ransom to get its systems back online.

“It’s our belief that paying ransom only encourages more of that malicious activity,” Kirk said.

The FBI has been able to recover about half of the ransom Colonial paid.

The
 two largest utility companies in Kansas, Evergy and Kansas Gas Service,
 said they’re continuing&nbsp; to train employees on basic cybersecurity 
defenses. That includes how to avoid clicking on phishing emails, where 
an attacker tries to get someone to click on a link in an email that 
actually installs malware on their computer.

“It’s not clear how effective or helpful that is, but we keep trying,” said <a href="https://fletcher.tufts.edu/people/josephine-wolff" target="_blank">Josephine Wolff</a>, an assistant professor of cybersecurity policy at Tufts University.

She said keeping a company protected from attacks is difficult, but there are a few things that all of them should be doing.

Companies
 should be creating backups of all of their important data and 
information. And those backups should be on a separate system or network
 than the originals. They should also be updating their software as soon
 as any update becomes available.

She said another important 
component is being able to quickly detect any unusual activity on a 
system and having methods to be able to isolate and detach that computer
 from the broader network.

“We should never assume that anybody 
knows what they’re doing when it comes to cybersecurity,” Wolff said. 
“Look at the massive companies that have tremendous resources to invest 
in security that are being compromised this way in just the past few 
weeks.”

Some companies are turning to cyber insurance to mitigate the costs of a successful attack.

The
 Insurance Information Institute says the number of cyber insurance 
policies in the U.S. grew from 2.2 million to 3.6 million between 2016 
and 2019. Those policies provide more than $3 billion in coverage.

“About
 five or six years ago, not many U.S. companies were buying cyber 
insurance,” Loretta Worters, vice president of communications for the <a href="https://www.iii.org/" target="_blank">Insurance Information Institute</a>
 said. “They had a hard time quantifying how high of a risk they faced 
and whether or not there was a cost/benefit associated with transferring
 some of the exposure to insurers.”

The plans often include coverage to recover the costs of ransom payments. Cybersecurity expert Wolff said that’s a bad idea.

“That’s
 a really damaging trend,” she said. “Because it means that the victims 
themselves sort of feel like, ‘Oh, I’ve prepared for this. I’ve got 
insurance. I’ll just make this payment. I won’t even have to cover most 
of it.’ And that kind of routinizes the whole idea of paying the ransom 
as just a normal cost of doing business.”

Ultimately, protecting 
against cyber threats such as ransomware attacks is a game of cat and 
mouse. Attackers are searching for vulnerabilities as quickly as even 
the most careful companies can find them and fix them. And experts say 
if the attacks, especially against critical infrastructure, continue to 
remain a lucrative prospect, you’ll continue to see their popularity and
 impact grow.

“A vulnerability that does not exist today may be 
found and taken advantage of tomorrow,” said Kirk, the federal 
cyberdefense official. “It’s not a do it once and you’re done thing — 
it’s an ongoing continuous effort.”

