中山脱肛医院那个好中山肛瘘治疗要多少钱,中山男人屁股出血是什么原因,中山便血什么症状,中山哪有比较好的肛肠医院,中山什么会导致便血,中山痔疮哪家医院痔疮治疗好,中山大便时屁股痛有血

CNN is filing a lawsuit against President Trump and several of his aides, seeking the immediate restoration of chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's access to the White House.The lawsuit is a response to the White House's suspension of Acosta's press pass, known as a Secret Service "hard pass," last week. The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.The suit is being filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday morning, a CNN spokeswoman confirmed.Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. There are six defendants: Trump, chief of staff John Kelly, press secretary Sarah Sanders, deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine, Secret Service director Joseph Clancy, and the Secret Service officer who took Acosta's hard pass away last Wednesday. The officer is identified as John Doe in the suit, pending his identification.The six defendants are all named because of their roles in enforcing and announcing Acosta's suspension.Last Wednesday, shortly after Acosta was denied entry to the White House grounds, Sanders defended the unprecedented step by claiming that he had behaved inappropriately at a presidential news conference. CNN and numerous journalism advocacy groups rejected that assertion and said his pass should be reinstated.On Friday, CNN sent a letter to the White House formally requesting the immediate reinstatement of Acosta's pass and warning of a possible lawsuit, the network confirmed.In a statement on Tuesday morning, CNN said it is seeking a preliminary injunction as soon as possible so that Acosta can return to the White House right away, and a ruling from the court preventing the White House from revoking Acosta's pass in the future."CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration this morning in DC District Court," the statement read. "It demands the return of the White House credentials of CNN's Chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta's First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. We have asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned to Jim, and will seek permanent relief as part of this process."CNN also asserted that other news organizations could have been targeted by the Trump administration this way, and could be in the future."While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone," the network said. "If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials."During his presidential campaign, Trump told CNN that, if elected, he would not kick reporters out of the White House. But since moving into the White House, he has mused privately about taking away credentials, CNN reported earlier this year. He brought it up publicly on Twitter in May, tweeting "take away credentials?" as a question.And he said it again on Friday, two days after blacklisting Acosta. "It could be others also," he said, suggesting he may strip press passes from other reporters. Unprompted, he then named and insulted April Ryan, a CNN analyst and veteran radio correspondent.Trump's threats fly in the face of decades of tradition and precedent. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had a permissive approach toward press passes, erring on the side of greater access, even for obscure, partisan or fringe outlets.That is one of the reasons why First Amendment attorneys say CNN and Acosta have a strong case.As the prospect of a lawsuit loomed on Sunday, attorney Floyd Abrams, one of the country's most respected First Amendment lawyers, said the relevant precedent is a 1977 ruling in favor of Robert Sherrill, a muckraking journalist who was denied access to the White House in 1966.Eleven years later, a D.C. Court of Appeals judge ruled that the Secret Service had to establish "narrow and specific" standards for judging applicants. In practice, the key question is whether the applicant would pose a threat to the president.The code of federal regulations states that "in granting or denying a request for a security clearance made in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press privileges."There are other guidelines as well. Abrams said the case law specifies that before a press pass is denied, "you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it's doing and why, so the courts can examine it.""We've had none of those things here," Abrams said.That's why the lawsuit is alleging a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process.Acosta found out about his suspension when he walked up to the northwest gate of the White House, as usual, for a Wednesday night live shot. He was abruptly told to turn in his "hard pass," which speeds up entry and exit from the grounds."I was just told to do it," the Secret Service officer said.Other CNN reporters and producers continue to work from the White House grounds, but not Acosta."Relevant precedent says that a journalist has a First Amendment right of access to places closed to the public but open generally to the press. That includes press rooms and news conferences," Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, told CNN last week. "In those places, if access is generally inclusive of the press, then access can't be denied arbitrarily or absent compelling reasons. And the reasons that the White House gave were wholly unconvincing and uncompelling."The White House accused Acosta of placing his hands on an intern who was trying to take a microphone away from him during a press conference. Sanders shared a distorted video clip of the press conference as evidence. The White House's rationale has been widely mocked and dismissed by journalists across the political spectrum as an excuse to blacklist an aggressive reporter. And Trump himself has cast doubt on the rationale: He said on Friday that Acosta was "not nice to that young woman," but then he said, "I don't hold him for that because it wasn't overly, you know, horrible."Acosta has continued to do part of his job, contacting sources and filing stories, but he has been unable to attend White House events or ask questions in person -- a basic part of any White House correspondent's role.Acosta is on a previously scheduled vacation this week. He declined to comment on the lawsuit.On CNN's side, CNN Worldwide chief counsel David Vigilante is joined by two prominent attorneys, Ted Boutrous and Theodore Olson. Both men are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.Last week, before he was retained by CNN, Boutrous tweeted that the action against Acosta "clearly violates the First Amendment." He cited the Sherrill case."This sort of angry, irrational, false, arbitrary, capricious content-based discrimination regarding a White House press credential against a journalist quite clearly violates the First Amendment," he wrote.David McCraw, the top newsroom lawyer at The New York Times, said instances of news organizations suing a president are extremely rare.Past examples are The New York Times v. U.S., the famous Supreme Court case involving the Pentagon Papers in 1971; and CNN's 1981 case against the White House and the broadcast networks, when CNN sued to be included in the White House press pool.The backdrop to this new suit, of course, is Trump's antipathy for CNN and other news outlets. He regularly derides reporters from CNN and the network as a whole.Abrams posited on "Reliable Sources" on Sunday that CNN might be reluctant to sue because the president already likes to portray the network as his enemy. Now there will be a legal case titled CNN Inc. versus President Trump.But, Abrams said, "this is going to happen again," meaning other reporters may be banned too."Whether it's CNN suing or the next company suing, someone's going to have to bring a lawsuit," he said, "and whoever does is going to win unless there's some sort of reason."The-CNN-Wire 8437

