成都雷诺氏综合症手术(成都哪个医院看老烂腿好) (今日更新中)

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams disagrees so much with a gun bill making its way through the Colorado legislature that he's willing to go to jail rather than enforce it."It's a matter of doing what's right," he said.He's not the only one who feels so strongly.The controversial "red flag" bill aims to seize guns temporarily from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.Colorado's state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a single vote, without any Republican support, and the bill is expected to pass the House, possibly this week. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stand in the way.But more than half of Colorado's 64 counties officially oppose the bill. Many have even declared themselves Second Amendment "sanctuary" counties in protest.Failure to enforce a court order to seize a person's guns could mean sheriffs being found in contempt. A judge could fine them indefinitely, or even send them to jail to force them to comply.Reams says it's a sacrifice he'd be forced to make.What is the bill?Colorado's "extreme risk protection order" bill would allow a family member, a roommate, or law enforcement to petition a judge to take someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.The push for legislation followed the death of Zack Parrish, the 29-year-old Douglas County sheriff's deputy killed in 2017 by a man with an arsenal of weapons who authorities said had a history of bizarre behavior, including threats to police.Parrish's former boss, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, has been one of the most vocal advocates of the bill and says he believes it could have prevented Parrish's death. Democratic House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the bill's primary sponsors, agrees.The other House sponsor is Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012.Garnett says he won't lose any sleep if Reams or another Colorado sheriff opts for jail instead of enforcement of a court order."What I'm going to lose sleep over is, if that's the choice that they make and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide" because a gun wasn't taken away, he said.What's so controversial?Gun rights activists, and an increasing number of law enforcement leaders, say the bill goes too far.David Kopel, a constitutional law expert who has written extensively about gun policy in the United States, says he thinks the bill is generally a good idea but that he has serious reservations about how it is written -- in part because of outside influence."The gun ban lobbies are getting more and more extreme and aggressive," he said.The bill allows a judge to order a person's guns to be seized before the person has a chance to appear in court. The bill does require a second hearing with the gun owner present to be held within 14 days, where the owner could make a case to keep the weapons -- but if the owner is unsuccessful, a judge could order the guns seized for as long as a year.Kopel said it would be difficult to prevent a nightmare scenario in which someone misuses the law to take guns away from a person they intend to target violently.The burden of proof is low -- "preponderance of the evidence," which is the same standard used in civil cases, and a much lower bar than the criminal standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt."Reams said he also worries about the potential to aggravate an already volatile person by taking their weapons."Going in and taking their guns and leaving the scene, I can't see how that makes them less of a risk. It just takes one tool away," said Reams, arguing that a person bent on hurting someone could do it with a knife or a car.In 2018, 3783

US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos met with lawmakers on Tuesday, and defended the Trump Administration for proposing nearly million in cuts to Special Olympics. Devos was questioned on the subject by Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., who took issue with DeVos not knowing the number of participants in Special Olympics. “It’s 272,000 kids,” Pocan said,“Let me just say that I think Special Olympics is an awesome organization, one that is well supported by the philanthropic sector as well,” DeVos said.According to 2017 figures from Special Olympics, the organization had nearly 0 million in annual revenue. The majority of its budget comes from donations from individuals and corporations, which totals million a year.DeVos defended the move as one to save the government money. “We had to make some difficult decisions," she said. A number of prominent celebrities decried DeVos' testimony later on Tuesday. "Terrible. We should support athletes with disabilities, not rip away their opportunities," Chelsea Clinton tweeted. "The benefits of Special Olympics, which I have seen first hand as volunteer are IMMEASURABLE," actress Marlee Matlin tweeted. "DeVos proposal to cut their funding will adversely affect thousands with developmental disabilities. Don't let this happen!"According to Special Olympics, its mission is "to provide year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes and the community." 1735

Wannabe vampires, beware: The US Food and Drug Administration warned Tuesday against using plasma infusions from young blood donors to ward off the effects of normal aging as well as other more serious conditions. Plasma, the liquid portion of the blood, contains proteins that help clot blood.The infusions are promoted to treat a variety of conditions, including normal aging and memory loss as well as serious conditions such as dementia, multiple sclerosis, heart disease and post-traumatic stress disorder."There is no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent these conditions, and there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product," FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote in a 770

