A former CIA official testified that then-Biden campaign senior advisor, now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken ‘played a role in the inception’ of the public statement signed by current and past intelligence officials that claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, and revealed that Blinken was ‘the impetus’ of the public statement signed in October 2020 that implied the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was disinformation.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Blinken Thursday, notifying him that the panels are ‘conducting oversight of federal law-enforcement and intelligence matters within our respective jurisdictions.’

‘We are examining that public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely discredited a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed Russian disinformation,’ they wrote. ‘As part of our oversight, we have learned that you played a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor, and we therefore request your assistance with our oversight.’

In October 2020, weeks before the presidential election, dozens of ex-national security officials signed onto a letter claiming that Hunter’s laptop had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’

The former officials included former Obama CIA Director John Brennan, former Obama DNI James Clapper, and former CIA director, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, among others. 

The lawmakers said that based on Morell’s testimony, it is ‘apparent’ that the Biden campaign ‘played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the 2020 presidential election.’

‘Although the statement’s signatories have an unquestioned right to free speech and free association—which we do not dispute—their reference to their national security credentials lent weight to the story and suggested access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans,’ they wrote.

They added: ‘This concerted effort to minimize and suppress public dissemination of the serious allegations about the Biden family was a grave disservice to all American citizens’ informed participation in our democracy.’

Jordan and Turner notified Blinken that they conducted a transcribed interview with Morell, who signed onto the letter.

‘In his transcribed interview, Morell testified that on or around October 17, 2020 you reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story,’ they wrote. Blinken, at the time, was a senior advisor to the Biden campaign.

‘According to Morell, although your outreach was couched as simply gathering Morell’s reaction to the Post story, it set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement,’ they wrote.

Morell testified that the Biden campaign ‘helped to strategize about the public release of the statement.’

‘Morell further explained that one of his two goals in releasing the statement was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election,’ Jordan and Turner wrote.

Morell testified: ‘There were two intents. One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and, two, it was to help Vice President Biden.’ 

Morell was asked why he wanted to help Biden.

‘Because I wanted him to win the election,’ Morell testified.

Jordan and Turner are demanding Blinken to provide material to help them to ‘advance’ their oversight.

They demanded Blinken identify the people he communicated with about drafting the statement; and produce all documents referring to the statement.

They gave Blinken until May 4 at 5:00 p.m. ET.

Fox News first reported the existence of some type of investigation involving Hunter Biden in October 2020, ahead of the last presidential election. It became known then that the FBI had subpoenaed the laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden in the course of an existing money laundering investigation.

Hunter Biden confirmed the investigation into his ‘tax affairs’ in December 2020, after his father was elected president.

Fox News first reported in 2020 that the federal investigation into Hunter Biden’s ‘tax affairs’ began amid the discovery of SARs regarding funds from ‘China and other foreign nations.

The investigation is being led by Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss. Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation since 2018. 

Pennsylvania must minimize its outsized role in polluting the Chesapeake Bay, according to a proposed settlement agreement announced Thursday that would subject the state to increased oversight from federal environmental officials.

The agreement comes after other jurisdictions in the bay’s watershed — Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia — filed a lawsuit in 2020 arguing Pennsylvania wasn’t pulling its weight in their collective effort to reach a 2025 pollution reduction goal. The states were looking to reduce harmful nutrient and sediment runoff that flows from farms and cities into the Chesapeake.

Environmental groups also filed a similar lawsuit around the same time, and the two were combined. Thursday’s agreement between the plaintiffs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would resolve both.

‘The bay is a national treasure and a vital part of Maryland’s identity,’ Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said on a call with reporters Thursday afternoon. ‘Marylanders deserve a clean, healthy bay … but we can only get so far without the commitment and the effort of all jurisdictions within the bay’s watershed.’

The nation’s largest estuary has been gradually rebounding under a federal cleanup program launched in 1983 that put an end to unbridled pollution, but more recent efforts have been lagging.

In Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna River cuts through the state’s farmland, picking up polluted runoff before pouring into the Chesapeake in Maryland — producing about half of its fresh water supply.

The 2020 litigation arose from an earlier settlement agreement that required the watershed states to each implement a pollution reduction plan by 2025. Pennsylvania largely did not follow through, and federal environmental officials have failed to adequately intervene, according to the lawsuits.

The so-called ‘pollution diet’ sets limits in the Chesapeake for nitrogen and phosphorous, as well as sediment. The nutrient pollution often comes from agricultural fertilizer and livestock waste. It stimulates excessive algae growth that can create low-oxygen dead zones where aquatic animals and plants are unable to survive — bad news for Maryland’s crab industry, oyster harvests and more.

Robert T. Brown, president of the Maryland Watermen’s Association, said the upcoming fish spawning season provides an annual reminder of the myriad values of clean water.

‘This is a major victory for the Chesapeake Bay,’ he said of the proposed settlement.

The agreement, which will undergo a 30-day public comment period before taking effect, provides a mechanism for holding EPA officials accountable if they fail to enforce pollution requirements. It also lays out specific oversight actions — including an annual report examining Pennsylvania’s progress that will be published online — and calls for additional grant funding opportunities to help Pennsylvania make necessary changes. The state has more farmland than others in the watershed, a source of pollution that has proven difficult to address.

Federal officials also agreed to exercise more oversight of other pollution sources in Pennsylvania, such as factories, concentrated livestock operations and sewage treatment plants. That includes identifying and regulating them through an existing EPA permitting process.

However, the agreement avoids asserting a broader definition of the EPA’s oversight role under the Clean Water Act, saying the parties disagree on whether it’s ‘mandatory or discretionary.’

Officials with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.

New York was also a named defendant in the initial litigation, but later dropped from the lawsuit after it adequately amended its pollution reduction plans.

While the litigation was ongoing, Pennsylvania officials took steps to improve their implementation of a pollution reduction plan and obtain adequate funding. Last year, state lawmakers approved $154 million in pandemic-relief funding for a program that would help farmers implement more sustainable practices and prevent nutrients from entering the watershed.

Environmental groups have credited the Biden administration for signing onto the proposed settlement agreement, saying the decision demonstrates a commitment to curbing pollution that was missing under former President Donald Trump.

Despite the optimism, however, the 2025 pollution targets probably won’t be achieved, said Hilary Harp Falk, president of the nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

The Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint, a plan established in 2010 to reduce pollution, has already faced significant challenges and slow progress. In a report earlier this year monitoring the bay’s health, the foundation said polluted runoff was increasing amid inconsistent enforcement from government agencies, new development and climate change, which is causing stronger rainstorms that produce more polluted runoff.

‘While 2025 will be yet another missed deadline, the Blueprint’s goal remains achievable and should remain our north star,’ Falk said in a statement Thursday. ‘Together, we must build on lessons learned and accelerate progress toward a new deadline measured in years — not decades.’

EPA officials said they were unable to comment on the proposed settlement agreement during the 30-day public comment period.

‘The agreement is just one part of EPA’s broader strategy to work with the Bay States and other stakeholders … to restore the Chesapeake Bay,’ the agency said in a statement.

House Democrats tried to have Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s, R-Ga., words stricken from the record during Wednesday’s Homeland Security Committee hearing after she mentioned allegations of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s, D-Calif., past relationship with a Chinese spy.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the Homeland Security Committee to defend the Biden administration’s budget proposal. During his questioning of Mayorkas, Swalwell slammed Greene for selling merchandise calling to ‘Defund the FBI’ and called on lawmakers to ‘elevate our rhetoric.’

Greene then brought up Swalwell’s former ties to suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang, also known as Fang Fang, which were first reported in 2020.

‘That was quite entertaining from someone that had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy, and everyone knows it,’ Greene said. ‘But thanks for entertaining—’

Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., interjected, requesting that Greene’s comment be stricken from the record and that she be prevented from speaking any further.

