吉林男子勃起障碍医院在线咨询(吉林切包皮到哪家医院技术好) (今日更新中)

A man convicted of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman on an overnight flight from Las Vegas to Detroit was sentenced on Thursday to nine years in prison, according to federal prosecutors.Prabhu Ramamoorthy, 35, was convicted in August of sexual abuse onboard an aircraft. Jurors deliberated for less than four hours before returning the guilty verdict.Authorities say that during an Spirit Airlines flight in January, Ramamoorthy put his hand down the pants of the woman sitting next to him and molested her while she slept."The sexual assault woke her up, she found her pants unbuttoned and unzipped, and she sought help from the flight attendants," according to a statement from the US Attorney's Office.Ramamoorthy was taken into custody when the flight landed.His attorneys did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment on the sentencing."The sentence announced today is proof that the safety and security of all aircraft passengers is a priority for the FBI, our local and federal law enforcement partners, and airline personnel," Timothy R. Slater, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Detroit Division said in a statement. "If you, or someone you know, is the victim of a crime during air travel, immediately notify a flight crew member, airport security police, and the FBI."The government said Ramamoorthy is in the United States on a work visa and that he will be deported after he serves his sentence. The statement did not say what country he is from.It is difficult to determine how often this sort of abuse happens on commercial flights, but FBI investigations into midair sexual assaults have increased by 66% from fiscal year 2014 to 2017. 1690

A gun owner posted a video to social media showing himself sawing an AR-15 rifle in half.Scott Pappalardo says he is a proud gun owner, but after the mass shooting that killed 17 people at a Florida high school last week, Pappalardo said this is what he needs to do to contribute to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.Watch the video to hear from him.  387

A co-author of a criminal justice textbook that included convicted sexual assailant Brock Turner’s photo next to the section titled “Rape” is standing by their decision.Last week, a student at Washington State University posted a photo of the book page on Facebook, and it has since been shared over 100,000 times.Callie Rennison, a University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs professor and co-author of “Introduction to Criminal Justice: Systems, Diversity and Change,” said that the vast majority of reaction she’s received has been positive. However, critics have said that even though Turner’s crimes may fit the FBI definition of rape, he was not convicted of rape as defined by California law—instead he was convicted of sexual assault.Currently, the federal definition states that if there’s penetration “with any object, any body part, that’s not consensual, then that’s rape,” Rennison said. “Brock Turner was convicted of a penetration offense and under these definitions that’s rape.”Rennison also points out that critics may not have read the entire section of the book and missed some key context.“That particular section is about how definitions change over time,” Rennison said.In fact, California did alter their definition of rape, in part due to Turner's case.She says they will still add even more context in upcoming editions of the book, a fact the publisher confirmed, as well.She contends that the reason Turner’s image was used in the first place was to keep the curriculum current and thus relatable to students in 2017.“This is who students know and students talk about,” she said. “Contemporary references are a must. Looking at older books students aren’t engaged. They don’t think it applies to them in their world.”She also hopes it starts a larger conversation about punishment. Turner’s six-month sentence—of which he served three months—was widely covered in the media.“This allows us to have the discussion about what is the time most people serve for this, and students are shocked to learn that often it's nothing.”Rennison said she and her co-author, Mary Dodge, are the first all-female team of authors to pen a criminal justice textbook.Turner’s attorney, Mike Armstrong, declined to comment for the story, and attempts to reach Turner’s parents were unsuccessful. 2332

A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall."The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid."The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to A freewheeling President Donald Trump offered a political greatest hits reel Friday to the highest-profile right-wing gathering of the year, basking in conservative plaudits for what he characterized as a triumphant first year in office.Quickly discarding prepared remarks he deemed "sort of boring," Trump lit into Democrats and even some Republicans who he deemed insufficiently doctrinaire, and again called for teachers to be armed in schools as a response to the Florida shooting last week.He welcomed familiar chants like "lock her up" about Hillary Clinton, the opponent he defeated 15 months ago. And he pledged to protect gun ownership rights, even amid an emotional national debate over guns in which he'd pledged new restrictions.  755 as part of the 2017 tax cut bill.The Republican coalition is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. They say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress' tax power. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty.The Trump administration said in June that it would not defend several important provisions of Obamacare in court. It agreed that the zeroing out the penalty renders the individual mandate unconstitutional but argued that that invalidates only the law's protections of those with pre-existing conditions. These include banning insurers from denying people policies or charging them more based on their medical histories, as well as limiting coverage of the treatment they need.But the administration maintained those parts of the law were severable and the rest of the Affordable Care Act could remain in place.Because the administration would not defend the law, California, joined by 16 other Democratic states, stepped in. They argued that the mandate remains constitutional and that the rest of the law, in any event, can stand without it. Also, they said that eliminating Obamacare or the protections for those with pre-existing conditions would harm millions of Americans.In oral arguments in September, a lawyer for California said that the harm from striking down the law would be "devastating" and that more than 20 million Americans were able to gain health insurance under it.The lawsuit entered the spotlight during the midterm elections, helping propel many Democratic candidates to victory. Protecting those with pre-existing conditions became a central focus of the races. Some 58% of Americans said they trust Democrats more to continue the law's provisions, compared to 26% who chose Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation election tracking poll released in mid-October.The consumer protections targeted by the administration are central to Obamacare and transformed the health insurance landscape. Their popularity is one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers had such difficulty repealing Obamacare last year."Guaranteed issue" requires insurers to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurers often rejected applicants who are or had been ill or offered them only limited coverage with high rates.Under the law's community rating provision, insurers are not allowed to set premiums based on a person's health history. And the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage meant that insurers cannot refuse to pay for treatments because of a policyholder's medical background.All these provisions meant millions of people with less-than-perfect health records could get comprehensive coverage. But they also have pushed up premiums for those who are young and healthy. This group would have likely been able to get less expensive policies that offered fewer benefits prior to Obamacare. That has put the measures in the crosshairs of Republicans seeking to repeal the law and lower premiums.It's no wonder that politicians on both sides of the aisle promised to protect those with pre-existing conditions during the election. Three-quarters of Americans say that it is "very important" for the law to continue prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage because of medical histories, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's September tracking poll -- 58% of Republicans feel the same way. And about the same share of Americans say it's "very important" that insurers continue to be barred from charging sick people more. 4383

<云转化_句子>

来源：资阳报