Orange Beach Middle and High School to have virtual classes Friday because of illness
ORANGE BEACH, Ala. (WKRG) — Orange Beach Middle and High School will have virtual classes Friday after several students and teachers got sick Thursday.
3 Mobile County men arrested in FBI-led 'Operation Restore Justice'
An Orange Beach City Schools Facebook post said a staffing shortage was caused by what was 'believed to be related to an illness.'
Superintendent Randy Wilkes told News 5 that 30 students and staff were out on Thursday from a virus they believed came from food brought into the school.
'As the safety and well-being of students and staff remain the top priority, Orange Beach City Schools has contacted the appropriate health authorities, and the situation is currently under review,' the post said.
According to the post, students scheduled to take Advanced Placement tests in Economics and U.S. History will report to campus as scheduled. All other OBMHS students are to check their Google Classroom tonight for their assignments, and staff will work from home unless told otherwise by their immediate supervisor.
Wilkes said the school will be put through a deep clean before students return on Monday.
No illnesses of this kind were reported at Orange Beach Elementary School, so those students and staff should report to school as usual.
Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV, overcame a taboo against a US pontiff
The Fine Arts Night that was scheduled for Thursday night has been postponed, and a new date will be announced as soon as possible, the post said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Democrat States Rolling Back Health Care Benefits for Immigrants
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Multiple Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and Minnesota, have moved to roll back or freeze health care coverage for undocumented immigrants. Others may follow suit. Why It Matters The rollback of state-funded health care access for undocumented immigrants could signal a significant policy shift with national implications. The developments come amid larger debates over immigration and health care policy at a time when state and federal budgets face significant pressures. What To Know These policy reversals have been attributed by the states' Democratic leaders to mounting budget deficits and rising program costs. While coverage for many undocumented residents had been expanded in recent years, governors announced measures to reduce benefits, freeze new enrollments or end programs entirely. Such changes could affect tens of thousands of individuals and counter notions of universal health care, backed by many Democrats, while prompting broader reassessment of similar programs in other states, including Colorado, New York and Washington. Some Democratic-run states are rolling back health care, or considering rolling it back, for undocumented immigrants because of tightened budgets. Some Democratic-run states are rolling back health care, or considering rolling it back, for undocumented immigrants because of tightened budgets. Flourish California: Enrollment Freeze and Possible Benefit Reductions California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced plans to freeze new enrollments in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for undocumented adults. Existing recipients would remain covered but could face reduced benefits in the future. Starting in 2027, the state plans to introduce a $100 monthly premium for adults without satisfactory immigration status, attributed to higher-than-expected spending and a multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall. The pause in California is for undocumented adults who haven't already enrolled in Medi-Cal, not people already enrolled. It does not apply to those under age 19, as even those who turn 19 and are on Medi-Cal and remain income eligible will keep their coverage. In May, Newsom said: "We are not cutting or rolling back those that are already enrolled in our Medi-Cal system, we're just capping state has done more than the state of California, no state will continue to more than the state of California by a long shot. That's a point of pride and that's a point of privilege to be governor that's been part of that effort." Under Newsom, California became the first state to offer full-scope Medi-Cal to all low-income adults, regardless of immigration status—expanding access in phases to young adults in 2020, older adults in 2022 and all remaining adults in 2024. "Governor Newsom championed these expansions and remains committed to protecting the immigrant communities who contribute to the fabric and economy of California," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Newsweek on Friday. "He refuses to turn his back on hard-working Californians, especially when it comes to their basic health care needs. "But because of the $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization, the state must take difficult but necessary steps to ensure fiscal stability and preserve the long-term viability of Medi-Cal for all Californians." Proposed adjustments in California's 2025-26 budget would include a $100 monthly premium for certain adults, effective January 1, 2027, and applies to Medi-Cal enrollees age 19 and older with "unsatisfactory immigration status—in line with the average subsidized covered California premium, which is about $135 per month in 2025. The estimated general fund savings would be $2.1 billion by 2028-29. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at East Los Angeles College on February 26, 2025, in Monterey Park, California. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at East Los Angeles College on February 26, 2025, in Monterey Park, enrollment freeze for full-scope Medi-Cal for undocumented adults, effective no sooner than January 1, 2026, applies only to new adult applicants over 19. Nobody under such a freeze would be kicked off their health care. There would be no impact on limited-scope coverage (emergency, pregnancy services, etc.) and children would remain unaffected. The state, which has previously frozen a publicly sponsored coverage program during difficult budget years, has estimated general-fund savings to be $3.3 billion by 2028-29. Illinois: Full Program Termination Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has proposed ending the Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults program as of July 1. The program, launched in 2021, provided state-funded health coverage to more than 30,000 low-income undocumented adults. The decision is a response to higher-than-anticipated costs, aligning with broader deficit reduction efforts. Those previously enrolled will be left without similar coverage options. Newsweek reached out to Pritzker's office for comment. Minnesota: Removal From MinnesotaCare Pritzker specifically related his in-state efforts to what is happening in neighboring states like Minnesota, where Governor Tim Walz said he would sign a bill removing undocumented adults from MinnesotaCare, a state-funded program, by year's end. While coverage for undocumented adults will end, eligibility will continue for undocumented children. The bill reversed a major health policy expansion from 2023. Newsweek reached out to Walz's office for comment. Broader National Trend and Political Debate Congressional Republicans in Colorado, one of seven states offering health care regardless of immigration status, are urging Democratic Governor Jared Polis to rescind Medicaid eligibility for undocumented immigrants. A letter co-signed by Representatives Lauren Boebert, Jeff Crank and Gabe Evans referenced recent rollbacks in California and Minnesota, and cited concerns over rising costs and effects on the state's Medicaid program. The letter, in part, says that each new dollar invested in care for illegal immigrants is a dollar that could go to supporting long-term care for seniors or keeping rural hospitals open. "Congressman Gabe Evans believes Governor Polis should prioritize taxpayer-funded health care for citizens who need it most: single mothers, children and people with disabilities," a spokesperson for Evans told Newsweek on Friday. "Additionally, every dollar that Colorado hands out for free health care for illegal immigrants is money that can't be spent on seniors and rural hospitals." Newsweek reached out to Polis' office for comment. What Happens Next Debate in other states, such as New York and Washington, suggests that similar policy shifts could spread. Democratic governors pointed to financial constraints and anticipated federal funding cuts as primary reasons for reversing course. Pressures from federal proposals, such as a Trump-endorsed bill to reduce Medicaid support for states offering coverage to undocumented immigrants, are shaping state policies. States like New York and Washington are reviewing their own policies, signaling that further changes may be forthcoming as budget negotiations and federal actions continue.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
China's Fungus—A Biological Weapons Attack on America's Food Supply?
