吉林包茎手术多长时间可以好吉林阳痿在那个医院治比较好,吉林前列腺增生检查哪些项目,吉林我一直都包皮,吉林医院前列腺稍大是什么意思,吉林做包皮手术哪家医院,吉林男人包皮过长该去哪个治疗,吉林有什么好点的割包皮医院吗

It's Halloween, a great time to be scared, right? But for many of us fears aren't fun and games. You might think it's best to stay away from the things that scare you the most. But one expert says doing the opposite may help you more.How about if you're afraid of germs?"You could touch the inside of the toilet and you can rub that on your face," says Psychologist Dr. David Shanley.It sounds gross, and if you're afraid of germs the thought is downright terrifying.But Shanley, who helps people fight their phobias, says facing your fears head on could be the key to getting over them. The first step is to asses exactly what they're fearing and what they're doing to avoid it. Then determine how much exposure to that fear a client can take. For example, a fear of dogs.  "If they take their fear head on and go to the dog park straight out then they're going to save themselves a lot of time of working up step-by-step," Shanley says.  Not everyone can go that far that fast. But Shanley says there has to be some level of exposure to make progress. Not just to fears on the outside, but on the inside.  "Part of the exposure is actually flooding them to those scariest thoughts," Dr. Shanley says.  If a person were afraid of elevators or tight spaces, overcoming the fear is about more than riding from floor to floor.  "You more want them actually thinking all the worst case scenarios so that they know that the next time they need to get into the elevator they can do it whether they are having happy thoughts or negative thoughts," Shanley says.  And when facing a fear of heights, the same principles apply.  "I would ask the person to, all right can you climb up here?" Shanley says. "And then as they are climbing up I would also be telling them, all right now look down and think about wow that's a long ways down and what if I fell?"  Dr. Shanley says these are all things you can try on your own, and repetition is key."Without it their success rate of the treatment is a lot less," Shanley says.  And don't be shy. Shanley says if you don't face your deepest, darkest fear, it could come back. Something to keep in perspective when things get a little dirty."I don't have to like it. They don't have to enjoy this process but we want it to illicit this fear," Shanley says.You can find out more about Dr. David Shanley here. 2444

INDIANAPOLIS — It has been quite a journey for Kari Wegg.She had been working tirelessly as a NICU nurse at St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis for more than 25 years when she found herself fighting for her own life with COVID-19 in that very same hospital.“It’s devastating. I never thought something like this could happen to me,” Wegg said. “It’s been so hard because I was healthy, and I thought if I ever got it, I would be fine.”Wegg first got sick in June and diagnosed with pneumonia. Then in July, she, her husband and two children tested positive for the coronavirus.“I do work in a hospital,” she said. “My husband also works in a hospital. It’s very possible we got it from the hospital.”Her family had mild symptoms and recovered quickly. However, Wegg did not.“It’s been since July since I’ve seen my boys., and I haven’t been able to hug them or love on them, and they miss me so much,” Wegg said.Wegg was put on a heart and lung bypass machine on Aug. 19. She says her doctors discussed removing care.“Their dad had to sit down and tell them their mother might die, and they’ve had to try and cope with that,” she said.But Wegg says her husband wouldn’t give up. Calls were made, and she was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago on Sept. 5 for a double lung transplant.Northwestern was the first hospital in the country to perform a double lung transplant on a COVID-19 paitnet, and Wegg was only the sixth such patient to undergo the surgery.“I am eternally grateful to the family of my donors,” Wegg said. “I don’t know anything about them or how they died but they gave me the gift of life.”Grateful to be alive, but devastated financially with non-stop medical bills, she suffers in her bed, while her fellow healthcare workers continue the fight. Wegg says she even has coworkers who have died of the virus.Wegg says she's praying that more people take the virus seriously."I’m hoping my message as a nurse who didn’t expect any of this can get out there and bring it home to people who don’t necessarily want to wear a mask or want to isolate themselves or quarantine," Wegg said. "This is real.”Wegg's sister has launched a GoFundMe to help cover the family's mounting medical costs. To donate, click here.This story was originally published by Stephanie Wade on WRTV in Indianapolis. 2336

