成都肝血管瘤上哪儿治疗成都 精美曲张医治,成都下肢动脉硬化到哪家医院手术好,成都治疗鲜红斑痣新方法,成都哪里看看雷诺氏症好,成都怎么治疗下肢静脉血栓,成都治鲜红斑痣需要多少钱,成都哪有治精索静脉曲张

Workers at the Pennsylvania petrochemical plant where President Donald Trump spoke Tuesday were told that if they didn't attend the event, they either had to use paid time off or receive no pay for the day.At least some of the workers who attended the speech were instructed not to protest the President, who told the crowd of workers at the Royal Dutch Shell plant he would be imploring their union leaders to support his reelection.The instructions to the workers came in a memo, a copy of which was obtained by CNN's Polo Sandoval from a congressional source. That source was given the memo by a person in Beaver County, Pennsylvania -- the site of the plant."Your attendance is not mandatory. This will be considered an excused absence. However, those who are NOT in attendance will not receive overtime pay on Friday," read part of the memo.Shell spokesman Curtis Smith confirmed workers were told they would also miss out on some overtime pay if they skipped the event. Shell said it did not write the memo.The 1029

"Equal Justice Under Law." Those are the words written at the steps of the Supreme Court. It's a promise to the American people in addition to guarding and interpreting the Constitution.The nation is closely watching the confirmation process of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Considering the legacy of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who Barrett would replace, women’s rights is on the forefront of many people’s minds.“In general, the Supreme Court has been an important means of expanding, or sometimes reinterpreting equal rights,” Dr. Celeste Montoya said.Dr. Montoya is a political scientist and associate professor of women and gender studies at the University of Colorado. She says Justice Ginsburg had an unforgettable impact on women’s rights.“You really can’t overstate the contributions she’s made to women’s rights," Dr. Montoya said. "Not only on the Supreme Court, but prior to holding that seat. Her whole career has been built on expanding equal rights for women from her position on the ACLU’s women’s rights project, her work as a lawyer, to her work on the Supreme Court.”Rights for women in the workplace when it comes to equal pay and for women seeking an abortion.Roe v. Wade became a hot topic in the confirmation hearings, but Judge Barrett declined to say how she might rule on future cases. However, Dr. Montoya says what we do know from her past rulings is that Judge Barrett is considered a social conservative.“There are some conservatives that take more of a libertarian approach and so they’re not necessarily opposed to women’s rights, but they don’t think the government should take a very hands-on approach to it. Social conservatives on the other hand take a different sort of position on it – they tend to support traditional gender hierarchies that are less likely to push for or to support women’s rights in variety of positions in politics, in economics, in the workplace. They tend to support some of those more traditional roles that women hold.”Dr. Montoya says she believes the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade has already been undermined, impacting access to contraceptives in general. Dr. Daniel Grossman – a professor in obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California—echoes the same observation.“We’ve already seen a significant erosion of the guarantee for access to a full range to contraceptive methods in the affordable care act with an increasing number of categories of employers that are able to deny their employees this benefit,” Dr. Grossman said.Dr. Grossman says a Supreme Court with Judge Barrett would potentially continue what he believes is an erosion of women’s reproductive health rights. Montoya notes states have been given more flexibility the past few decades when determining reproductive rights and that will likely continue is Judge Barrett is confirmed.“We can expect with a 6-3 conservative split, and one that’s very heavily weighted with social conservatives versus libertarians, that we’ll continue in that direction, that we’ll continue to see precedence that gives states more leeway that dictate how they’re going to define reproductive rights or abortion rights for women,” Dr. Montoya said.What Judge Barrett has shared in the hearings is that although she was nominated to succeed Ginsburg, no one could take her place. She also said she believes courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, but policy decisions are better left to the legislative branch. 3515

 President Donald Trump's top economic adviser Gary Cohn is resigning, the White House announced on Tuesday.Cohn, who had once been rumored as a potential next chief of staff, will leave the White House in the wake of his fierce disagreement with the President's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports."Gary has been my chief economic adviser and did a superb job in driving our agenda, helping to deliver historic tax cuts and reforms and unleashing the American economy once again. He is a rare talent, and I thank him for his dedicated service to the American people," Trump said in a statement.The New York Times first reported the news. 677

 SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The union representing more than 25,000 University of California service workers and medical technicians announced plans today for a three-day strike, citing what it calls stalled contract negotiations.Officials with AFSCME Local 3299 said last week that more than 97 percent of its members had voted to authorize a strike if no progress was made in negotiations. UC officials, however, said the union had rejected an offer of "fair, multi-year wage increases and excellent medical and retirement benefits."In light of the impasse, the university system imposed contract terms on the union for the 2017-18 fiscal year, including 2 percent pay increases.The UC's latest contract offer to the union had included annual 3 percent raises over the next four years, according to the university.The union on Thursday issued a 10-day notice of their intent to conduct a three-day strike, beginning May 7."We've bargained in good faith for over a year to address the widening income, racial and gender disparities that front-line, low-wageworkers at UC are living every day," AFSCME Local 3299 President Kathryn Lybarger said. "Instead of joining us in the effort to arrest these trends, UC has insisted on deepening them -- leaving workers no option but to strike."UC officials issued a statement saying they "strongly disagree with AFSCME's decision to strike, which will negatively impact patients, students and the UC community.""AFSCME service employees at UC -- including custodians, gardeners, food service workers and facilities maintenance staff -- are compensated at or above the market and in some cases, but as much as 17 percent higher than comparable jobs, according to the university. What the union demanded was a 6 percent annual wage increase, which we think unfair to other UC employees, bothrepresented and non-represented. This is twice what other UC employees have received."University officials said their final officer included, in addition to the pay raises, a lump-sum payment upon contract ratification, healthbenefits consistent with those of other workers and continuation of pension benefits for existing employees. New employees would be given a choice between a pension or 401(K)-style retirement plan.Lybarger, however, accused the university of "subverting" the bargaining process by imposing contract terms on workers."Administrators are already showing us that we can expect more unequal treatment if we don't stand up, fight back and hold UC accountable to its hollow claims of `pioneering a better future,"' Lybarger said.According to the union, the strike will involve 9,000 service workers, joined by more than 15,000 Patient Care Technical workers.The union represents workers such as security guards, groundskeepers, custodians, respiratory therapists, nursing aides and surgical technicians. The workers span UC's 10 campuses, five medical centers, numerous clinics and research laboratories, according to the union. 2982

With the Syrian Civil War entering its ninth year this month, the Trump administration is proposing to zero out all new US funding for stabilization efforts in the country.This move comes as the administration is pressing allies to step up their commitment to the ongoing crisis both militarily and financially and as the US is pulling most of its troops out of the country.Members of Congress from both parties, some of whom are re-introducing legislation this week that would prevent taxpayer dollars from going to reconstruction in any areas in Syria controlled by Assad, are calling this a mistake that strengthens the Assad regime and hurts efforts to defeat ISIS."It is a dangerous decision," Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, one of the sponsors of the No Assistance for Assad Act, said. "It ends up essentially signaling a green light to this mass murderer that he and his awful allies, like the Iranian regime, will be able to just do carte blanche whatever they want."Boyle points out the plan, which is contained in the administration's State Department budget proposal, would hurt efforts to secure the release of American citizens being detained in Syria.As of last summer, the US had spent a total of million in northeast Syria on counter-ISIS stabilization efforts, according to the former anti-ISIS envoy, Brett McGurk. That money had been spent on projects including efforts to get clean water running, supporting schools so that students can return, clearing extensive rubble and demining areas so they are livable for returning Syrians.The State Department did not reply when asked for an update on those figures.Despite this budget proposal, the State Department says that the US remains committed to peace and stability in Syria. They also claimed that there is some money available from previous years in the Relief and Recovery Fund that could possibly be used in Syria, though they did not detail how much."US policy priorities in Syria remain unchanged," said a State Department spokesperson. "We are committed to the enduring defeat of ISIS and al Qaeda, a political solution to the Syrian conflict in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254, and the removal of all Iranian-led forces in Syria."Critics say plan undermines fight against ISISBut members of Congress and experts argue the plan undermines efforts to defeat ISIS."I consider the war on terror to be generational and it is not gonna be a fight that is just only done by military. There is a military component, but it is also giving people hope and opportunity. And, you know, spending a few hundred million dollars to help stabilize a region to help give people some hope is far cheaper than, you know, releasing missiles, which we are going to have to do, and bombs, which we are going to have to do," Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois said, adding "it is a bad move."More than 5 million in stabilization funds was raised last year by the 15 members of the coalition to defeat ISIS, including 0 million from Saudi Arabia and million from the United Arab Emirates. That is enough to ensure the continuation of ongoing stabilization projects, for now. That money was raised after the US pressed countries to step up their contributions.Critics suggest out that the proposal to eliminate the US contribution will anger allies who had been asked to share the burden.There have been signals that the Trump administration was headed in this direction of curtailing US spending in Syria. Last summer the State Department announced that it would not be using 0 million that had been appropriated for stabilization efforts in the country. The decision came just weeks before the end of the fiscal year, which prevented Congress from taking meaningful action to reverse the decision.It has never been a secret that President Donald Trump wanted to exit Syria -- both militarily and financially. Throughout his time on the campaign trail he promised he would withdraw US troops from the country.Yet lawmakers and allies were stunned and outraged in December of last year when Trump suddenly declared that the US troops would be exiting the country within a matter of months, shortly after a phone call with Turkish President Erdogan.At the time, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham 4348