济南生殖医院中心排名济南生殖器嵌顿的治疗,济南阴囊有疙瘩挂哪个科,济南同房硬不起来可以治吗,济南射的快怎么解决,济南前列腺有哪些症状,济南导致前列腺,济南男人硬不起原因

When an Oregon medical student was asked to donate sperm in 1989, he was promised that only five offspring would be born -- all on the other side of the country -- according to a lawsuit alleging a clinic violated the agreement by allowing the birth of at least 17 babies, among other alleged violations.Now a doctor, Bryce Cleary claims in his .25 million lawsuit that Oregon Health & Science University didn't adhere to a stipulation that his sperm could only be used by women living on the East Coast. The result, the lawsuit says: Most, if not all, of the 17 were born in Oregon, and some of the children went to the same schools, church or social functions as their half-siblings without knowing they were related.Cleary is claiming he is the victim of fraud and has suffered emotional distress since learning about the births."I wanted to help people struggling with infertility, and I had faith that OHSU would act in a responsible manner and honor their promises," Cleary said at the press conference. "Recently I became painfully aware that these promises were a lie.""OHSU treats any allegation of misconduct with the gravity it deserves," Tamara Hargens-Bradley, a spokeswoman for OHSU, said in a statement, adding that the university can't comment on the case because of patient confidentiality obligations.Cleary, who has three sons and an adopted daughter he is raising with his wife, found out about the other children when two of them contacted him in March 2018. Looking for their biological father, they used Ancestry.com and "specific and substantive information" from the fertility clinic itself to identify him and other siblings.Cleary then sent off his own DNA to Ancestry.com, and that led to the discovery that he had at least 17 offspring born through his sperm donations, the lawsuit says.'I knew something was wrong'"When the matches came back, I knew something was wrong," Cleary said."There were four instant matches and the odds of that happening was not reasonable.""It feels like OHSU really didn't take into consideration the fact that they were creating humans," Allysen Allee, 25, who was conceived with Cleary's donated sperm, said at the press conference. "They were reckless with this and it feels like it was just numbers and money to them."Cleary donated sperm at OHSU after the hospital's fertility clinic encouraged him and his male classmates to participate in a research program by donating their sperm, according to the lawsuit. Cleary alleges he was assured by the university that the sperm would be used either for research or fertility treatments, or both.Because the facility didn't keep records of where the sperm was sent and used at places outside of the state and region, "it is impossible to discover just how many of children born of Plaintiff's donations reside in Oregon, the United States, and/or the world," the lawsuit claims. 2905

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams disagrees so much with a gun bill making its way through the Colorado legislature that he's willing to go to jail rather than enforce it."It's a matter of doing what's right," he said.He's not the only one who feels so strongly.The controversial "red flag" bill aims to seize guns temporarily from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.Colorado's state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a single vote, without any Republican support, and the bill is expected to pass the House, possibly this week. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stand in the way.But more than half of Colorado's 64 counties officially oppose the bill. Many have even declared themselves Second Amendment "sanctuary" counties in protest.Failure to enforce a court order to seize a person's guns could mean sheriffs being found in contempt. A judge could fine them indefinitely, or even send them to jail to force them to comply.Reams says it's a sacrifice he'd be forced to make.What is the bill?Colorado's "extreme risk protection order" bill would allow a family member, a roommate, or law enforcement to petition a judge to take someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.The push for legislation followed the death of Zack Parrish, the 29-year-old Douglas County sheriff's deputy killed in 2017 by a man with an arsenal of weapons who authorities said had a history of bizarre behavior, including threats to police.Parrish's former boss, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, has been one of the most vocal advocates of the bill and says he believes it could have prevented Parrish's death. Democratic House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the bill's primary sponsors, agrees.The other House sponsor is Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012.Garnett says he won't lose any sleep if Reams or another Colorado sheriff opts for jail instead of enforcement of a court order."What I'm going to lose sleep over is, if that's the choice that they make and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide" because a gun wasn't taken away, he said.What's so controversial?Gun rights activists, and an increasing number of law enforcement leaders, say the bill goes too far.David Kopel, a constitutional law expert who has written extensively about gun policy in the United States, says he thinks the bill is generally a good idea but that he has serious reservations about how it is written -- in part because of outside influence."The gun ban lobbies are getting more and more extreme and aggressive," he said.The bill allows a judge to order a person's guns to be seized before the person has a chance to appear in court. The bill does require a second hearing with the gun owner present to be held within 14 days, where the owner could make a case to keep the weapons -- but if the owner is unsuccessful, a judge could order the guns seized for as long as a year.Kopel said it would be difficult to prevent a nightmare scenario in which someone misuses the law to take guns away from a person they intend to target violently.The burden of proof is low -- "preponderance of the evidence," which is the same standard used in civil cases, and a much lower bar than the criminal standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt."Reams said he also worries about the potential to aggravate an already volatile person by taking their weapons."Going in and taking their guns and leaving the scene, I can't see how that makes them less of a risk. It just takes one tool away," said Reams, arguing that a person bent on hurting someone could do it with a knife or a car.In 2018, 3783

WARNING: The video above contains profanity.DETROIT, Mich. -- Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden told a worker he was "full of s***" 154

WASHINGTON, D.C. – For only the third time in U.S history, an American president faces the specter of impeachment.Having taken an oath, U.S. senators will act as a jury in the impeachment trial. A half-dozen members of the House will act as prosecutors and President Donald Trump will have his own defense team against charges of obstruction of congress and abuse of power."We're achieving what no administration has ever achieved before and what do I get out of it? Tell me. I get impeached,” President Trump told those gathered for an agriculture convention in Texas this past weekend.While impeachment trials have basic rules set out in the 19th century, senators can vote to amend them. Georgetown law professor David Super said that happened during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s.“They set up a bunch of special rules, but they didn't amend the permanent rules,” Super said. “So, the rules that we have go way back.”Then, there is the role of Chief Justice John Roberts who, by law, presides over the trial. Super said the chief justice’s role is critical, as he will rule over questions about evidence – though, a majority of senators could vote to overrule him.“There are a majority of Republicans in the Senate. So, in theory they could overrule the chief justice's decisions,” Super said. “But the chief justice was appointed by a Republican president, confirmed by a Republican Senate. And I'm not sure that almost all of the Republicans in the Senate are prepared to overrule his rulings.”So how long could all of this last? Experts say to look at it in terms of weeks, not months.“I don't think that either side has an incentive to have it go very long,” Super said.It remains to be seen whether or not witnesses will be called during the impeachment trial. The issue is bitterly dividing Republicans and Democrats – with Democrats arguing they should be allowed to call witnesses. 1924

West Palm PD say the video voyeurism suspect is in custody in Houston. Confirmed he’s tied to two other hidden camera cases out of Boca Raton and suburban Delray Beach. https://t.co/5RbmAaMms9 @WPTV @WestPalmPD @BocaPolice @PBCountySheriff pic.twitter.com/04HF6vna4w— Merris Badcock (@MerrisBadcock) October 22, 2019 328