Brian Grimmett reports on
 the environment, energy and natural resources for KMUW in Wichita and 
the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/briangrimmett?lang=en" target="_blank">@briangrimmett</a> or email him at grimmett@kmuw.org.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623952113533.png" alt=" A networking router. Brian Grimmett / Kansas News Service" />
 <figcaption> A networking router. Brian Grimmett / Kansas News Service</figcaption>
 </figure>By BRIAN GRIMMETT <a href="https://www.kmuw.org/post/why-cyber-criminals-are-interested-attacking-vital-kansas-companies">Kansas News Service</a>Hackers pose a growing threat to nearly any network, including the power grid that lets you reliably turn on the lights.Experts say utilities offer an attractive target: operations with money to extort and that simply can’t afford a shutdown.Yet
 the two largest utility companies in Kansas, Evergy and Kansas Gas 
Service, declined interviews on their cyber defenses. Instead, they 
issued statements that they take threats seriously. They say they work 
with experts and maintain ongoing conversations across their industry to
 ward off attacks.Still, the danger remains that attacks that 
shut down the country’s largest fuel pipeline last month and the world’s
 largest meat processor — attacks overcome only after combined ransom 
payments topping $15 million — could hit electric companies.“Any electronic device that is attached to the internet is at risk,” said Phil Kirk, regional director for the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/ransomware" target="_blank">Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency</a>.Utility
 companies that provide a service that needs to operate uninterrupted 
are particularly interesting targets for cyber criminals looking to 
steal a company's information and extort them for a ransom.In 
response to the latest high-profile attacks, Kansas utilities, large and
 small, say they’re doing what they can to keep themselves protected.<h2>Ransomware</h2>Ransomware
 hackers typically tap into a corporate or government system, seize 
control of its data or even its controls, and demand payment to back 
off. It’s not a new kind of attack, but has seen a considerable uptick 
in use in the past few years.A <a href="https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/ransomware-threat-report-highlights/" target="_blank">report from the cybersecurity company Palo Alto Networks</a>
 says that U.S. companies paid about $115,000 in ransomware attack 
payments in 2019. That increased to more than $310,000 in 2020. The 2020
 number includes a <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/4/21353842/garmin-ransomware-attack-wearables-wastedlocker-evil-corp" target="_blank">$10 million dollar ransom payment</a> from Kansas-based tracking and fitness company Garmin.Recently,
 a ransomware attack in May forced Colonial Pipeline to shut down one of
 its major pipelines leading to gasoline shortages on the East Coast. A 
Russian-tied hacker group known as DarkSide is linked to the attack that
 targeted the company’s financial systems. Colonial paid a $4.4 million 
ransom to get its systems back online.“It’s our belief that paying ransom only encourages more of that malicious activity,” Kirk said.The FBI has been able to recover about half of the ransom Colonial paid.<h2>How to stay protected</h2>The
 two largest utility companies in Kansas, Evergy and Kansas Gas Service,
 said they’re continuing&nbsp; to train employees on basic cybersecurity 
defenses. That includes how to avoid clicking on phishing emails, where 
an attacker tries to get someone to click on a link in an email that 
actually installs malware on their computer.“It’s not clear how effective or helpful that is, but we keep trying,” said <a href="https://fletcher.tufts.edu/people/josephine-wolff" target="_blank">Josephine Wolff</a>, an assistant professor of cybersecurity policy at Tufts University.She said keeping a company protected from attacks is difficult, but there are a few things that all of them should be doing.Companies
 should be creating backups of all of their important data and 
information. And those backups should be on a separate system or network
 than the originals. They should also be updating their software as soon
 as any update becomes available.She said another important 
component is being able to quickly detect any unusual activity on a 
system and having methods to be able to isolate and detach that computer
 from the broader network.“We should never assume that anybody 
knows what they’re doing when it comes to cybersecurity,” Wolff said. 
“Look at the massive companies that have tremendous resources to invest 
in security that are being compromised this way in just the past few 
weeks.”<h2>Cyber Insurance</h2>Some companies are turning to cyber insurance to mitigate the costs of a successful attack.The
 Insurance Information Institute says the number of cyber insurance 
policies in the U.S. grew from 2.2 million to 3.6 million between 2016 
and 2019. Those policies provide more than $3 billion in coverage.“About
 five or six years ago, not many U.S. companies were buying cyber 
insurance,” Loretta Worters, vice president of communications for the <a href="https://www.iii.org/" target="_blank">Insurance Information Institute</a>
 said. “They had a hard time quantifying how high of a risk they faced 
and whether or not there was a cost/benefit associated with transferring
 some of the exposure to insurers.”The plans often include coverage to recover the costs of ransom payments. Cybersecurity expert Wolff said that’s a bad idea.“That’s
 a really damaging trend,” she said. “Because it means that the victims 
themselves sort of feel like, ‘Oh, I’ve prepared for this. I’ve got 
insurance. I’ll just make this payment. I won’t even have to cover most 
of it.’ And that kind of routinizes the whole idea of paying the ransom 
as just a normal cost of doing business.”Ultimately, protecting 
against cyber threats such as ransomware attacks is a game of cat and 
mouse. Attackers are searching for vulnerabilities as quickly as even 
the most careful companies can find them and fix them. And experts say 
if the attacks, especially against critical infrastructure, continue to 
remain a lucrative prospect, you’ll continue to see their popularity and
 impact grow.“A vulnerability that does not exist today may be 
found and taken advantage of tomorrow,” said Kirk, the federal 
cyberdefense official. “It’s not a do it once and you’re done thing — 
it’s an ongoing continuous effort.”Brian Grimmett reports on
 the environment, energy and natural resources for KMUW in Wichita and 
the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/briangrimmett?lang=en" target="_blank">@briangrimmett</a> or email him at grimmett@kmuw.org.

