济南龟头敏感度如何治疗济南前列腺炎的病症,济南治疗早泻药,济南泌尿系统感染能治么,济南泌尿系统治疗,济南阴茎上面有小白点,济南比较好的男科医院济南,济南慢性前列腺能自愈吗

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana — A new effort is underway aimed at better protecting the health of Indiana children in the classroom.A recent WRTV television station found most schools do not test for radon, a lung cancer-causing gas that comes up through the soil, even though the EPA recommends schools test at least every five years.The federal EPA estimates one in five schools has a classroom with dangerous levels of radon.State lawmakers have already vowed to take action, including looking at possible legislation requiring schools test for the radioactive material or requiring new school buildings use radon-resistant materials.Now, environmental groups are getting involved in the movement as well as the Indiana State Department of Health.Following the WRTV investigation, the Sierra Club’s Hoosier Chapter passed a resolution supporting requirements for radon testing in daycares and schools in Indiana.The Hoosier Environmental Council also supports requirements.“Yes, I think Indiana should have testing requirements for schools,” said Dr. Indra Frank, environmental health director with the Hoosier Environmental Council. “It is estimated that 1 in 3 Indiana homes has elevated levels of radon that can be unhealthy.”The EPA map shows much of Central Indiana is in a hot zone for radon, meaning the gas is widespread throughout the soil and buildings in our state.Dr. Frank emphasized radon can be in new or old buildings, including homes and schools."Radon isn't going to discriminate about which type of building it seeps into," said Frank.Improving Kids’ Environment, a group that trains Indiana schools on air quality issues, is also concerned about radon."I think with schools if you don't hold their feet to the fire, because they have so many things that they are accountable for, they just let those things go," said Margaret Frericks, Program Manager with Improving Kids’ Environment.A dozen other states have laws or regulations in place regarding radon in schools, and Frericks says it’s time for Indiana.Frericks said many people overlook radon because children often do not get lung cancer, and there’s no signs or symptoms associated with radon exposure.“It should be done,” said Frericks. “Not knowing is not an excuse."As environmental groups get ready for the upcoming legislative session, WRTV is already getting results at the Indiana State Department of Health.After our story aired, ISDH added information about radon to the indoor air quality website for schools, and they’re now in the process of developing best practices regarding radon in the classroom.“ISDH is required to review the best practices documents every three years, but we make changes and updates as needed,” said Megan Wade-Taxter, a spokeswoman for ISDH. “Ensuring that schools have the most up-to-date information on how to best protect the health of students, faculty and all those who enter their buildings is important.”Environmental groups say it’s a step in the right direction, and that we all pay down the road for people who develop radon-induced lung cancer.“Preventing an unhealthy exposure is much less expensive than trying to cure a disease once it’s arisen,” said Frank. 3212

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana — Police have arrested an Indianapolis man on a charge of murder in connection with the death of his friend on the Near Eastside earlier this month.Dewayne Sims, 32, was taken into custody Thursday night on a warrant for charges of murder and being a felon carrying a handgun in connection with the death of 36-year-old Earl Whitney.Whitney was found shot and killed inside a home in the 500 block of North Tacoma Avenue just after 6:30 p.m. on March 8.According to a probable cause affidavit filed Monday, a witness told police that Whitney had brought home his longtime friend, Sims. Both appeared to be possibly intoxicated, according to the witness.At one point in the evening, Whitney reportedly attempted to get Sims to leave. Sims, the witness said, had dozed off. When Whitney tried to rouse him, Sims reportedly said, “Who is you?”Whitney reportedly responded, “It’s me, cuz” – at which point Sims allegedly shot him. According to the witness, Sims shot Whitney once, paused, then shot him two more times. Sims then allegedly fled the residence.An autopsy of Whitney determined he died of a gunshot wound to the torso.According to the affidavit, Sims was on GPS monitoring through Marion County Community Corrections at the time the shooting took place. The device “reported insufficient,” though, meaning that it “did not have a clear view of satellites to report a valid location.”As of Friday evening, Sims was being held without bond at the Marion County Jail. An initial hearing had not yet been set. 1549

