中山那个医院看肛肠好(中山肛门长出小肉粒) (今日更新中)

We all know weddings are expensive. Food, drinks, hiring a DJ, and renting a venue are just among the many costs a couple are expected to pay for. But what if a couple asks for some help on wedding costs? One couple in England are asking for their guests to cover wedding expenses, according to the BBC. Ben Farina told the BBC that their wedding will be "like an all-inclusive holiday" for those attending and paying ￡150 (2 US).Nearly 60 adult guests, along with 20 of their children, have agreed to attend and chip in. In return, guests will receive a three-night stay at a venue which has a spa and pool. According to the BBC, the venue in Derbyshire, England will cost nearly ,500, which is exactly how much the couple is expecting to receive from their guests. The couple have agreed to pay ,000 for drinks, dresses and suits. The groom's mother and father are also chipping in to pay for a hog roast. Farina's stepfather is a chef, and has agreed to cook the hog roast. "People always pay a large amount of money to go to a wedding anyway, so why not have it paying towards the actual wedding rather than just to a business owner?" Farina told the BBC."I sold it to them a bit like an all-inclusive holiday, so all the food and drinks will be incorporated in that cost.Farina's fiancee is on board with the idea. "I never thought we would be able to have a wedding like this," Clare Moran told the BBC. "We had spoken about marriage because we've got a little girl together and I always said we wouldn't be able to afford to do it, or it would have to be a registry office wedding, not a big wedding.RELATED: Will it rain on my wedding day? 1728

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This year has been a historic one for the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only did the justices rule on several important cases with far-reaching consequences, but they’ve done a majority of their work virtually due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.The justices released the last of their opinions on Thursday. Catch up on some of the most significant rulings from the term:Trump’s financial recordsOn Thursday, July 9, the court made rulings in two separate cases regarding President Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records.The first decision was a blow to Trump. Justices ruled that New York prosecutors could see the financial documents as part of a criminal investigation that includes hush-money to women who claim they had affairs with Trump.But in the second case, the court ruled that Congress could not obtain many of the same records, at least for now. The case will be returned to the lower courts, which will consider separation of powers concerns.In the end, the decisions mean the records will likely remain shielded from the public until after the election, or perhaps infinitely.Native American land and OklahomaOn Thursday, July 9, the court ruled that nearly half of the state of Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, including much of Tulsa.The case revolved around a Native American man who argued that state courts didn’t have authorities to try him for crime committed on the lands of Muscogee (Creek) Nation.Justices agreed that Oklahoma prosecutors lack the authorities to pursue criminal cases in the large chunk of the state that remains a Native America reservation.“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”Religion and teachersOn Wednesday, July 8, the court ruled that federal discrimination laws don’t apply to teachers at religious elementary schools.The justices expanded the "ministerial exception," siding with a California Catholic school that did not renew the contracts of two teachers.Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said "state interference" in religious education would violate the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.Birth controlOn Wednesday, July 8, the court upheld a Trump administration regulation that lets some employers refuse to provide free contraceptive coverage on religious or moral grounds.A provision in the Affordable Care Act mandated that most employers provide cost-free coverage for contraception, but the current administration moved to end that requirement.The decision could leave 70,000 to 126,000 without contraceptive coverage. The women may have to pay to per month out of pocket.Electoral College and statesOn Monday, July 6, the court ruled that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.The ruling upholds laws across the country, like in Colorado and Washington, that remove or punish delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.In states without such penalties, electors remain free to change their votes.“The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for president,” Justice Kagan wrote in the opinion.Religion and schoolsOn Tuesday, June 30, the court ruled that states can’t cut religious schools out of programs that send public money to private education.The case involved parents in Montana who sought to use a state scholarship program to send their children to religious schools."A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.Abortion and clinic doctorsOn Monday, June 29, the court struck down a Louisiana law that regulated abortion clinics.Justices ruled that law, which requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospital, violates abortion rights established in the Roe v. Wade decision.If the court would have upheld the law, Louisiana would have been left with only one abortion clinic in the state. The court struck down a nearly identical law out of Texas in 2016.The ruling was a major setback for conservatives hoping that the court would sustain abortion restrictions and eventually overrule Roe v. Wade.Dreamers and immigration lawOn Thursday, June 18, the court ruled that the Trump administration may not proceed with its plan to end legal protections for 650,000 young immigrants, known as Dreamers.Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal justices in upholding the Differed Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but the chief justice said the decision was based on procedural issues and that Trump could try again to end protections.Former President Barack Obama established DACA through an executive order in 2012. The program allows undocumented immigrants, many who were brought to the U.S. as children, to continue working in America.Given Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric during his 2016 campaign and the restrictions the White House has imposed since then, the president is expected to use the court’s decision to elevate immigration issues in his bid for reelection.LGBTQ and workplace rightsOn Monday, June 15, the LGBTQ community celebrated a historic ruling from the court. Justices ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Acts protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex.“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” wrote Trump’s first appointee Neil Gorsuch in the majority opinion.Until the ruling, it was legal in more than half of the states to fire workers for being gay, bisexual or transgender.The ruling came as a surprise to many, with Gorsuch joining Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal leaning justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 6222

WAVELAND, Miss. — Storm-weary Gulf Coast residents are preparing for a new weather onslaught as Tropical Storm Sally churns northward. Forecasters from the National Hurricane Center in Miami said Sally is expected to become a hurricane on Monday and reach shore by early Tuesday, bringing dangerous weather conditions including risk of flooding to a region stretching from the western Florida Panhandle to southeast Louisiana. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards urged people to prepare for the storm immediately. He also said there are still many from southwestern Louisiana who evacuated from Hurricane Laura into New Orleans — exactly the area that could be hit by Sally.As the Gulf Coast braced for Sally, Bermuda was hunkered down and riding out the effects of Hurricane Paulette. That storm — with maximum sustained winds of 90 mph as of 4 a.m. ET — was hovering above the Atlantic island nation as of Monday morning. The storm is expected to impact Bermuda throughout the day on Monday before moving west on Tuesday.Also on Monday, Tropical Storm Teddy formed in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. According to National Hurricane Center forecasts, it's not expected to make landfall until next week if it doesn't dissipate by then.Teddy marks the 19th named storm of 2020. According to the NOAA, the record for most named storms in one year came in 2005, when 27 storms of at least Tropical Storm level formed.The NHC is currently monitoring eight systems in the Atlantic and Caribbean. 1491

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. health officials believe the coronavirus mutation that set off alarms in parts of Britain is no more apt to cause serious illness or be resistant to vaccines than the strain afflicting people in the United States. That's according to Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Even so, he says the variant still must be taken “very seriously" and is being studied intensively by U.S. officials now. Fauci endorsed the decision of U.S. officials to require negative COVID-19 tests before letting people from Britain enter the U.S. and declined to weigh in on whether that step should have been taken sooner. 674

来源：资阳报