Why cyber criminals are interested in attacking vital Kan. companies

SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities are investigating a wanted Kansas felon after a 2-hour standoff with police.

Just after noon Wednesday, police were conducting a follow-up investigation to locate 36-year-old Justin Galvan in the 1900 block of South Hillside in Wichita, according to Officer Trevor Macy. 

During their investigation, officers observed Galvan at a residence on that block and attempted to take him into custody, but he was able to get inside the home.

Galvan refused to exit the house and the Wichita Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) was called in to assist.

SWAT and WPD Crisis Negotiators were able to make contact with him and after two hours on scene he surrendered peacefully. 

Galvan was transported to the Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility and booked on outstanding warrants for aggravated weapons&nbsp;possession of meth, probation violations, felon in possession of a firearm, domestic violence, child support, intimidation and new charges from a recent police pursuit, according to Macy.&nbsp; &nbsp;Galvan was due in court Thursday, according to the Sedgwick County District Attorney's office.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1623943247282.png" alt="Galvan -photo Sedgwick County" />
 <figcaption>Galvan -photo Sedgwick County</figcaption>
 </figure>SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities are investigating a wanted Kansas felon after a 2-hour standoff with police.Just after noon Wednesday, police were conducting a follow-up investigation to locate 36-year-old Justin Galvan in the 1900 block of South Hillside in Wichita, according to Officer Trevor Macy. During their investigation, officers observed Galvan at a residence on that block and attempted to take him into custody, but he was able to get inside the home.Galvan refused to exit the house and the Wichita Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) was called in to assist.SWAT and WPD Crisis Negotiators were able to make contact with him and after two hours on scene he surrendered peacefully. Galvan was transported to the Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility and booked on outstanding warrants for aggravated weapons&nbsp;possession of meth, probation violations, felon in possession of a firearm, domestic violence, child support, intimidation and new charges from a recent police pursuit, according to Macy.&nbsp; &nbsp;Galvan was due in court Thursday, according to the Sedgwick County District Attorney's office.

Wanted Kansas felon gives up after 2-hour standoff

WASHINGTON (AP) —Divisions flared quickly on Wednesday as U.S. Catholic bishops opened a national meeting highlighted by a sensitive agenda item — whether to take initial steps toward a possible rebuke of politicians, including President Joe Biden, who receive Communion while supporting abortion rights.

Some said the issue was so important and contentious that all the more than 260 participating bishops should have an opportunity to address it during the three-day meeting that’s being held virtually.

Others derided that proposal as a delaying tactic by those who are skeptical of the initiative. They said bishops would have ample time to comment at a later meeting when the full draft of a new statement on Communion would be presented for consideration.

After an extended exchange, 59% of the bishops voted against a motion by St. Louis Archbishop Mitchell Rozanski to allow more speaking opportunities at this week’s meeting.

At stake is a proposal that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ doctrine committee draft a statement on the meaning of Communion in the life of the church that would be submitted for a vote at a future meeting, probably an in-person gathering in November.

Some conservative bishops say such a statement should signal to Catholic politicians that support of abortion rights should disqualify them from receiving Communion.

Yet there are scores of bishops who oppose any swift or aggressive action on the issue; some cite a letter from the Vatican urging the USCCB to take a cautious, collegial approach. Nearly 70 bishops last month signed a letter to USCCB president and Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez urging him to delay the discussion until the bishops convene in person, but that request was not granted.

Gomez, in his opening address Wednesday, did not mention the Communion debate but stressed the importance of unity in a time of heightened political and social divisions.

“It’s not realistic to expect the church to stay immune from the pressures of division,” he said. “And we are living in a secular society where politics is becoming the substitute religion for a lot of people. So we need to guard against the temptation to think about the church in simply political terms.”

“Only a church that is united can heal the brokenness and challenge the injustices that we see more clearly now in the wake of this pandemic,” he added.

