邯郸生育常规检查邯郸马丽亚妇产医院做彩超检查好不好,邯郸月经后一周擦拭有血丝,邯郸玛利亚医院做检查好么,邯郸胎儿四维多少周做更好,邯郸月经来了量少,邯郸手术治输卵管价格,邯郸月经完不干净

Countless times, every day across the country, dispatchers field calls for help that can be hard to answer.In Eugene, Oregon, sometimes the answer is people like Dan Felts.“Sometimes, what we need in our most desperate hour is somebody to talk to,” Felts said.In Eugene and its neighboring city of Springfield, when a non-emergency, non-criminal call comes in through 911 or a non-emergency line to a dispatcher, they can send a mental health professional like Felts, instead of police.“Make sure people have access to resources, other than law enforcement, when they’re having mental health crisis,” Felts explained.Felts is a member of CAHOOTS, which stands for Crisis Assistance Helping out on the Streets."We don’t show up with weaponry, we don’t show up with handcuffs,” Felts said.The belief is unarmed CAHOOTS teams of crisis workers and medics can be a better response to people struggling with issues like mental health or emotional crisis."When a police officer goes and they look like me, gun, badge, you know it’s a little demonstrative and sometimes it has the tendency to escalate the situation,” said Eugene Police Chief Chris Skinner. "When somebody like CAHOOTS goes, it’s people who are kind of dressed the same and look the same. They just have a softer approach, and it tends to deescalate things."“There are lots of these kind of call types that are non-violent in nature; they’re simply somebody crying out for help,” says Ben Brubaker, director at White Bird Clinic.The clinic is a non-profit that provides an array of services like counseling, dental care, and other services to people in need in the Eugene area. It’s run CAHOOTS since the late 80s. Brubaker says communities are now calling White Bird for guidance on putting similar programs to CAHOOTS in place.Denver, Colorado launched a pilot program last month.“We need to change the way our public safety work and see how public safety looks through a different lens,” Brubaker said.It’s a viewpoint of listening to voices they believe across the country haven’t been heard enough.“We show up to bear witness, see you as a human being, and offer whatever kind of support we can without judgement,” Felts said. 2199

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

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

CORONADO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A driver was detained late Tuesday evening after military officials said he tried to enter Naval Base Coronado property without authorization.The incident occurred at around 10:15 p.m. at the Stockdale Boulevard gate at Naval Air Station North Island, near Third Street and Alameda Boulevard.Kevin Dixon, with Naval Base Coronado Public Affairs, said a vehicle tried to enter the base but was stopped by barriers.Dixon confirmed the driver was detained, but no other information on the incident was released.The investigation forced the closure of the gate for several hours.There were no reported injuries to any military personnel. 668

COVID-19 Update: The San Diego County Public Health Department has confirmed that a graduate student living off campus tested positive for COVID-19. Based on circumstances, the SDCPHD informed @uofsandiego no individuals on campus have been exposed by this student to COVID-19.— USD (@uofsandiego) March 14, 2020 327