Instead of planes, trains, automobiles, and hotels, more and more travelers are considering renting an RV for upcoming trips.After all, there is virtually no risk of contracting COVID-19 when you are sleeping and eating in your own home on wheels.But while it appears a great way to travel, you need to know the pros and cons before you rent a camper (that you pull) or motor home (that you drive).It's the vacation rage of 2020, according to Money magazine, which calls RV's "virus friendly," since you drive across the country with your own bedroom and kitchen.But Money says many people end up surprised at the total cost, which can total a lot more than you first think.Know the real costRV rental can range from 0 to 0 per night, similar to a hotel room.Campsites are another to as much as 0 a night, depending on location and amenities.Gas can cost to 0 per day, even with today's low gas prices, as most motor homes get just 5 to 10 miles per gallon.Your auto insurance may not cover the full value of that RV, and your credit card may not cover it at all. That means you may have to pay or more per day for RV insurance.Add it up and you can end up spending 0 - 0 per night, though it is still cheaper than a 0 a night luxury resort.One other downside: many rental RV's are budget models, without all the high-end amenities you see at RV shows. Tour the model first, before you rent.Pull-behind camper or motor home?Campers that you pull tend to rent for less than models you drive.But think twice about a pull-behind camper if you have never towed a vehicle before. You will need an SUV or pickup built for towing, with a tow package that includes brake light hookups.And if you have never towed anything, you could be in for a surprise when you try to back up.A small or mid-size motor home that you drive is usually best for first-timers, experts say.And you have your own COVID-free accommodations, which can be well worth the cost.Bottom line: Campers are a great way to travel safely during the pandemic. Interested? Check a major rental firm like Cruise America. Or rent directly from owners at RV Share.Just know all the costs involved, so you don't waste your money.___________________________Don't Waste Your Money" is a registered trademark of Scripps Media, Inc. ("Scripps").Like" John Matarese Money on FacebookFollow John on Instagram @johnmataresemoneyFollow John on Twitter (@JohnMatarese)For more consumer news and money saving advice, go to www.dontwasteyourmoney.com 2534

INDIANAPOLIS -- A Cincinnati pastor will face trial by a council of church leaders in Indianapolis on Friday to determine whether his marriage to a man makes him unfit to be a United Methodist minister.Rev. David Meredith has served as the pastor of the Clifton United Methodist Church in Cincinnati as an openly gay man since 2012. More than a decade prior, in October 1998, the church became a so-called “reconciling congregation” that welcomes “all persons, regardless of sexual orientation,” according to its website.In 2016, though, Meredith’s sexual orientation became an issue for some members of his church after he married his long-time partner, Jim Schlachter.Rev. David Meredith, a @UMChurch pastor out of Cincinnati, will face a trial by church bishops in Indianapolis tomorrow over whether his marriage to a man disqualifies him from being an ordained UMC minister. (Photo via @WCPO) pic.twitter.com/MFYhAiGtAI— Jordan Fischer (@Jordan_RTV6) March 8, 2018 976