Gomez noted that Pope Francis also has emphasized unity within the church — a point driven home in an address to the bishops by the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States, Papal Nuncio Christophe Pierre.

“Pope Francis is convinced that dialogue is the best way to realize what always ought to be affirmed and respected,” Pierre said. “Our commitment to this type of dialogue, one which produces unity of faith and action, and not merely talking about things endlessly, will strengthen the church’s credibility.”

Some bishops have expressed concern that the debate is being used as a political weapon to embarrass Catholic Democrats — such as Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who hold high office and support abortion rights.

One of Wednesday’s participants, retired Bishop Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo, Texas, openly assailed Biden for recent moves to expand and protect abortion access. Pfeifer’s request to add this specific topic to the agenda was rebuffed, but Gomez said that some of the contentious aspects of the president’s policies would be raised later in the meeting by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, head of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

Biden is the country’s second Catholic president and the first to hold that office while espousing clear-cut support for abortion rights.

Naumann has said such a stance by a public figure is “a grave moral evil,” and he has advocated for a public rebuke of the president.

Among other subtopics, a Communion document would likely address the issue of who among Catholic public figures is worthy of receiving the sacrament. However, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, chairman of the doctrine committee, said it would not mandate a national policy and instead leave decisions about specific churchgoers up to individual bishops and archbishops.

Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington, has made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches in the archdiocese.

WASHINGTON (AP) —The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops plans to devote part of its national meeting this month to the sensitive issue of which Catholics are worthy of receiving Communion, despite calls for a delay.

Dozens of bishops had requested the USCCB president, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez, postpone the debate until a later meeting, when they could meet in person rather than virtually. But prompt action is being sought by some conservative bishops who want to signal that President Joe Biden and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should not receive Communion.

The conservatives are now heartened, as Gomez confirmed in a memo&nbsp; that the topic is on the agenda of the June meeting. A vote is scheduled on whether the conference’s Committee on Doctrine should draft a document addressing the Communion issue and present it at a later date.

An explanation of the agenda item makes clear that one of the subtopics will be the receiving of Communion by cultural and political leaders.

Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila, one of the conservatives engaged in the discussions, issued a statement Tuesday praising Gomez and saying he “followed the correct procedures to facilitate this critical discussion as a body of bishops.”

Aquila referred to a May 7 letter to Gomez from the head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, urging the U.S. bishops to deliberate carefully and minimize divisions before proceeding with any action on the Communion issue.

“It was clear from it that the USCCB’s plan to discuss and debate this important issue is warranted and encouraged,” Aquila said. “In contrast, the publication of the letter calling for a halt to discussion at our June meeting on this vital issue risks creating an atmosphere of factionalism, rather than unity amongst the bishops.”

The bishops who requested a delay did not release their letter publicly or issue statements about it. According to The Pillar, an online news outlet covering the Catholic Church, the signatories included Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago and Wilton Gregory of Washington, the latter of whom has made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at his archdiocese’s churches.

But in a recent essay, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego made a case against the campaign to deny Biden and others Communion.

“It will bring tremendously destructive consequences,” McElroy wrote. “The Eucharist is being weaponized and deployed as a tool in political warfare. This must not happen.”

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, one of the conservatives, criticized the request to delay the debate.

“I’m deeply grieved by the rising public acrimony among bishops and the adoption of behind-closed-doors maneuvers to interfere with the accepted, normal, agreed-upon procedures of the USCCB,” Cordileone said in a statement. “Those who do not want to issue a document on Eucharistic coherence should be open to debating the question objectively and fairly with their brother bishops, rather than attempting to derail the process.”

Cordileone thanked Gomez “for his integrity in assuring that the procedures of our bishop’s conference are followed” and said he looked forward to “serene dialogue” about Communion policies at the June meeting.

Aquila, in his statement, suggested that Catholics endanger their souls if they receive Communion “in an unworthy manner.”

“As bishops, we are failing in our duty as shepherds if we ignore this truth and how it is manifesting itself in today’s society, especially with regards to those in prominent positions who reject fundamental teachings of the Church and insist that they be allowed to receive Communion,” Aquila said.

Cardinal Ladaria’s letter to Gomez in May made several points that could affect how the USCCB handles the issue:

— He said any new statement should not be limited to Catholic political leaders but broadened to encompass all churchgoing Catholics regarding their worthiness to receive Communion.

