昌吉医院 哪个做人流好(昌吉男性割包皮好处有哪些) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has raised roughly 0 million since his Election Day defeat, a sum garnered through a nonstop stream of solicitations that have falsely claimed the election was stolen while requesting contributions for an “election defense fund.” A person familiar with Trump’s effort who requested anonymity says most of the money was raised in the days after the Nov. 3 contest. The amount, which approaches the sums Trump took in at the height of the campaign, offers yet another sign that he does not intend to leave the White House quietly and will remain a powerful force in Republican politics.As Trump’s chances of reelection dwindled in the hours and days after the election, his campaign began bombarding supporters with hundreds of emails and text messages that made inaccurate claims about voter fraud and election irregularities, while requesting money to fight the outcome.They haven’t let up since.“My father was 100% right when he said mail-in ballots would cause problems. YOU deserve a FAIR and TRANSPARENT Election,” Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. said Tuesday in one such email.But the fine print indicates much of the money has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.Seventy-five percent of each contribution made now goes to Save America, with the remaining 25% going to the RNC’s operating account. It’s only once donors have given the legal maximum to Trump’s political committee and the RNC that money begins spilling over into accounts specifically intended to pay for legal proceedings related to the election. 1718

WASHINGTON (AP) — Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to gradually move the country to a government-funded health care system has further inflamed the debate over “Medicare for All,” likely ensuring the issue will play a significant role in this week’s Democratic presidential debate.The Massachusetts senator announced Friday that her administration would immediately build on existing laws, including the Affordable Care Act, to expand access to health care while taking up to three years to fully implement Medicare for All. That attempt to thread the political needle has roiled her more moderate rivals, who say she’s waffling, while worrying some on the left, who see Warren’s commitment to a single-payer system wavering.The divide could complicate plans by Democrats to turn health care into a winning issue in 2020. The party successfully took back control of the House last year by championing programs that ensure that people with preexisting medical conditions keep their insurance coverage while arguing that Republicans want to weaken such provisions. But the Medicare for All debate is more delicate as advocates including Warren grapple with concerns that a new government-run system won’t provide the same quality of coverage as private insurance — and would be prohibitively expensive.“The Medicare for All proposal has turned out to be a real deal-breaker in who gets the Democratic nomination,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University School of Public Health professor whose teaching responsibilities include courses on political strategy in health policy and public opinion polling. “This is not just another issue.”Warren’s transition plan indicates she’d use her first 100 days as president to expand existing public health insurance options. That is closer to what has been supported by former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Both Democratic presidential candidates have criticized Medicare for All for wiping out private insurance — something they say many Americans aren’t ready for.Warren insists she’s simply working to expand health insurance in the short term to people who don’t have it while remaining committed to the full plan in the long run.“My commitment to Medicare for All is all the way,” Warren said while campaigning in Iowa over the weekend.Still, the transition signified a step toward pragmatism and an acknowledgement that the government has ways to expand health insurance coverage before embracing a universal system — something that would be difficult for any president to get through Congress. Consider that current entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, were phased in over years, not all at once.“If she’s looked at it and decides the sensible thing to do in order to not cause too much disruption in employment situations and within the medical system is to gear up over three years, she's probably right,” said Cindy Wolf, a customer service and shipping manager who attended the California state Democratic Convention on Saturday in Long Beach.Still, the move may prove politically problematic for a candidate who has long decried others settling for consultant-driven campaigns seeking incremental changes at the expense of big ideas.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the original architect of Medicare for All and has made fighting for it the centerpiece of his 2020 White House bid. He tweeted following the release of Warren’s transition plan: “In my first week as president, we will introduce Medicare for All legislation.”Campaigning in Nevada on Monday, California Sen. Kamala Harris said, “I believe that government should not be in a position of taking away people's choice.”“Especially on one of the most intimate and personal decisions people can make,” Harris said, “which is about how to address their health care needs.”The criticism from others was far sharper. Top Biden adviser Kate Bedingfield dismissed Warren’s plan as “trying to muddy the waters” by offering “a full program of flips and twists.” Buttigieg spokeswoman Lis Smith said it was a “transparently political attempt to paper over a very serious policy problem.”It’s easy to see the issue spilling into Wednesday’s debate because Warren rode a steady summer climb in the polls to become one of the primary field’s front-runners — but no longer seems to be rising. Polls recently show her support stabilizing, though not dipping, as focus on her Medicare for All ideas intensifies.The last two debates featured Warren failing to answer direct questions on whether she would be forced to raise middle class taxes to pay for the universal health care system she envisions. That set up a plan released two-plus weeks ago in which Warren vowed to generate -plus trillion in new government revenue without increasing taxes on the middle class — but that’s been decried by critics who accuse Warren of underestimating how much Medicare for All would really cost.And, though Warren never promised to begin working toward Medicare for All on Day 1 of her administration, the release of the transition plan, which spelled out that the process will take years, has unsettled some.Una Lee Jost, a lawyer who was holding “Bernie” signs in Chinese and English at the California Democratic Convention, called any lengthy transition to Medicare for All “a serious concern.”“We should have implemented this decades ago,” she said.___Associated Press writers Kathleen Ronayne and Michael R. Blood in Long Beach, Calif., and Michelle Price in North Las Vegas, Nev., contributed to this report. 5566

