贵阳较好的白癜风医院哪里有(贵阳市治疗白癜风有名的医院) (今日更新中)

CLEVELAND — Two residents in Cleveland's West 58th Street neighborhood suffered significant injuries while protecting neighborhood children from an Oct. 7 pit bull attack.Becky Barker and Jay Anderson responded after hearing the screams of children who were being chased by three pit bulls they said were part of a one-hour rampage in their neighborhood.Barker told WEWS the pit bulls had children trapped on top of a car that was parked in front of her home, and when she stepped out to help, the pit bulls bit her multiple times in three areas of her body."They could have killed me, they really could have, if they would kept ripping me open like they did," Barker said."The children were screaming, and the dogs are just like clawing up this ladies car to get at these kids," she said.Jay Anderson also suffered several dog bites on the backs of his legs and back.Anderson said he tried to use a screwdriver to fend-off the attacking dogs, but one of the dogs was able to disarm him."Just terrible, it was a horrible thing, kind of scary," Anderson said."So I turned around and looked at the dog that took my screwdriver, and a second one started attacking me" he said.Cleveland EMS, the fire department and the Cleveland dog warden responded to the scene.Residents told WEWS the owner of the dogs was cited and one of the pit bulls was confiscated.According to city law, the owner could be fined up to ,000, but Barker believes the irresponsible owner should face even tougher penalties."It isn't the breed of the animal, it's the owners of these animals that have them," Barker said."The owner of these dogs they should be held accountable, and really pay for what they did," she said.WEWS contacted the City of Cleveland about the case, but it said it couldn't comment on an ongoing investigation. 1854

CINCINNATI, Ohio - What will health insurance costs look like in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic?It’s too early to say for sure, said Miami University professor and economist Melissa Thomasson, except that rates almost definitely won’t go down.“There is so much uncertainty right now that insurance companies are probably really reluctant to cut premiums” for the upcoming year, she said Wednesday.They could be more expensive next year to cover lost profit during the pandemic, she said; they could also remain the same. Although millions of Americans lost their jobs in 2020, not all of them had employer-sponsored insurance or represented a hit for their insurance company.“Jobs in retail, service industries, hospitality and leisure, those people typically don't have health insurance coverage,” Thomasson said. “So I think the losses in health coverage were less than we initially feared."Tommie Lewis, a Cincinnati business owner, said his family avoided the doctor’s office for much of the year due to COVID-19 transmission concerns. People across the country have done exactly the same thing; on June 9, the CEOs of the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic published an opinion piece pleading with readers to stop delaying their medical care over virus fears.The insurance industry could benefit in 2021 from people like Lewis, who had put off their visits, finally returning, Thomasson said. Likewise, it could experience a rebound through new telehealth options — which the Kaiser Family Foundation predicts will be more prevalent — and previously unemployed people going back to work.But Lewis, who is self-insured through his business, said he worries that premiums will rise for families across the country.“I really believe there will be an increase in premiums, and families of four, five, six, are going to have to make real serious decisions on food, shelter, transportation, or health care,” he said.This story was first published by Courtney Francisco at WCPO in Cincinnati, Ohio. 2010

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

CINCINNATI — "The NRA is a terrorist organization.”Mad Dog PAC, a Maryland-based political action committee, paid to put messages like this one on billboards all over the country, including over northbound Interstate 75 in Middletown. Their installations, which include an "Impeachment Now" sign near President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and 14 other National Rifle Association-centric billboards across the country, are splashy, provocative and to-the-point, calling for regulation of the NRA and the removal of various "Treasonweasel" Republican politicians.PAC chair Claude Taylor said the messages are as severe as they need to be."We think the NRA is acting very much like a terrorist organization," he said. "We are very suspicious of some of their Russian funding. … The situation with the NRA has just gotten beyond control."He and other members, he said, hope public outcry can convince legislators to spurn donations from the gun advocacy organization, which also has a recent history of provocative rhetoric, and enact "common-sense" restrictions of gun sales in the United States.RELATED: Trump reassures NRA: 'We will protect your Second Amendment'The restrictions for which Taylor advocates include those that have gained national traction in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, including a ban on the sale of certain high-power automatic weapons."We are starting a conversation," Taylor said.Russ Mikesell intends to continue it.Mikesell, a gun owner who said he doesn't feel the existing billboard represents the feelings of Middletonians, hopes those with the same beliefs can buy the empty billboard directly beneath Mad Dog PAC's and use it to display an opposing message."I am for the First Amendment and freedom of speech," he said.That's why he intends to use it to make another argument: "Let's go ahead and offer a different perspective on this -- not even necessarily advocating the NRA or anything like that. It's more about the Second Amendment."Like any political action committee, Mad Dog PAC uses donations to fund its displays of outreach and activism. "Billboard of Freedom" advocates such as Mikesell plan to do the same thing.Trenton resident Dan Jones created a GoFundMe to raise ,000 for a "pro gun message to upset liberals" and "take action against the Mad Dog PAC funded by George Soros!"The campaign had raised 0 by Friday night; Mikesell said he hoped to get the pro-gun billboard up by the end of the month. 2522

COVID-19 has killed more than 50,000 people in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. That is at least 40% of all U.S. coronavirus deaths.The White House put in new measures recently to better protect residents.“The numbers are continuing to rise. We're just beginning to get some of the numbers out of some of the states and so this is a real outrage,” said Bill Sweeney, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at AARP. “It didn't have to be this way, and this is a national disgrace.”AARP says required virus case data from facilities is happening too late. They're about a week behind and testing isn't consistent.Some facilities are still having issues with PPE, including training staff to wear it properly.Both Republicans and Democrats want to give more help to nursing homes in the next relief bill.AARP is concerned about the lack of inspections and oversight. It worries some facilities will get immunity from lawsuits.“Without inspections, without the ombudsman being able to go in and find out what’s going on in the facilities, without family visits being allowed, there's been no accountability at all and if they give immunity to these nursing homes, there won’t ever be accountability,” said Sweeney. “There will never be justice for families whose loved ones were treated poorly.”Before the pandemic, AARP says eight out of ten nursing homes were cited for infection control problems.Meanwhile, AARP encourages family members to call their representative in Congress if they are worried about their loved one and are not getting answers. 1573

来源：资阳报