‘Completely inappropriate,’ Goldman said. 

‘A motion has been made,’ Mark Green, R-Tenn., the committee’s chairman, said. ‘The committee will suspend, and the gentleman will state the words that he wishes taken down. ‘ 

‘Everything that the gentle lady from Georgia has said,’ Goldman responded.

‘No, you need to be more specific,’ Green replied.

‘Accusations of an affair with a Chinese spy,’ Goldman said. ‘Those are engaging in personalities, and those words should be taken down, and the gentle lady should not be able to speak anymore in this hearing.’

‘The latter part of that is not an appropriate motion,’ Green responded, ‘but we will evaluate the striking of those words. Give me just a second.’

After giving Greene a chance to retract her comments and her saying, ‘No, I will not,’ Green ruled that the comments would not be stricken from the record.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., appealed the ruling, saying he was ‘appalled’ and ’embarrassed’ by Greene’s words.

The motion was eventually tabled, and Greene was permitted to continue her questioning of Mayorkas.

Swalwell’s ties to Fang were first reported by Axios in 2020 and prompted House Republicans to draft a resolution to remove Swalwell from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but the resolution was tabled by the Democrats. 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy later blocked Swalwell from a spot on the committee after Republicans regained power in January.

Axios had reported that Fang targeted up-and-coming politicians, including Swalwell, and that federal investigators alerted Swalwell of Fang’s behavior in 2015. Swalwell then cut off all ties with Fang and has not been accused of any wrongdoing, the report said.

Swalwell said on ‘The View’ in January that he handled the situation properly.

‘First and foremost, and you don’t have to take my word for it, take the FBI’s word for it… when they told me who she… I did everything that I hoped everyone would do, which was to cooperate and help the FBI, and she was removed,’ Swalwell said of Fang.

‘And Donald Trump, who would later find out about this when he was president, with the greatest access to classified information of anyone who walks the earth, if he could’ve embarrassed me by showing any wrongdoing, after all the names he’s called me, he would’ve,’ he added.

After spending over a month in a hospital being treated for clinical depression this year, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., revealed his depression was ‘in full force’ during his first few weeks in the Senate.

Fetterman suffered a stroke in May 2022 while campaigning for the Pennsylvania Senate race, resulting in auditory processing issues and depression.

After being sworn into office, the Democrat checked himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in February to be treated for his depression, where he stayed until late March.

‘I always treated my depression like I did with losing my hair,’ Fetterman told People magazine of his mental health battle. ‘It’s just kind of like, ‘Oh yeah, that’s just part of my makeup.”

Fetterman described his one and only midterm debate against Dr. Mehmet Oz as like ‘trying to run a marathon with a broken ankle.’ During the debate, Fetterman was granted the use of a closed captioning system so that he would be able to read the questions being asked.

The Democrat also revealed that his depression after the midterms became so severe he stopped eating and drinking.

‘I literally stopped eating and drinking, and I wasn’t functional,’ Fetterman told the outlet.

‘After winning, he seemed to be at the lowest. That was, for me, the moment of concern,’ Gisele Fetterman said of her husband’s state of mind following his midterm win.

‘There wasn’t one person in my life that said, ‘Yeah, you really seem great. You sound fine here,’’ Fetterman said, revealing he was ‘firmly indifferent to living’ at the time.

‘The conversation I had with my team and my family is that I’ve got to do something or it could end in the most awful way,’ the senator said, detailing his decision to seek help. ‘I wasn’t thinking about self-harm, but I was firmly indifferent to living.’

Fetterman made his official return to the Senate Monday after his weeks-long hospital stay, telling reporters ‘it’s great to be back.’

An IRS Criminal Supervisory Agent seeking whistleblower protection claims the investigation into Hunter Biden is being mishandled by the Biden administration.