It took four days for The Associated Press and other media outlets to call the presidential election for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Now, recounts and certification of the results will take a bit longer.With races too close to call in Arizona, Nevada and Georgia, Pennsylvania became the battleground that tipped the Electoral College count in Biden’s favor Saturday afternoon.But within hours of declaring victory, President Donald Trump released a statement saying, “Joe Biden has not been certified the winner of any state.”“Technically it's true. Certifying election results takes a while,” said Kira Lerner, the managing editor of Vote Beat, a non-partisan, non-profit covering election administration and voting.“Canvassing is the process of counting the ballots,” said Lerner. “It's what election officials are doing across the country right now. They're working tirelessly, overnight in some cases, to make sure that every single vote is counted in the certification process. Each state has a different deadline.”Certification happens after canvassing – whereby election officials verify that every single ballot was counted and there were no clerical errors. But tallying has taken longer due to record turnout and a surge in mail-in ballots.Still, six states have a deadline of within one week of the election to certify their results and have already done so. (Delaware, Virginia, Vermont, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Louisiana).In 26 states and Washington D.C., the certification deadline is between November 10 and the 30. (Wyoming, Mississippi, Florida, Massachusetts, Idaho, Arkansas, North Dakota, Georgia, Utah, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maine, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, New Mexico, Minnesota, Indiana, Washington D.C., Alaska, Alabama, Nebraska, Montana, Iowa, Colorado, and Arizona).In 14 states, the certification deadline is in December. (Wisconsin, Nevada, Kansas, West Virginia, Washington, Texas, Oregon, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and California)The remaining states don’t have deadlines. (Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Tennessee)“It will be some time before we can formally certify the winner of the presidential contest. But that doesn't mean that we won't know without a doubt who our president elect is, which we already do,” said Lerner.And then there are the recounts. In some states, they are automatically triggered when the victory falls within a razor thin margin. In Georgia, for example that’s .5%.But in the majority of states, candidates, political parties and in some cases voters can request a recount.Currently, the Trump administration is calling for recounts in Wisconsin and Georgia.“In Wisconsin, you have two days after the winner of the race has been certified to call for a recount. In other states, like Georgia, the secretary of state has already said that he will be seeking a recount on Donald Trump's behalf.”Lerner says legal challenges and recounts will likely fail to change the outcome of the election. Electors will vote by mid-December and deliver to officials in Washington just before Christmas. It may take a few more weeks but experts say the official results are unlikely to be delayed. 3213

