哈密妇科问题在线咨询博爱妇科医院在线,哈密包茎手术17岁,哈密为什么这次月经量很多,哈密要是怀孕几天能查出来,哈密做包皮手术好么,哈密做了包皮手术要住院吗,哈密早孕试纸一深一浅原因

A day after Judge Amy Coney Barrett mostly sidestepped questions on her judicial views of politically-charged topics, Barrett returned to the Capitol on Wednesday for another marathon session of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.On Tuesday, Democrats continued their attempt to pry Barrett into sharing her judicial views on topics like abortion, public healthcare, LGBTQ+ rights and gun control — topics which Barrett is considered to take a conservative slant. However, Barrett continued to repeatedly invoke the "Ginsburg rule.""Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts," Barrett said on Tuesday.Ginsburg — whose seat Barrett seeks to fill following the longtime justice's death in September — coined the phrase during her confirmation hearings 27 years ago. While she did not set that precedent, she's credited with the concise phrasing that has been recited by many prospective justices in the decades since.But The Associated Press notes that Ginsburg was open on her views of at least one hotly-debated topic — abortion."The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity," Ginsburg said in 1993 during her confirmation hearing, according to the AP. "It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."As Democrats lobbed questions at Barrett regarding her judicial views, the judge offered few insights. Here's how she answered on the following topics:AbortionLike she did on Tuesday, Barrett attempted to avoid answering specific questions regarding her personal views on abortion. However, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett specifically about legislation he introduced that would prevent a woman from receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. When asked if Barrett would listen to both sides of that case, Barrett said she would.Graham went on to say that if Barrett were to be confirmed, it would punch through a "reinforced concrete barrier" facing conservative women, adding it would be the first time in history that a woman who is "unashamedly pro-life" would be appointed to the Supreme Court.Affordable Care ActBarrett mostly stuck to the "Ginsburg Rule" by attempting not to tip her hand when it came to sharing judicial views. However, questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, forced Barrett to admit that while she had written negatively about the Affordable Care Act and some Supreme Court rulings upholding it in the past, she had not ever written favorably about the law.Cameras in the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has famously been one of the most secretive branches of government. Cameras and recording devices weren't allowed in high court hearings until this year when arguments were forced to be held via teleconference due to the COVID-19. In fact, it wasn't until 2018 that the court published case filings online.However, Barrett said Wednesday that she would "keep an open mind" about allowing cameras in the courtroom moving forward.Climate changeSen. Richard Blumenthal asked Barrett directly if she believed if humans are causing climate change. She declined to answer the question directly and added that she didn't think it was relevant to her job.Her comments come a day after she said during the first day of questioning that she has "no firm views" on climate change and added that she's "not a scientist."COVID-19 lockdownsFeinstein also asked Barrett about a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in which the court said Wisconsin could not extend mail-in voting during its primary elections. The primary took place on April 7 — in the throes of pandemic-related lockdowns.Feinstein asked Barrett specifically about her view of the case. Barrett declined to give one, again citing the fact that she did not want to provide a judicial view.PolygamyWhen asked by Graham if a group of Americans had a right to polygamous marriage, Barrett declined to give a direct answer, keeping in line with avoiding direct judicial answers.Presidential powersLeahy asked Barrett specifically if a president had a right to pardon himself for any crimes he may have committed. Barrett responded that such a hypothetical was not settled law and that she did not want to speculate lest a similar case come before the courts.ImmigrationSen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat who ran for the party's presidential nomination, question Barrett on her views on separating children at the border. "Do you think it is wrong to separate a child from their parent, not for the safety of the child or parent, but to send a message? As a human being, do you believe that that is wrong?"Booker asked. "That's been a matter of policy debate and that's a matter of hot political debate in which I can't express a view or be drawn into as a judge," Barrett responded. What's nextSenators will meet privately to review Barrett's FBI file and background check. On Thursday, witnesses for and against Barrett's confirmation will go before the committee. _____Tuesday's hearings were also beset by technical issues. During Blumenthal's questioning, the committee was forced to take a brief recess when microphones in the room stopped working. Upon the committee's return, microphones again went dead as Blumenthal was wrapping up his time, forcing another brief recess.On Tuesday, Barrett also often invoked the "Ginsburg Rule" when discussing abortion, an upcoming case that could decide the legality of the Affordable Care Act, gun control and voting rights.Barrett was also asked about comments from President Donald Trump, who has hinted in the past that Ginsburg's seat must be filled prior to the election in the event the Supreme Court needs to make a crucial ruling. Barrett did not commit to recusing herself should such a case arise, but said she would consider the case and the recommendations of other justices.Barrett's thorniest stretch on Tuesday came in a denouncement of discrimination of LGBTQ+ people when she used the term "sexual preference." The term, generally deemed to be outdated, is classified as "offensive" by GLAAD because it implies that sexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Barrett later apologized for using the term when confronted by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.The 22 Senators on the committee were each given 30 minutes to question Barrett on Tuesday. Senators will each be given 20 minutes for questioning on Wednesday. Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, says he hopes to wrap up the confirmation hearing Thursday, and that Barrett is on track to be confirmed later this month, about a week before the 2020 election.Several swing-vote Republicans have already indicated that they will vote to confirm Barrett, suggesting that she will likely be confirmed. 6963