In a letter dated April 19, 2023, attorney Mark D. Lytle of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Nixon Peabody LLP tells members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that his client has been overseeing the ‘ongoing and sensitive investigation of a high-profile, controversial subject since early 2020 and would like to make protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.’

The story was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News has since confirmed the story through a source familiar with the investigation that the subject at issue is Hunter Biden.

In Wednesday’s letter, Lytle said his client has already made legally protected disclosures internally at the IRS.

The protected disclosures, Lytle notes, ‘contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee.’

Lytle also said his client has information that the investigator failed to mitigate ‘clear conflicts of interest,’ adding that the investigator allegedly allowed preferential treatment and politics to infect decisions and protocols normally followed by law enforcement professionals if the subject was not politically connected.

‘My goal is to ensure that my client can properly share his lawfully protected disclosures with congressional committees,’ Lytle said in the letter. ‘Thus, I respectfully request that your committees work with me to facilitate sharing this information with congress legally and with the fully informed advice of counsel.’

Representatives for the first son did not immediately respond to questions regarding the alleged mishandling of the investigation.

The president’s son has been under federal investigation since 2018, which is being led by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a prosecutor appointed by former President Donald Trump.

Fox News first reported in December 2020 that Hunter Biden was a subject/target of a grand jury investigation, which was prompted, in part, by Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) regarding suspicious foreign transactions.

He has not been charged with any crimes.

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox that efforts by the Biden administration to block efforts to charge Hunter were ‘deeply concerning.’

‘The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has been following the Bidens’ tangled web of complex corporate and financial records. It’s clear from our investigation that Hunter and other members of the Biden family engaged in deceptive, shady business schemes to avoid scrutiny as they made millions from foreign adversaries like China,’ he said. ‘We’ve been wondering all along where the heck the DOJ and the IRS have been. Now it appears the Biden administration may have been working overtime to prevent the Bidens from facing consequences.’

A proposal by Republicans in Ohio’s Statehouse that would raise the vote threshold required to amend the state constitution has advanced through both House and Senate committees.The plan coincides with a proposed abortion rights amendment, likely aimed at thwarting any potential it has to pass.While Democrats accuse the Ohio GOP of ‘legislative whiplash,’ Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone noted that her party is not ‘reinventing the wheel,’ and is simply amending an existing process.

A contingent of Statehouse Republicans in Ohio pressed forward Wednesday with their plan to make it harder to amend the state’s constitution, an effort aimed most immediately at thwarting an abortion rights amendment in the works for this fall.

After months of consternation over the issue, identical resolutions cleared both Senate and House committees within hours of each other — each calling for raising the 50%-plus-one threshold in place for passing Ohio constitutional amendments since 1912 to 60%. When the committee vote was called in the House, shouts of ‘Shame!’ reverberated in the halls, where dozens of opponents still had been lined up to testify.

About 59% of Ohio voters believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of over 90,000 midterm voters across the U.S. Only 7% said abortion should be illegal in all cases.

The Senate version of the 60% proposal went straight to a floor vote, where it passed 26-7 along party lines. The chamber also passed separate legislation setting an Aug. 8 special election to take up the question and allotting $20 million to pay for it.

A floor vote in the politically fractured Ohio House was not immediately scheduled on its version of the plan.

Republican Speaker Jason Stephens expressed earlier concerns about the rush, stymying backers’ efforts to get the measure on the ballot in May. He then called it bad form to resurrect August special elections only months after passing a bill to mostly eliminate them.

His critics have accused Stephens of intentionally stalling as part of a deal they say he cut with Democrats to secure the speakership; both he and Democratic Leader Allison Russo have denied that there was any deal.

The star witness on behalf of eliminating most August special elections was Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who blasted them as low-turnout drains on election board budgets that are bad for the state and for democracy. But LaRose now says he favors this particular August election, which he calls an exceptional circumstance.