— He questioned the USCCB policy identifying abortion as “the preeminent” moral issue, saying it would be misleading if any new document “were to give the impression that abortion and euthanasia alone constitute the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest accountability on the part of Catholics.”

— He said that if the U.S. bishops pursue a new policy, they should confer with bishops’ conferences in other countries “both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619629905595.png" alt="Some bishops have expressed concern that the debate is being used as a political weapon to embarrass Catholic Democrats — such as Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who hold high office and support abortion rights. -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Some bishops have expressed concern that the debate is being used as a political weapon to embarrass Catholic Democrats — such as Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who hold high office and support abortion rights. -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) —Divisions flared quickly on Wednesday as U.S. Catholic bishops opened a national meeting highlighted by a sensitive agenda item — whether to take initial steps toward a possible rebuke of politicians, including President Joe Biden, who receive Communion while supporting abortion rights.Some said the issue was so important and contentious that all the more than 260 participating bishops should have an opportunity to address it during the three-day meeting that’s being held virtually.Others derided that proposal as a delaying tactic by those who are skeptical of the initiative. They said bishops would have ample time to comment at a later meeting when the full draft of a new statement on Communion would be presented for consideration.After an extended exchange, 59% of the bishops voted against a motion by St. Louis Archbishop Mitchell Rozanski to allow more speaking opportunities at this week’s meeting.At stake is a proposal that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ doctrine committee draft a statement on the meaning of Communion in the life of the church that would be submitted for a vote at a future meeting, probably an in-person gathering in November.Some conservative bishops say such a statement should signal to Catholic politicians that support of abortion rights should disqualify them from receiving Communion.Yet there are scores of bishops who oppose any swift or aggressive action on the issue; some cite a letter from the Vatican urging the USCCB to take a cautious, collegial approach. Nearly 70 bishops last month signed a letter to USCCB president and Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez urging him to delay the discussion until the bishops convene in person, but that request was not granted.Gomez, in his opening address Wednesday, did not mention the Communion debate but stressed the importance of unity in a time of heightened political and social divisions.“It’s not realistic to expect the church to stay immune from the pressures of division,” he said. “And we are living in a secular society where politics is becoming the substitute religion for a lot of people. So we need to guard against the temptation to think about the church in simply political terms.”“Only a church that is united can heal the brokenness and challenge the injustices that we see more clearly now in the wake of this pandemic,” he added.Gomez noted that Pope Francis also has emphasized unity within the church — a point driven home in an address to the bishops by the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States, Papal Nuncio Christophe Pierre.“Pope Francis is convinced that dialogue is the best way to realize what always ought to be affirmed and respected,” Pierre said. “Our commitment to this type of dialogue, one which produces unity of faith and action, and not merely talking about things endlessly, will strengthen the church’s credibility.”Some bishops have expressed concern that the debate is being used as a political weapon to embarrass Catholic Democrats — such as Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who hold high office and support abortion rights.One of Wednesday’s participants, retired Bishop Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo, Texas, openly assailed Biden for recent moves to expand and protect abortion access. Pfeifer’s request to add this specific topic to the agenda was rebuffed, but Gomez said that some of the contentious aspects of the president’s policies would be raised later in the meeting by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, head of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities.Biden is the country’s second Catholic president and the first to hold that office while espousing clear-cut support for abortion rights.Naumann has said such a stance by a public figure is “a grave moral evil,” and he has advocated for a public rebuke of the president.Among other subtopics, a Communion document would likely address the issue of who among Catholic public figures is worthy of receiving the sacrament. However, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, chairman of the doctrine committee, said it would not mandate a national policy and instead leave decisions about specific churchgoers up to individual bishops and archbishops.Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington, has made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches in the archdiocese.___WASHINGTON (AP) —The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops plans to devote part of its national meeting this month to the sensitive issue of which Catholics are worthy of receiving Communion, despite calls for a delay.Dozens of bishops had requested the USCCB president, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez, postpone the debate until a later meeting, when they could meet in person rather than virtually. But prompt action is being sought by some conservative bishops who want to signal that President Joe Biden and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should not receive Communion.The conservatives are now heartened, as Gomez confirmed in a memo&nbsp; that the topic is on the agenda of the June meeting. A vote is scheduled on whether the conference’s Committee on Doctrine should draft a document addressing the Communion issue and present it at a later date.An explanation of the agenda item makes clear that one of the subtopics will be the receiving of Communion by cultural and political leaders.Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila, one of the conservatives engaged in the discussions, issued a statement Tuesday praising Gomez and saying he “followed the correct procedures to facilitate this critical discussion as a body of bishops.”Aquila referred to a May 7 letter to Gomez from the head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, urging the U.S. bishops to deliberate carefully and minimize divisions before proceeding with any action on the Communion issue.“It was clear from it that the USCCB’s plan to discuss and debate this important issue is warranted and encouraged,” Aquila said. “In contrast, the publication of the letter calling for a halt to discussion at our June meeting on this vital issue risks creating an atmosphere of factionalism, rather than unity amongst the bishops.”The bishops who requested a delay did not release their letter publicly or issue statements about it. According to The Pillar, an online news outlet covering the Catholic Church, the signatories included Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago and Wilton Gregory of Washington, the latter of whom has made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at his archdiocese’s churches.But in a recent essay, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego made a case against the campaign to deny Biden and others Communion.“It will bring tremendously destructive consequences,” McElroy wrote. “The Eucharist is being weaponized and deployed as a tool in political warfare. This must not happen.”San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, one of the conservatives, criticized the request to delay the debate.“I’m deeply grieved by the rising public acrimony among bishops and the adoption of behind-closed-doors maneuvers to interfere with the accepted, normal, agreed-upon procedures of the USCCB,” Cordileone said in a statement. “Those who do not want to issue a document on Eucharistic coherence should be open to debating the question objectively and fairly with their brother bishops, rather than attempting to derail the process.”Cordileone thanked Gomez “for his integrity in assuring that the procedures of our bishop’s conference are followed” and said he looked forward to “serene dialogue” about Communion policies at the June meeting.Aquila, in his statement, suggested that Catholics endanger their souls if they receive Communion “in an unworthy manner.”“As bishops, we are failing in our duty as shepherds if we ignore this truth and how it is manifesting itself in today’s society, especially with regards to those in prominent positions who reject fundamental teachings of the Church and insist that they be allowed to receive Communion,” Aquila said.Cardinal Ladaria’s letter to Gomez in May made several points that could affect how the USCCB handles the issue:— He said any new statement should not be limited to Catholic political leaders but broadened to encompass all churchgoing Catholics regarding their worthiness to receive Communion.— He questioned the USCCB policy identifying abortion as “the preeminent” moral issue, saying it would be misleading if any new document “were to give the impression that abortion and euthanasia alone constitute the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest accountability on the part of Catholics.”— He said that if the U.S. bishops pursue a new policy, they should confer with bishops’ conferences in other countries “both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church.”