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Ohio Governor Mike DeWine took time during his COVID-19 briefing Tuesday to address and refute a “crazy, ridiculous internet rumor” that he authorized the forced separation of children from their families into secret FEMA concentration camps.These rumors were propagated on social media, on websites purporting to be legitimate sources of news, and by at least one member of DeWine’s own party – Republican Ohio Representative Nino Vitale, who posted a lengthy Facebook post Saturday with the alarming image: “FEMA Concentration Camps Coming to Ohio…YES!”“I don't spend much time talking about rumors that are on the Internet because we wouldn't get much done if we did that all the time,” DeWine said. “But this one, I've gotten so many calls in over the weekend that I thought we would just have to deal with it today. This comes in the category of ‘crazy, ridiculous internet rumors,’ but obviously some people are reading it. So I want to clarify.”DeWine went on to explain the Ohio Department of Health order issued on Aug. 31: “Director’s Second Amended Order for Non-Congregate Sheltering to be utilized throughout Ohio.”“Now, to make it very clear this order does not create FEMA camps to force anyone to quarantine against their will as has been reported on the Internet,” DeWine said.The order that was signed on Aug. 31 was actually just a reauthorization of an order signed back on March 30, an order that was signed to comply with orders from the federal government and the administration of President Donald Trump, DeWine said.“On that day, the Ohio Department of Health issued an order to comply with the federal government, what they asked us to do. That approved non-congregate sheltering for people who are unable to safely self-quarantine in their place of residence.”This order provided for non-congregate shelters, determined by the local health departments, and provided based on an individual’s needs. The order created a mechanism to provide federal reimbursement to those providing these spaces for individuals to safely isolate, and, DeWine said, has actually been used only a few times since the order was first issued in March.“Let's say there's a health professional and they are working and they do not want to go home,” DeWine said, as an example of how the order actually works. “Let's assume may be at their home is someone who is health compromised. They're working in a COVID area of a hospital helping COVID patients. And they say, look, I don't want to go do that. This provides them a place, a hotel, maybe to go, a hotel room so that they can go and the federal government will pay for that. So that is the typical situation that this was created for.”DeWine explicitly refuted the claims that this order somehow creates “FEMA camps,” “concentration camps,” or requires families to separate against their will.“Let me just say, this is absolutely ridiculous,” DeWine said. “It is not true. There is no intention that anyone has to separate children. But somehow this has been reported on the internet. No truth to the rumors at all. Families will not be separated. Children will not be taken away from their loved ones. And so having quarantine housing options gives people that choice when they need it, a safe comfortable place to recover from the virus, or as in the case of our health folks, it gives them a place to shelter, gives them a place to be so that they don't have to go home and possibly take that to their family. Again, that's their own individual choice.”Don’t believe the governor? You can read the order itself on the state’s Coronavirus website here.This story was first reported by Ian Cross at WEWS in Cleveland, Ohio. 3706