Democratic state Sen. Kent Smith used LaRose’s own testimony against him during Wednesday’s floor debate, accusing him and fellow Republicans of putting Ohioans through ‘legislative whiplash’ in pursuit of their own interests.

‘This is an assault on democracy designed to harm citizens by limiting their right to self-governance,’ Smith said.

GOP state Sen. Theresa Gavarone said Republicans ‘are not reinventing the wheel,’ but simply adding one more exception to the types of items that Ohioans can vote on in August.

Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine will have the ultimate say on whether an August election is called, if the legislation eventually clears the House. His office said Wednesday that he is still reviewing the bill and could not comment on whether he might veto it.

But the governor plays no part in placing the 60% resolution on the ballot. Legislators do that directly.

More than 250 groups are lined up to fight the measure if it materializes, including many who testified against it Wednesday. They include the League of Women Voters, the NAACP and an array of labor, faith, civil rights, good government and community organizations.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that House Judiciary Committee Republicans can question a former Manhattan prosecutor about the criminal case against former President Trump, saying Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg does not have a legal basis to block the congressional subpoena.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil rejected Bragg’s request for a temporary restraining order and injunction after Chairman Jim Jordan issued a subpoena to former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz last week. 

Bragg almost immediately appealed the ruling and sought a stay of the decision.

Bragg had filed a federal lawsuit against Jordan, alleging that the Republican lawmaker is trying to wage a campaign of intimidation over his prosecution of former President Donald Trump. 

But the judge on Wednesday ruled that the subpoena was issued with a valid legislative purpose.

‘In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights,’ Vyskocil’s filing states. ‘Bragg complains of political interference in the local DANY case, but Bragg does not operate outside of the political arena. Bragg is presumptively acting in good faith.’

‘That said, he is an elected prosecutor in New York County with constituents, some of whom wish to see Bragg wield the force of law against the former President and a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination,’ the judge stated.

‘Jordan, in turn, has initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution, funded (in part) with federal money, that has the potential to interfere with the exercise of presidential duties and with an upcoming federal election,’ the filing states. 

‘The Court does not endorse either side’s agenda,’ the filing continues. ‘The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose.’

The judge added: ‘He does not.’

The judge urged the parties to ‘speak with one another to reach a mutually agreeable compromise regarding how the deposition of Mr. Pomerantz will proceed.’ 

Reacting to the ruling Wednesday evening, House Judiciary Committee spokesman Russell Dye said: 

‘Today’s decision shows that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomeranz, and we look forward to his deposition before the Judiciary Committee.’ 

The ruling comes after Jordan subpoenaed Pomerantz after the unprecedented indictment of former President Trump. 

‘We respectfully disagree with the District Court’s decision,’ Bragg’s office said.

Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in criminal court in Lower Manhattan earlier this month. The charges are related to alleged hush-money payments made ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Bragg, when he took over as district attorney in January 2022, stopped pursuing charges against Trump and suspended the investigation ‘indefinitely,’ according to a letter written last year by Pomerantz.

Pomerantz and Dunne, who had been leading the investigation under Bragg’s predecessor – former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance – submitted their resignations in February 2022 after Bragg began raising doubts about pursuing a case against Trump.

After Pomerantz resigned, he wrote a tell-all book based on the investigation, which was still ongoing. The book seemingly made the case to charge Trump. 

Before joining the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, Pomerantz was of counsel at New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s brother, Robert Schumer, is a partner at the firm. Pomerantz donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Earlier this month, Trump was charged in a New York Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Bragg alleged that Trump ‘repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.’

Trump has slammed the DA’s investigation and the charges as ‘Political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history.’

The ruling comes after Jordan held a field hearing in New York City Monday to highlight the rising crime under Bragg’s tenure. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

EXCLUSIVE: Two liberal organizations describing themselves as ‘radical feminist’ groups have entered a surprising partnership in their effort to protect women’s rights.