Divided US Catholic bishops debate Communion policy

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A man charged with killing a Wichita security guard at a QuikTrip will undergo a mental competency examination. Defense attorney Jeremy Koop sought the evaluation for Laroy Monzell West, saying he may be incompetent to stand trial in the May 5 death of 39-year-old Will Robinson.

Sedgwick County District Court Judge Bruce Brown granted the defense request on Tuesday. Police say Robinson was shot after West was escorted out of the QuikTrip because he was causing a disturbance. West's case will be on hold until the competency evaluation is completed.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/5/1620334492831.png" alt="West as scene from the QuikTrip security camera the night of the fatal shooting-image courtesy Wichita Police" />
 <figcaption>West as scene from the QuikTrip security camera the night of the fatal shooting-image courtesy Wichita Police</figcaption>
 </figure>WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A man charged with killing a Wichita security guard at a QuikTrip will undergo a mental competency examination. Defense attorney Jeremy Koop sought the evaluation for Laroy Monzell West, saying he may be incompetent to stand trial in the May 5 death of 39-year-old Will Robinson.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/5/1620393217853.png" alt="West photo Sedgwick Co." />
 <figcaption>West photo Sedgwick Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>Sedgwick County District Court Judge Bruce Brown granted the defense request on Tuesday. Police say Robinson was shot after West was escorted out of the QuikTrip because he was causing a disturbance. West's case will be on hold until the competency evaluation is completed.