昌吉怀孕两个月能做吗在昌吉做无痛人流手术的要多少钱,昌吉那家医院流产,昌吉怀孕做超导无痛人流多少钱啊,昌吉多少天做药流好,昌吉医院做包皮哪家好,昌吉27天试纸一条杠,昌吉做人流一共需要多少钱

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The fourth nor'easter in three weeks already is closing schools and canceling thousands of flights Wednesday as it's expected to dump record springtime snow in the Northeast.A day after the official beginning of spring, the storm will bring heavy snow, strong winds and even coastal flooding to some areas. It has potential to be one of the most significant and most disruptive snowstorms this late in the season, CNN meteorologists said."If the current forecast pans out, this nor'easter will dump more snow on Washington, Philadelphia and New York than the three earlier storms combined," CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller said.More than 70 million people are under a winter storm watch, warning or advisory from the southern Appalachians to Boston.The storm will move away from the region by Thursday but not without first hitting coastal New England and Maine.Latest developments? More than 4,100 flights are canceled Wednesday due to the storm, according to the tracking site Flightaware.com.? Public schools in New York City, Philadelphia and the District of Columbia are closed Wednesday.? The storm already dumped 13 inches of snow in Greencastle, Pennsylvania, and blanketed Smith Crossroads in West Virginia with 9.2 inches.Snow disrupting nation's capitalWashington will likely see 4 to 6 inches of snow, with some models hinting at much higher totals for the District. Areas west and north of the city are likely to see close to a foot of snow."It's been 75 years since Washington has had 5 inches of snowfall or greater this late in the season," Miller says.Track the storm with high resolution auto-updating graphicsThe inclement weather caused closures for much of the federal government. The White House and State Department canceled all public events for the day. However, the House and Senate are planning to work Wednesday as Congress tries to finalize a spending deal.Philadelphia could see up to a foot of snow. The City of Brotherly Love may get its biggest snowfall after the first day of spring in more than 100 years.For those in other parts of Pennsylvania, the storm was already well underway Wednesday morning. Thile Kreider posted an Instagram video of the snow blanketing her yard in Manheim.New York could break 1958 recordWind gusts and snow reached New Jersey and New York City on Wednesday morning. Ten inches to more than a foot is forecast in the New York City area before the storm departs early Thursday.But Central Park in Manhattan may only receive 4 to 6 inches of snow, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers said, explaining it's more likely snow will accumulate in areas at higher elevations."If New York gets 12 inches of snow -- the National Weather Service currently has a high-end potential of 13 to 21 inches -- it would be its largest snowfall ever recorded after the first day of spring," Miller says.The current record is 11.8 inches, set on March 21, 1958.With these late winter storms, it is difficult to predict snowfall amounts because of the mixing of warmer air. In some of the earlier nor'easters, the air near the ground has stayed warm enough that places like New York have seen lots of snow fall from the sky but had little accumulation. An urban heat island effect is plausible once again with this spring storm.Boston stayed on the warmer side in the first two nor'easters but then got walloped with snow during the third storm this month. The city is likely to see another 6 to 8 inches of snow, adding to the 20-plus inches it has already received in March.If Boston gets 10 inches, the city would have its third snowiest March on record.These late winter storms are likely to become more frequent with climate change. A study last week in the scientific journal Nature Communications ties extreme winter weather, specifically major snowstorms in the Northeast, to warming Arctic temperatures.Blizzard conditions likelyWith a forecast of heavy snow and winds more than 45 mph, blizzard conditions are possible.New York City could see sustained winds of 20 to 30 mph Wednesday, and coastal areas such as Cape Cod in Massachusetts are predicted to receive gusts up to 60 mph from midmorning Wednesday to Thursday.What is makes a snow storm a blizzardFlooding is a threat along the coast from Virginia to Massachusetts. Some of the worst coastal flooding could occur along the Jersey Shore, with high tides of 2 to 3 feet above normal possible.This will put a strain on already vulnerable coastal areas, which saw dramatic storm surges from the nor'easters over the last three weeks.The-CNN-Wire 4555