A man accused of running a multi-million dollar investment fraud scheme appeared in court for his preliminary hearing Monday.Jacob Cooper was the CEO of Total Wealth Management in San Diego. Prosecutors allege Cooper received a referral fee for placing clients’ money in certain funds. In many instances, Zipp said he received greater compensation through the referral fee than through his clients’ fees, creating a “blatant conflict of interest.”“He mainly was interested in whether a particular fund would enrich him, not whether it would enrich his paying client,” said Deputy District Attorney Rebecca Zipp.Zipp said Cooper had “no regard to investor goals or suitability for the investor.”Several clients testified in court Monday morning. Loren Engel said he and his wife both invested with TWM. He said they lost approximately 5,000. Engel was not aware Cooper and TWM were receiving what many victims described as kickbacks.“The risk of being defrauded is not a reasonable risk to assume,” Engel said, when the defense asked if he understood investments have risks.Many clients first learned about TWM through Cooper’s weekly radio show. Cooper also regularly appeared on local media.George Rasor called TWM after hearing Cooper on the radio. He testified that he invested more than 0,000. His son Jeffrey Rasor saw red flags when trying to get information about his father’s investments.“Questions not answered, not acceptably answered,” Jeffrey Rasor said when recalling TWM’s response after meeting with the company a few years ago. “Too much vagueness and a real concern that my father’s investments were in jeopardy.Cooper faces 19 felony counts, including conspiracy to commit a crime, elder theft, and making false statements in connect with sale of a security. Zipp said he could face a maximum of 23 years in prison if he is convicted. Cooper also faced several civil lawsuits and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.Cooper’s defense attorney, John Kirby, denies his client did anything wrong.“He did not have the intent to enrich himself above the interest of his clients,” Kirby said. Kirby said there were a number of funds where he received revenue sharing, but any conflict of interest was set out in documents.“Mr. Cooper had no intent to cheat or steal from anyone,” Kirby said. “He made bad investment decisions.”Kirby said Cooper and his family also lost money through the same investment funds. The preliminary hearing is expected to last several days. Two others connected with TWM already reached a plea deal. Doug Shoemaker and Nathan McNamee are scheduled to be sentenced later this week. 2656

A former Playboy model who claims she had an affair with Donald Trump beginning in 2006 is going public with a description of Trump's alleged system for concealing affairs.In an eight-page, handwritten document that The New Yorker obtained, Karen McDougal detailed her alleged affair with Trump for nine months from June 2006 to April 2007, when Trump was two years into his marriage with Melania Knauss, the future first lady. The document was provided to The New Yorker by McDougal's friend, but she confirmed to the magazine that the handwriting in the document is hers.The magazine's story was published on Friday. 626

A federal judge halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, in a blow to the Trump administration and a win for environmental groups.US District Judge Brian Morris found that the US government's use of a 2014 environmental review to justify issuing a presidential permit for construction of the cross-border pipeline violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the court order issued Thursday."The Court enjoins Federal Defendants and TransCanada from engaging in any activity in furtherance of the construction or operation of Keystone and associated facilities," the court document reads, "until the Department has completed a supplement to the 2014 SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) that complies with the requirements of NEPA and the APA."Environmental groups involved in bringing the 2017 lawsuit celebrated the decision."Keystone XL would be a disaster for the climate and for the people and wildlife of this country," said Jackie Prange, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs. "As the court has made clear yet again, the Trump administration's flawed and dangerous proposal should be shelved forever."In March 2017, President Donald Trump's administration issued a permit approving construction of the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration's decision to block the controversial project.The White House has not responded to CNN's request for comment on the judge's order.The permit approval followed years of intense debate over the pipeline amid steadfast opposition from environmental groups.They argued that the pipeline would support the extraction of crude oil from oil sands, a process that pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. They also opposed the pipeline because it would run across one of the world's largest underground deposits of fresh water.Native American groups argued the pipeline would cut across their sovereign lands.The-CNN-Wire 2099

A California judge has ordered Stormy Daniels pay 3,052.33 in attorney's fees, costs and sanctions to the lawyers representing President Donald Trump in the defamation suit Daniels and her attorney Michael Avenatti brought against Trump earlier this year.Trump's attorney, Charles Harder, had asked for a total of nearly 0,000 from the adult films actress -- 9,000 in attorney fees and another 9,000 in sanctions in a hearing last week.In a statement, Harder called the ruling "a total victory for the President." 533