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration endangered public health by keeping a widely used pesticide on the market despite extensive scientific evidence that even tiny levels of exposure can harm babies' brains.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to remove chlorpyrifos from sale in the United States within 60 days.A coalition of farmworkers and environmental groups sued last year after then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt reversed an Obama-era effort to ban chlorpyrifos, which is widely sprayed on citrus fruit, apples and other crops. The attorneys general for several states joined the case against EPA, including California, New York and Massachusetts.RELATED: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt quits amid ethics scandalsIn a split decision, the court said Thursday that Pruitt, a Republican forced to resign earlier this summer amid ethics scandals, violated federal law by ignoring the conclusions of agency scientists that chlorpyrifos is harmful."The panel held that there was no justification for the EPA's decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children," Judge Jed S. Rakoff wrote in the court's opinion.Michael Abboud, spokesman for acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, said the agency was reviewing the decision, but it had been unable to "fully evaluate the pesticide using the best available, transparent science."RELATED: Trump administration wants to lower emissions standards for carsEPA could potentially appeal to the Supreme Court since one member of the three-judge panel dissented from the majority ruling.Environmental groups and public health advocates celebrated the court's action as a major success."Some things are too sacred to play politics with, and our kids top the list," said Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The court has made it clear that children's health must come before powerful polluters. This is a victory for parents everywhere who want to feed their kids fruits and veggies without fear it's harming their brains or poisoning communities."The attorneys general of California and New York also claimed victory.RELATED: EPA Pushes Back Against Asbestos Comeback Claims"This is one more example of how then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt skirted the law and endangered the health of our children — in this case, all because he refused to curb pesticide levels found in food," Attorney General Xavier Becerra of California said in a statement.Chlorpyrifos was created by Dow Chemical Co. in the 1960s. It remains among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with the chemical giant selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year through its subsidiary Dow AgroSciences.Dow did not respond to an email seeking comment. In past statements, the company has contended the chemical helps American farmers feed the world "with full respect for human health and the environment."Chlorpyrifos belongs to a family of organophosphate pesticides that are chemically similar to a chemical warfare agent developed by Nazi Germany before World War II.As a result of its wide use as a pesticide over the past four decades, traces of chlorpyrifos are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of the pesticide.Under pressure from federal regulators, Dow voluntarily withdrew chlorpyrifos for use as a home insecticide in 2000. EPA also placed "no-spray" buffer zones around sensitive sites, such as schools, in 2012.In October 2015, the Obama administration proposed banning the pesticide's use on food. A risk assessment memo issued by nine EPA scientists concluded: "There is a breadth of information available on the potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects in infants and children as a result of prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos."Federal law requires EPA to ensure that pesticides used on food in the United States are safe for human consumption — especially children, who are typically far more sensitive to the negative effects of poisons.Shortly after his appointment by President Donald Trump in 2017, Pruitt announced he was reversing the Obama administration effort to ban chlorpyrifos, adopting Dow's position that the science showing chlorpyrifos is harmful was inconclusive and flawed.The Associated Press reported in June 2017 that Pruitt announced his agency's reversal on chlorpyrifos just 20 days after his official schedule showed a meeting with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris. At the time, Liveris headed a White House manufacturing working group, and his company had written a million check to help underwrite Trump's inaugural festivities.Following AP's report, then-EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said that March 9, 2017, meeting on Pruitt's schedule never happened. Bowman said the two men had instead shared only a "brief introduction in passing" while attending the same industry conference at a Houston hotel and that they never discussed chlorpyrifos.However, internal EPA emails released earlier this year following a public records lawsuit filed by The Sierra Club suggest the two men shared more than a quick handshake.Little more than a week after the conference and before Pruitt announced his decision, the EPA chief's scheduler reached out to Liveris' executive assistant to schedule a follow-up meeting."Hope this email finds you well!" wrote Sydney Hupp, Pruitt's assistant, on March 20, 2017. "I am reaching out today about setting up a meeting to continue the discussion between Dow Chemical and Administrator Scott Pruitt. My apologies for the delay in getting this email into you — it has been a crazy time over here!"Subsequent emails show Hupp and Liveris' office discussing several potential dates that the Dow CEO might come to Pruitt's office at EPA headquarters, but it is not clear from the documents whether the two men ever linked up.Liveris announced his retirement from Dow in March of this year.Pruitt resigned July 6 amid more than a dozen ethics investigations focused on such issues as outsized security spending, first-class flights and a sweetheart condo lease for a Capitol Hill condo linked to an energy lobbyist.Bowman, who left EPA in May to work for GOP Sen. Joni Ernest of Iowa, declined to comment on her earlier characterization of the March 2017 interaction between Pruitt and Liveris or what "discussion" the internal email was referring to."I don't work for EPA anymore," Bowman said.___Follow Associated Press investigative reporter Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck 6863

WASHINGTON (AP) — A top White House aide defends President Donald Trump's tweets about an influential black Democratic congressman and his Baltimore district as a justified response to the lawmaker's criticism of administration border policies.Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney says Trump was upset over what he perceives to be inaccurate statements by Rep. Elijah Cummings about conditions in which children are being held in detention at the U.S.-Mexico border.Mulvaney tells "Fox News Sunday" that "when the president hears lies like that, he's going to fight back."At a hearing last week, Cummings accused a top administration official of wrongly calling reports of filthy, overcrowded border facilities "unsubstantiated."Mulvaney denies that Trump's Twitter comments Saturday were racist and says Trump would criticize any lawmaker who spoke unfairly about his policies. 885

WASHINGTON (AP) — After reports that U.S. government officials, including some White House officials who work in close proximity to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, would be offered coronavirus vaccines as soon as this week, Trump said Sunday that most White House officials will have to wait to get a vaccine. Earlier, two people familiar with the matter confirmed that the newly approved vaccine from Pfizer would be made available to those who work in close quarters with the nation’s top elected officials. Meanwhile, public distribution is limited to front-line health workers and those in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The officials say the move was meant to prevent more COVID-19 spread in the White House. Trump was briefly hospitalized after his diagnosis in October. 820

来源：资阳报