It may not be as oft-quoted as the First Amendment or as contested as the Second Amendment, but the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a critical role in supporting some of our closest-held notions of American freedom and equality.For one, it clearly states that American citizenship is a birthright for all people who are born on American soil -- something that President Donald Trump has announced he wants to end. Not only would this unravel 150 years of American law, it would loosen a significant cornerstone of the Constitution's interpretation of American identity.In order to better understand this part of the 14th Amendment, we asked two experts in constitutional and immigration law to walk us through the first section. The amendment has five sections, but we will only be dealing with the first, which contains the Citizenship Clause and three other related clauses.But first, some historyThe 14th Amendment is known as a Reconstruction amendment, because it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868. That places it at an important historical crossroads, when lingering wounds of divisiveness and animosity still plagued the nation and the reality of a post-slavery America begged contentious racial and social questions."Thomas Jefferson said men were created equal, but the original Constitution betrayed that promise by allowing for slavery," says Jeffrey Rosen. "The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were designed to enshrine Lincoln's promise of a new America."However, as so often is the case, this reaffirmed American ideal fell short of reality. Rosen notes that issues of civil rights and equal treatment continued to be denied to African Americans, LGBT people and other citizens for more than a century after the amendment's ratification.And Erika Lee points out that Native Americans weren't even allowed to become citizens until 1925."Even as [these amendments] were written, obviously there were major built-in inequalities and maybe at the time weren't intended to apply to everyone," Lee says.Why was citizenship by birthright such an important concept?"Citizenship was a central question left open by the original Constitution," says Rosen. "At the time it was written, the Constitution assumed citizenship, but it didn't provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans can't be citizens of the US and 'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'"The US Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.READ MORE: Scott v. Sandford"The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright," Rosen says. "It is really important that it's a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to our Constitutional values."What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"According to Rosen, this is one of the greatest questions of citizenship. There are two clear examples of people not subject to the jurisdictions of the United States: diplomats and their children, and -- at the time of the 14th Amendment -- Native Americans, who were not recognized as part of the American populace."With those two exceptions, everyone who was physically present in the United States was thought to be under its jurisdiction," Rosen says. "There are numerous Supreme Court cases that reaffirm that understanding, and almost as importantly, there are lots of congressional statutes that assume birthright citizenship."Some scholars, like John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, have argued that children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus should not be considered citizens under the Constitution.But Rosen says this is a minority view among constitutional scholars of all political backgrounds."While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled [on the instance of children of illegal immigrants], Congress has passed all kinds of laws presuming their citizenship," Rosen says.What is the connection between birthright citizenship and immigration?In 1898, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court reached a defining decision in a case known as the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Lee explains that Wong Kim Ark was the American-born son of Chinese immigrants."Asian immigrants were the first immigrants to the US that couldn't be considered white," Lee says. "So they are treated differently. They are taxed differently, they are stripped of many rights. In the 1880s, they are excluded from immigration and barred from citizenship."READ MORE: The United States v. Wong Kim ArkSo, the main question of the case was, could a person born in America be a citizen in a place where his parents could not be as well? The Supreme Court decided yes, and the case remains the first defining legal decision made under the banner of birthright citizenship."[The Supreme Court's decision] said that the right of citizenship is not a matter of inheritance, that it never descends from generation to generation, it is related to where you're born," Lee says. "It's about the power of place. That has been a very expansive, and at the time, a corrective measure to a more exclusionary definition both legally as well as culturally as to what an American is."Why must it be stated that the privileges of citizenship need to be protected?Before the Civil War, states didn't necessarily have to follow the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights; only Congress had to. The 14th Amendment changed that."This second sentence of the Amendment means that states have to respect the Bill of Rights as well as basic civil rights and the rights that come along with citizenship," Rosen says. "The idea was that there were rights that were so basic; so integral to citizenship that they could not be narrowed by the states."Despite the promises and protections of citizenship, Lee says it is abundantly clear that different racial groups were, and often are, seen as unable or unworthy to function as true American citizens. After all, basic rights of citizenship, like suffrage and equal treatment, were denied certain racial groups for a hundred years after the 14th Amendment."The idea of a law applying to 'all people' seems to be clear. But in reality, the debate and the laws and practices that get established are very much based on a hierarchy of, well sure, all persons, but some are more fit and some are more deserving than others," she says.Throughout history, Asian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Muslim immigrants and their children, to name a few, have had unspoken cultural caveats applied to their ability to be Americans."For Asian immigrants, the racial argument at the time was that 'It didn't matter whether one were born in the US or not, Asians as a race, are unassimilable. They are diametrically opposite from us Americans,'" Lee says."That was the argument that was used to intern Japanese citizens. It was the denial of citizenship in favor of race: 'The ability to become American, the ability to assimilate, they just didn't have it.'"Why was it important to legalize rights for non-citizens?So far, we've covered the first clause, the Citizenship Clause, and the second, the Privileges and Immunities Clause. These both deal with American citizens.The final two clauses, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection clause, are a little different, and deal with the rights of all people in the United States.Eagle-eyed Constitution readers will notice that the 14th Amendment contains a "due process" clause very similar to the Fifth Amendment. This, says Rosen, was a technical addition to ensure the Fifth Amendment wasn't theoretically narrowed down to protect only American citizens."The 14th Amendment distinguishes between the privileges of citizenship and the privileges of all people," Rosen says. "The framers [of the amendment] thought there were certain rights that were so important that they should be extended to all persons, and in order to specify that they needed a new 'due process' clause."What does it mean to have 'equal protection of the laws'?"At the time following the Civil War, at its core, it meant all persons had the right to be protected by the police, that the laws of the country should protect all people," Rosen says. "In the 20th century, more broader questions were litigated under the 14th Amendment, like Brown v. Board of Education -- whether segregation was constitutional. Cases involving the internment of Japanese citizens, case from the marriage equality decisions, even Roe vs. Wade have strains of equal protection language and invoke due process law."READ MORE: Brown v. Board of EducationAnother interesting case that speaks directly to the immigration side of the 14th Amendment debate is the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, in which the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the state of Texas to deny funding for undocumented immigrant children.READ MORE: Plyler v. DoeWhy are we talking about all this right now?This week,?Trump vowed to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.But his interest in repealing birthright citizenship isn't a new idea. Lee says for the last 30 years or so, there have been several overtures by the political right to explore "citizenship reform," a timeline that she says aligns with the ascendancy of modern American conservatism.Lee fears if the current push to end birthright citizenship is successful, it could have wider implications than most people assume. People from other countries who are here legally on work or student visas, for instance, could have children who do not legally belong to the only country they know."There have been attempts since the 1990s to break away birthright citizenship, or narrow it down, and it did not seem that they would have a chance at succeeding until now," she says."To me this not only reflects the ascendancy of an extreme right position but also a return to a very narrow and exclusionary definition of Americanness." 10356

INDIANAPOLIS — The NCAA is in preliminary talks with state and city officials to host the entire 68-team men’s basketball tournament in Indianapolis in the spring, the organization said.Indianapolis was already slated to host the Men’s Final Four from April 3-5, 2021.It is unclear if fans will be allowed to attend the games.“We have learned so much from monitoring other successful sporting events in the last several months, and it became clear it’s not feasible to manage this complex championship in so many different states with the challenges presented by the pandemic,” said Dan Gavitt, NCAA Senior Vice President of Basketball. “However, we are developing a solid plan to present a safe, responsible and fantastic March Madness tournament unlike any other we’ve experienced.”The NCAA said the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee emphasized the importance of conducting the tournament in a manageable geographic area that limits travel and provides an environment with competition and practice venues, medical resources and lodging for teams and officials all near each another.This story originally reported on WRTV.com. 1140