It may not be as oft-quoted as the First Amendment or as contested as the Second Amendment, but the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a critical role in supporting some of our closest-held notions of American freedom and equality.For one, it clearly states that American citizenship is a birthright for all people who are born on American soil -- something that President Donald Trump has announced he wants to end. Not only would this unravel 150 years of American law, it would loosen a significant cornerstone of the Constitution's interpretation of American identity.In order to better understand this part of the 14th Amendment, we asked two experts in constitutional and immigration law to walk us through the first section. The amendment has five sections, but we will only be dealing with the first, which contains the Citizenship Clause and three other related clauses.But first, some historyThe 14th Amendment is known as a Reconstruction amendment, because it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868. That places it at an important historical crossroads, when lingering wounds of divisiveness and animosity still plagued the nation and the reality of a post-slavery America begged contentious racial and social questions."Thomas Jefferson said men were created equal, but the original Constitution betrayed that promise by allowing for slavery," says Jeffrey Rosen. "The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were designed to enshrine Lincoln's promise of a new America."However, as so often is the case, this reaffirmed American ideal fell short of reality. Rosen notes that issues of civil rights and equal treatment continued to be denied to African Americans, LGBT people and other citizens for more than a century after the amendment's ratification.And Erika Lee points out that Native Americans weren't even allowed to become citizens until 1925."Even as [these amendments] were written, obviously there were major built-in inequalities and maybe at the time weren't intended to apply to everyone," Lee says.Why was citizenship by birthright such an important concept?"Citizenship was a central question left open by the original Constitution," says Rosen. "At the time it was written, the Constitution assumed citizenship, but it didn't provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans can't be citizens of the US and 'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'"The US Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.READ MORE: Scott v. Sandford"The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright," Rosen says. "It is really important that it's a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to our Constitutional values."What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"According to Rosen, this is one of the greatest questions of citizenship. There are two clear examples of people not subject to the jurisdictions of the United States: diplomats and their children, and -- at the time of the 14th Amendment -- Native Americans, who were not recognized as part of the American populace."With those two exceptions, everyone who was physically present in the United States was thought to be under its jurisdiction," Rosen says. "There are numerous Supreme Court cases that reaffirm that understanding, and almost as importantly, there are lots of congressional statutes that assume birthright citizenship."Some scholars, like John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, have argued that children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus should not be considered citizens under the Constitution.But Rosen says this is a minority view among constitutional scholars of all political backgrounds."While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled [on the instance of children of illegal immigrants], Congress has passed all kinds of laws presuming their citizenship," Rosen says.What is the connection between birthright citizenship and immigration?In 1898, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court reached a defining decision in a case known as the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Lee explains that Wong Kim Ark was the American-born son of Chinese immigrants."Asian immigrants were the first immigrants to the US that couldn't be considered white," Lee says. "So they are treated differently. They are taxed differently, they are stripped of many rights. In the 1880s, they are excluded from immigration and barred from citizenship."READ MORE: The United States v. Wong Kim ArkSo, the main question of the case was, could a person born in America be a citizen in a place where his parents could not be as well? The Supreme Court decided yes, and the case remains the first defining legal decision made under the banner of birthright citizenship."[The Supreme Court's decision] said that the right of citizenship is not a matter of inheritance, that it never descends from generation to generation, it is related to where you're born," Lee says. "It's about the power of place. That has been a very expansive, and at the time, a corrective measure to a more exclusionary definition both legally as well as culturally as to what an American is."Why must it be stated that the privileges of citizenship need to be protected?Before the Civil War, states didn't necessarily have to follow the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights; only Congress had to. The 14th Amendment changed that."This second sentence of the Amendment means that states have to respect the Bill of Rights as well as basic civil rights and the rights that come along with citizenship," Rosen says. "The idea was that there were rights that were so basic; so integral to citizenship that they could not be narrowed by the states."Despite the promises and protections of citizenship, Lee says it is abundantly clear that different racial groups were, and often are, seen as unable or unworthy to function as true American citizens. After all, basic rights of citizenship, like suffrage and equal treatment, were denied certain racial groups for a hundred years after the 14th Amendment."The idea of a law applying to 'all people' seems to be clear. But in reality, the debate and the laws and practices that get established are very much based on a hierarchy of, well sure, all persons, but some are more fit and some are more deserving than others," she says.Throughout history, Asian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Muslim immigrants and their children, to name a few, have had unspoken cultural caveats applied to their ability to be Americans."For Asian immigrants, the racial argument at the time was that 'It didn't matter whether one were born in the US or not, Asians as a race, are unassimilable. They are diametrically opposite from us Americans,'" Lee says."That was the argument that was used to intern Japanese citizens. It was the denial of citizenship in favor of race: 'The ability to become American, the ability to assimilate, they just didn't have it.'"Why was it important to legalize rights for non-citizens?So far, we've covered the first clause, the Citizenship Clause, and the second, the Privileges and Immunities Clause. These both deal with American citizens.The final two clauses, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection clause, are a little different, and deal with the rights of all people in the United States.Eagle-eyed Constitution readers will notice that the 14th Amendment contains a "due process" clause very similar to the Fifth Amendment. This, says Rosen, was a technical addition to ensure the Fifth Amendment wasn't theoretically narrowed down to protect only American citizens."The 14th Amendment distinguishes between the privileges of citizenship and the privileges of all people," Rosen says. "The framers [of the amendment] thought there were certain rights that were so important that they should be extended to all persons, and in order to specify that they needed a new 'due process' clause."What does it mean to have 'equal protection of the laws'?"At the time following the Civil War, at its core, it meant all persons had the right to be protected by the police, that the laws of the country should protect all people," Rosen says. "In the 20th century, more broader questions were litigated under the 14th Amendment, like Brown v. Board of Education -- whether segregation was constitutional. Cases involving the internment of Japanese citizens, case from the marriage equality decisions, even Roe vs. Wade have strains of equal protection language and invoke due process law."READ MORE: Brown v. Board of EducationAnother interesting case that speaks directly to the immigration side of the 14th Amendment debate is the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, in which the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the state of Texas to deny funding for undocumented immigrant children.READ MORE: Plyler v. DoeWhy are we talking about all this right now?This week,?Trump vowed to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.But his interest in repealing birthright citizenship isn't a new idea. Lee says for the last 30 years or so, there have been several overtures by the political right to explore "citizenship reform," a timeline that she says aligns with the ascendancy of modern American conservatism.Lee fears if the current push to end birthright citizenship is successful, it could have wider implications than most people assume. People from other countries who are here legally on work or student visas, for instance, could have children who do not legally belong to the only country they know."There have been attempts since the 1990s to break away birthright citizenship, or narrow it down, and it did not seem that they would have a chance at succeeding until now," she says."To me this not only reflects the ascendancy of an extreme right position but also a return to a very narrow and exclusionary definition of Americanness." 10356