This week, Women’s Liberation Front and Women’s Declaration International USA broke with the President Biden and joined congressional Republicans in support of H.R. 734, or the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, a bill that would prevent biological males from participating in women’s sports.

Speaking with Fox News Digital on Wednesday, Kara Dansky, the President of Women’s Declaration International USA, said her nonpartisan organization was ‘devoted to advancing the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights, which, according to the group, ‘reaffirms women and girls’ sex-based rights,’ and challenges the discrimination experienced ‘from the replacement of the category of sex with that of ‘gender identity.”

‘We are a radical feminist organization, and Article Seven of the Declaration on Women’s Sex based Rights, which is grounded in a radical feminist critique of gender identity, demands that sports be kept single sex. And we think that Representative Steube’s bill is in alignment with Article Seven of the Declaration,’ Dansky told Fox.

Dansky said she wasn’t surprised to hear Biden’s vow to veto the bill should it pass through Congress, and emphasized that she is a Democrat while blasting the party over its stance on the issue.

‘I am a registered Democrat and always have been, and I think it’s the height of hypocrisy for Democratic leadership, including the president, to champion the rights of women and girls to abortion, which we totally support, while simultaneously denying the rights of women and girls to single sex spaces,’ she said.

Lierre Keith, the board chair of the Women’s Liberation Front, echoed Dansky in her determination to protect single-sex sports.

‘Women and girls deserve to play in athletic competitions that are fair and safe. Single-sex sports are critical to ensuring equal opportunity, scholarships, and careers, and new ‘gender identity’ policies threaten to set women back decades in progress,’ she said in a statement. 

‘Girls who play sports demonstrate higher levels of confidence and positive body-image, achieve better grades in school, and are more likely to graduate. Additionally, even the fastest female Olympians are still out-run by high school boys, and biological differences between males & females are not even remotely changed by hormones or surgery,’ she said. 

Keith added that ‘most ‘gender identity’ policies’ don’t require physical or hormonal changes for men to identify as women and compete in the same sport, and cited polling showing Americans largely disagree with allowing ‘trans-identified boys and men’ to compete against girls and women.

‘For all these reasons, we strongly support the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act,’ she said.

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., who introduced H.R. 734 earlier this year, celebrated his partnership with both groups while speaking with Fox on Wednesday, describing it as an ‘interesting bipartisan conglomerate’ coming together to protect women’s sports.

He predicted the bill would pass the House of Representatives on Thursday when it comes to the floor for a vote, and that a number of Democrats would also support it. He was unsure, however, of the outcome in the Senate.

‘I would imagine, depending on how many Democrats end up voting, that will probably give it a lot of support. But I think the other piece that’s really important here is after three or four years of working on this, we’re finally going to have the opportunity to know where every single member of Congress is on this very important issue,’ he said.

On Biden’s vow to veto the bill, and the possibility there wouldn’t be enough votes to override the veto, Steube expressed hope there would be lawsuits because the administration’s changes to Title IX didn’t pass through Congress and were implemented by executive order. He also tied in the implications for those seeking the White House in 2024.

‘I’m sure any Republican who’s going to be the nominee is going to support this bill coming through. So that’s going to be an issue that parents are going to vote for coming to the midterm or to the presidential election, and that 73% of Americans that support protecting women’s sports are going to know that this administration is not in touch with America on this,’ he said.

Kansas’ governor vetoed legislation Wednesday that would require clinics to tell patients that a medication abortion can be stopped using an unproven drug regimen.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s action pushed back state GOP efforts to restrict abortion despite a decisive statewide vote affirming abortion rights in August 2022. It was the second time within a week that she vetoed an anti-abortion bill approved by the Legislature, which has Republican supermajorities and conservative leaders.

‘Kansans made clear that they believe personal healthcare decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor, not politicians in Topeka,’ Kelly said in a short statement announcing Wednesday’s action.

Last week, she rejected a measure that could subject doctors to criminal charges and lawsuits if they are accused of not providing enough care for infants delivered alive during certain abortion procedures, even if they are expected to die within seconds outside the womb because of a severe medical issue.