The Flores family has been farming dates for three generations.For the past few years, Marco Flores, owner of San Marcos Date Farm, says he’s seen major changes in temperature and weather patterns.“It’s drier than it used to be,” he said of the land his father bought in California’s Coachella Valley more than 55 years ago. “It used to be a lot more moist before.”These are conditions his 300 fruit-producing palm trees don’t like.“Sometimes there’s no rain,” Flores said. “The impact of climate change is definitely doing something to them.”Similar concerns are being expressed across the planet.“Climate change is impacting agriculture and farmers abilities,” said Paul Minehart of the Syngenta Group, a global agricultural innovation company.Minehart’s team recently published a study showing 72% of farmers they interviewed from around the world are worried about climate changes impacting crop yields.“It’s coming down to, especially in the United States, is the unpredictable weather patterns that are beginning to emerge,” he said.Minehart says those unpredictable weather patterns include unusual droughts and flooding in America and extremely arid conditions in other countries. Conditions that could impact farmers production and profits.“If you have fewer crops than the price could go up,” he said. “That could impact the overall cost of producing food and then at the consumer level buying the food.”Marco Juarez is the third generation of Flores farmers at San Marcos Date Farm.He says while using more water could cause his family to raise their prices from a pound for dates, there’s another growing concern: getting skilled workers to take a job in this heat.“I don’t think anyone really wants to work in this,” he said. “It slowly drives people away. I mean, who wants to be here in 120 degrees?” 1826

The good news is Americans are getting COVID-19 test results back, on average, a day faster than they were over the summer. The troubling news, according to experts, is that it is still taking three days on average for Americans to find out their COVID-19 status and this is not quick enough to help with contact tracing and quarantine efforts to slow the spread.Researchers from several universities, including Harvard, Northeastern, Northwestern and Rutgers universities, have been collecting data and conducting surveys for months since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic.“Prompt test results constitute the foundation of a successful COVID-19 containment strategy,” researchers state at the beginning of their paper.Data now shows, of the participants who got a test for the coronavirus in late September, the average wait time was 2.7 days.In early August, the group announced their survey data showed the average wait time nationwide was 4.1 days. More than 30 percent of participants reported, at the time, they didn’t get test results back until four days or longer.The percentage of people getting results within 24 hours is also increasing; the September survey showed 37 percent of people getting results back in one day, compared to 23 percent over the summer.“Rapid turnaround of testing for COVID-19 infection is essential to containing the pandemic. Ideally, test results would be available the same day. Our findings indicate that the United States is not currently performing testing with nearly enough speed,” researchers said.Disparities still exist for Americans who are Black or Hispanic. Although wait times are shorter for these groups as well compared to summer numbers, they are still, on average, a day or more longer than white test takers.In the latest survey, Black Americans reported waiting an average of 4.4 days for results, and Hispanics reported waiting 4.1 days. By comparison, white and Asian Americans reported wait times of 3.5 and 3.6 days on average, respectively.Also troubling for trying to control the spread of the coronavirus, the data shows how many of those who tested positive had some sort of conversation about contact tracing.“Only 56% of respondents who received a positive COVID-19 test say that they were contacted for the purpose of contact tracing,” the survey found.The survey talked to more than 52,000 people across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2434

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued recommendations for those looking to receive vaccinations during the pandemic.The CDC said that anyone who needs a vaccine, they recommend getting them at a medical home to "ensure that patients receive other preventive services that may have been deferred during the COVID-19 pandemic.""However, vaccination at locations outside the medical home may help increase access to vaccines in some populations or situations, particularly when the patient does not have a primary care provider or when care in the medical home is not available or feasible," the CDC said. "Regardless of vaccination location, best practices for storage and handling of vaccines and vaccine administration should be followed. In addition, information on administered vaccines should be documented (e.g., through the state-based immunization information system [IIS], patient’s electronic medical record, client-held paper immunization records) so that providers have accurate and timely information on their patients’ vaccination status and to ensure continuity of care in the setting of COVID-19-related disruptions to routine medical services."The CDC said that if your vaccines are due or overdue, they should be "administered according to the recommended CDC immunization schedules during that visit."If you are a child or an adolescent, the CDC recommends that healthcare providers should contact parents of those who have missed well-child visits and schedule an in-person appointment.If you are pregnant, the CDC says if an appointment for your vaccinations is delayed, they should be received on the next in-person appointment.For adults, the CDC said healthcare providers should ensure that steps are taken that their patients receive vaccines according to the Standards for Adult Immunization Practice."Older adults and adults with underlying medical conditions are particularly at increased risk for preventable disease and complications if vaccination is deferred," the CDC said.If you believe you have COVID-19, the CDC says vaccinations should be postponed until you are feeling better. 2141