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. This month, three Chinese nationals were charged with smuggling biological agents into the United States. The attempts could be part of a biological weapons attack on America's farms and ranches. On June 3, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan announced that Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, had been charged with conspiracy, smuggling, false statements, and visa fraud. Jian was arrested for smuggling Fusarium graminearum, a "potential agroterrorism weapon" that causes "head blight." The fungal disease hits wheat, barley, maize, and rice and "is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year." In humans and livestock, head blight causes vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive defects. A tractor and planting implement creates a dust cloud while planting a wheat field in the fertile farm fields of Idaho. A tractor and planting implement creates a dust cloud while planting a wheat field in the fertile farm fields of Idaho. Getty Images Their actions, according to U.S. Attorney Jerome Gorgon, Jr., represented "the gravest national security concerns." Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI's Detroit Field Office, said the pathogens "posed an imminent threat to public safety." Then on June 9, Michigan's Eastern District announced that it had charged Chinese citizen Chengxuan Han with smuggling "biological materials" and making false statements. The materials, it appears, related to round worms. So why were Jian, Liu, and Han importing pathogens? "Fusarium graminearum is a common pathogen affecting crops in China, and numerous Chinese research institutes, including the Institute of Rice Biology at Zhejiang University, have been actively studying it," Xiaoxu Sean Lin, a former lab director of the viral disease branch of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, told Newsweek. "The FBI confiscated samples labeled 'ARP9,' an actin-related gene known to influence chromatin remodeling and gene transcription. This suggests the samples were genetically modified strains of Fusarium graminearum." "This raises a critical biosafety question," Lin noted. "Were these modified strains designed to enhance infectivity or pesticide resistance?" The pair may have intended, Lin said, "to perform field testing with these modified fungal strains on university-owned agricultural land." And perhaps they were intending to develop one or more modified strains of head blight to be introduced on farmland or ranchland elsewhere. Zunyong Liu was affiliated with Zhejiang University, where he conducted research on Fusarium graminearum. That institution, Lin said, has a well-documented collaboration with the People's Liberation Army. As he pointed out, "China's military-civil fusion strategy makes it reasonable to speculate about military interest in these genetically modified pathogens, which are potentially related to biological warfare or agroterrorism." Lin said research on such organisms would require special permits from both the University of Michigan and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Jian and Liu, as experienced researchers, would have known that. "If the intent was purely academic," Lin asked, "why did the researchers not pursue the legal, regulated channels for pathogen transfer?" The fact that Yunqing Jian and Zunyong Liu would risk their careers by smuggling a known pathogen is a factor suggesting malign intent, especially given their relations with the Communist Party—Jian is a member—and their probable connections with military research at their home institutions in China. U.S. Attorney Gorgon said Chengxuan Han's smuggling was part of "an alarming pattern." Brandon Weichert, author of Biohacked: China's Race to Control Life, agreed, telling Newsweek, "The twin incidents are unlikely to be coincidental and certainly part of a troubling series of pathogen transfers to and from Chinese research institutions in recent years." Lin believed Han's affiliation with Huazhong University of Science and Technology is a warning sign because that institution is also involved in military-civil fusion programs. "Questions about PLA involvement are warranted," Lin said. "Biological warfare is a strategic 'commanding height' in Chinese military doctrine." As Weichert told this publication, "These agents can be weapons of mass destruction and their introduction into the United States could very well have been preparation for a biological weapons attack." The Chinese attempts this year to smuggle pathogens may be only the latest incidents in a Chinese campaign to bring down American agriculture. China, I believe, has been trying to plant invasive species in America since at least 2020. That year, Americans in all 50 states received seeds unsolicited from China. Early this year, Temu, the online Chinese retailer, was caught sending seeds to the U.S. unsolicited. In one case, a Chinese party sent unsolicited both seeds and an unidentified liquid. "We can expect many more attempts at sabotaging our food supply both to damage our economy and cause chaos," Weichert said. Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America and The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on X @GordonGChang. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