Kelly also vetoed an abortion medication ‘reversal’ measure in 2019. The governor said Wednesday that this year’s bill would interfere in decisions made by women and their doctors and could harm people’s health, ‘given the uncertain science behind it.’

Kansans for Life, the state’s most influential anti-abortion group, called last week’s veto of the bill dealing with medical care for infants born during abortion procedures ‘heartless.’ After Kelly’s veto of the abortion medication measure, spokesperson Danielle Underwood said the governor sided with the ‘extremist abortion industry.’

Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, said: ‘With this veto, Governor Kelly has shown that she does not believe vulnerable women have the right to know all of their options.’

The vetoes mean that abortion access and providers in Kansas remain for now far less restricted compared to other states with GOP-controlled legislatures that have banned or severely restricted abortion procedures over the past year.

GOP lawmakers are expected to try to override both vetoes after they reconvene next week to finish their business for the year.

Abortion opponents had the two-thirds majorities that will be necessary to override the veto of the bill on medical treatment for infants delivered alive during abortion procedures.

Republican lawmakers also may be able to override the bill vetoed Wednesday, though the vote is likely to be close in the House.

If they do, patients asking for a medical abortion would get a state-mandated, written notice that they can interrupt their abortion, even though the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology says there is no scientific evidence that the ‘reversal’ approach promoted by abortion opponents is safe or effective.

Abortion rights supporters contend both measures break faith with voters. Kansas Senate Democratic Leader Dinah Sykes said Wednesday that those voters had ‘rejected giving politicians power over their personal, private decisions.’

‘This bill attempts to undermine Kansans’ right to bodily autonomy by willfully forcing blatant misinformation into a healthcare environment,’ said Sykes, who is from the Kansas City area, where the abortion-rights vote was especially strong. ‘This is an attempt to sway a woman away from making the decision that the people of Kansas resoundingly said she has a right to make on her own.’

Even if Kansas lawmakers override Kelly’s vetoes, providers could ask state courts to block the new laws. Lawsuits have prevented Kansas from enforcing a 2015 ban on a common second-trimester abortion procedure and a 2011 law from imposing extra health and safety rules on abortion providers.

At least a dozen states enacted abortion ‘reversal’ bans before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 allowing states to prohibit abortion, though legal challenges put four states’ laws on hold.

But in Kansas, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that access to abortion is a matter of bodily autonomy and a ‘fundamental’ right under the state constitution. The vote last year rejected stripping out that protection.

Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups contend the vote last year doesn’t preclude ‘reasonable’ abortion restrictions or rules for providers like the ‘reversal’ bill.

A majority of U.S. patients terminating their pregnancies do so with abortion medications. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year, abortion opponents have sought to undercut access to the pills. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legal status of mifepristone, the first of two medications in the most common and most effective method.

The abortion ‘reversal’ approach promoted by Kansas lawmakers involves giving women doses of the hormone progesterone after mifepristone is taken but before the second medication, misoprostol, is taken. Doctors use progesterone to try to prevent miscarriages.

Experts question the findings of the two anti-abortion doctors who began using the off-label ‘reversal’ approach more than 15 years ago and see a 2018 study vouching for its effectiveness as seriously flawed. Republican lawmakers in Kansas have brushed aside the criticism.

‘Medical knowledge is passed within our profession very much like political knowledge is passed here, peer to peer,’ Republican state Rep. Bill Clifford, a southwestern Kansas eye doctor, told his colleagues during one recent debate. ‘It isn’t always about studies, and you have to trust your colleagues.’

Former U.S. Rep. Bud Shuster, an influential Republican lawmaker who strongly backed transportation projects but ran afoul of ethics guidelines, has died. He was 91.

Shuster died peacefully at his farm Wednesday in Everett, Pennsylvania, surrounded by his family, including his son, Bill Shuster, who succeeded his father in the southern Pennsylvania congressional seat, Rebekah Sungala, a close family friend said.