Two years ago, Michael Watson was in a rut. The 6-foot-4 inch teen weighed 335 pounds and was often bullied about his weight."My self-confidence was zero," Watson, who turns 18 on Wednesday, told CNN.As a junior at his Canton, Ohio, school, the teen decided to make a commitment to walk to and from school every day, about 20 minutes each way. And he made some changes in his diet.When he walks across the stage at graduation later this month, the McKinley High senior will be 115 pounds lighter.He walked to and from school in the rain and snowOne low moment came when a classmate told Watson he had something on his chin. When Watson rubbed his chin, the boy told him, "'No, third one down,'" Watson said. "That really hurt."Moments like that fueled his walking.Even if Watson wanted to take a day off, he couldn't. "I didn't even know when the bus came," he said.And on days when it was raining, people would ask if he wanted a ride. Michael declined. In addition to the walking, the student made a commitment to dieting, which especially took discipline when he was working his after-school job at a fast-food restaurant.The boy who was too afraid to approach girls now says he's surging with confidence. After the weight loss, he has no problem asking one out.The school is using his story to inspire othersTerrance Jones, who works as a family specialist and graduation coach at the school, told CNN that Watson's story stuck with him."It's an example of courageous personal development that's rare for a high school student," Jones said. "Mike's decision to the initiative to live a healthier lifestyle and to stay consistent with it will always stay with me."Jones said Michael's story was the catalyst for him to create a " 1744

Voting rights groups and the head of the Democratic National Committee want the states with remaining primary elections to offer voting by mail as a way to ensure that voters can safely cast their ballots amid the coronavirus outbreak.A quick and easy fix? Not always.For states that don’t already have vote-by-mail or that greatly restrict it, such a change could require amending state law. It also would require major changes to state and county voting and tabulating systems. Buying the equipment and software to track ballots and read the signatures on them could cost millions. And that’s not to mention deciding who pays for return postage — individual voters or taxpayers?So far this year, there have been quick moves to extend mail voting in only two cases, both limited in scope: Maryland postponed its primary but decided to hold next month’s special congressional election by mail. And the Democratic Party in Wyoming, which already was sending all its members ballots, has canceled the in-person portion of its presidential caucus.As in Wyoming, the Democratic caucuses and primaries in Alaska, Hawaii and Kansas were already to be held largely by mail this spring. So far, none of the five states that have postponed their primaries — Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland or Ohio — have said they will mail ballots statewide.A bill in Louisiana seeking to expand vote-by-mail was introduced even before the state’s primary was pushed back, but it hasn’t received a legislative hearing and is opposed by the state’s top elections official. Pennsylvania lawmakers eased absentee ballot rules last year, and now Democrats want to expand voting by mail. Republicans, who control the statehouse, have generally resisted voting changes, and it’s unclear if the virus crisis is enough to overcome concerns about the costs of greatly expanding vote-by-mail.Opposition isn’t unusual, typically because lawmakers or election officials believe it opens a pathway to voter fraud. The ability to receive a ballot in the mail is greatly restricted in 16 states.Those states allow absentee ballots only for voters who give a valid reason to get one — and require they be requested for each election. Of those, Delaware and New York are phasing in no-excuse mail voting.The hurdles to implementing voting by mail for all voters is why states might be better off taking only small steps at first, said Charles Stewart, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That could mean simply making absentee ballots easier to get.“Hastily implemented changes to voting rules and laws can end up causing all types of problems that you didn’t anticipate,” he said.Doug Jones, an election security expert at the University of Iowa, said universal mail voting also raises concerns about voters illegally selling blank ballots or being coerced to vote a certain way.On Tuesday, after Ohio postponed its primary and poll workers failed to show up at some Florida and Illinois precincts, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez called a shift to voting largely by mail “the simplest tool” to balance health concerns and the need to carry out a fundamental function of democracy.A half-dozen states already have or are implementing systems where all voters are mailed ballots. They can mail them back, drop them off at designated spots or choose to vote in person on Election Day.Oregon has been conducting elections that way since the 1990s. Since then, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah and Washington have implemented or begun phasing in similar systems.With the coronavirus pandemic, the idea has generated more interest. The National Vote at Home Institute advocates for a switch to a mail-based voting system and consults with governments about it.Said chief executive Amber McReynolds: “It’s better than hoping people show up and aren’t scared, and hoping that you don’t have a giant poll worker shortage and hoping polling places aren’t closed.”___Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.___Associated Press writers Frank Bajak in Boston; Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Mark Scolforo in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report. 4215

来源：资阳报