CORONADO, Calif. (KGTV) -- Hundreds of thousands of students left class Wednesday morning across the country to honor the school shooting victims and march for more gun legislation.RELATED:  208

Congratulations 747, the “fat and fabulous” winner of Bear Week 2020 at Katmai National Park.Number 747 was up against bear number 32, nicknamed “Chunk,” in the final head-to-head match-up of the just-for-fun tournament.Bear 747 was first identified and tagged by the park in 2004 and, according to Katmai officials, he has grown to be one of the largest bears in the preserve.“When asked what he intends to do now that he has won, the only response was a look before going back to fishing in the Jacuzzi near the Brooks Falls, one of his favorite fishing spots,” park officials said in a press release about the winner.The annual match-up features images of brown bears from around Katmai National Park showing how they have bulked up over the spring and fall ahead of winter hibernation. The public is invited to vote for their favorite each day for a week in a brackets-style tournament.A brown bear eats a year’s worth of food in just six months to help them survive through the winter.The tournament is a way to celebrate the success of healthy bears doing what bears do, according to the organizers.“This week celebrates their success and wishes them a good hibernation!” 1185

CINCINNATI — When Chad Mayer was born in 1980, a nurse told his parents it would be best for everyone if they didn't take him home from the hospital. A child with Down syndrome, she said, would be better off in a long-term care facility than a family home -- and his parents would be better off pretending he had died.Sue said she wouldn't hear it."Nobody's taking my child," she told the nurse. "We're taking him home."According to a series of studies conducted between 1995 and 2011, other American women often have different feelings about learning that they are likely to give birth to a child with Down syndrome. Around 67 percent of the surveyed women who received a positive prenatal Down screening chose to end their pregnancies.In Iceland, where prenatal screening is common and abortion is readily accessible, nearly 100 percent of women who receive the same positive test terminate their pregnancies.Should they be allowed to do so?A bill passed Wednesday by the Ohio House would make such abortions illegal and charge doctors who performed them with a fourth-degree felony. If convicted, they could face up to 18 months in prison and be fined ,000.According to proponents of the bill, choosing to end a pregnancy based on a Down syndrome diagnosis is a moral evil tantamount to eugenics.According to opponents such as Planned Parenthood of Ohio, legislation like this uses a moral crusade as a smokescreen to limit women's access to health care."This bill attempts to use the disability community as a political wedge to chip away women's access to abortion," the organization tweeted Wednesday.The intersection of disability advocacy -- the belief that every disabled person has the right to a healthy life free of social stigma -- and abortion advocacy -- the belief that every woman has the right to terminate an early-stage pregnancy she no longer wishes to carry to term -- is often messy.A central question: Is it any more ethical to compel a woman to give birth to a child whose care she might not be equipped to handle than it is to terminate a pregnancy based on a prenatal diagnosis? A New York Times article from 1991 articulated the tension felt by many disabled people and their families when the subject comes up: 2259