Shuster died two weeks after fracturing his hip, which led to complications, she said.

Republican U.S. Rep. John Joyce, who now represents the area, called Shuster a ‘true legend in the halls of Congress.’

Shuster surprised his colleagues by announcing his resignation in 2001, a day after he was sworn in for his 15th term. He said it was due to losing his committee chairmanship.

Three months earlier, the House ethics committee had cited him for ‘serious official misconduct’ for accepting improper gifts, favoring a lobbyist and misusing congressional staff for political work.

But Shuster’s biggest legacy was in the ribbons of highway and the smooth runways he backed in his three terms as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and his 28 years in Congress.

He was dubbed the ‘king of asphalt,’ in part for bringing his constituents the Bud Shuster Highway, which connected State College, Altoona and the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Shuster once said he wanted to be remembered for helping average citizens.

‘Other people have told me I’ll be remembered for building America,’ he once told The Associated Press. ‘But the real psychic income comes when an elderly constituent said that, because of my rural development efforts, she can turn on a spigot for the first time ever and not get brown water.’

Early in his congressional career, Shuster got a seat on the committee, then known as Public Works, and pledged to help his district’s ailing fortunes by improving its roads.

Shuster used earmarks — a tactic that was rare in the 1970s, but became common while he was in office — to bring money to his district, which covered a large, rural and hilly section of southern Pennsylvania around the city of Altoona.

The first significant one, technically a demonstration project, was worth $25 million and paid for the construction of a 4.6-mile bypass around Everett.

In 1982, he got an earmark that was the down payment on what would become Interstate 99 — known as the Bud Shuster Highway.

His ability to deliver money to the district annoyed some fellow lawmakers. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., complained in 1991 that ‘the state of Altoona’ had received the most funds in a highway bill.

Shuster was unapologetic, saying the improvements made his Appalachian district more competitive, spurred the building of industrial parks and led to more jobs.

Once his position was solidified, Shuster was rarely opposed in elections. His last notable challenge came in 1984, the year he soundly beat Democrat Nancy Kulp, the actress who played Jane Hathaway on ‘The Beverly Hillbillies.’

In October 2000, the House ethics committee rebuked Shuster for accepting improper gifts and favoring a lobbyist, Ann M. Eppard, who was also his former chief of staff.

The committee found Shuster improperly allowed Eppard to appear before him in his official capacity in the year after her resignation from his staff. This ‘created the appearance that his official decisions might have been improperly affected,’ the committee found.

Shuster said he ‘complied with the law and with his understanding of what was right.’

He ran unopposed in the following month’s election. But House Republican rules limited committee chairs to three, two-year terms and Shuster didn’t want to accept a diminished role.

‘After being the quarterback of a Super Bowl championship team, I have no desire to play backup,’ Shuster told the AP the day he resigned. He also cited his and his wife’s health.

With Shuster’s backing, his son Bill Shuster replaced him in Congress.

E.G. ‘Bud’ Shuster was born in January 1932 in Glassport, an industrial town just south of Pittsburgh. His father was a railroad engineer.

He later recalled an encounter he had as an 11-year-old, when he saw people surround his congressman in search of help. He decided it was something he wanted to be some day.

Shuster put himself through school, earning a bachelor’s degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1954. He spent two years in the Army and went back to school, earning an MBA from Duquesne University in 1960 and, eventually, a Ph.D. in business and economics from American University.

He started a career in the computer business in the mid-1960s, rising to become a vice president with RCA in Washington. In the late 1960s, he engineered a turnaround at Datel, a computer terminal company.

When he decided to run for Congress in 1972, opponents and critics labeled him an outsider, even though he and his wife had bought a farm in Everett eight years earlier.

Shuster narrowly beat a state representative in the GOP primary and rode President Richard Nixon’s landslide re-election into the Capitol.