喀什治疗包皮过长要多少钱喀什多长时间能检测出来怀孕,喀什做处女膜修复好,喀什包皮过长手术费多少啊,喀什验孕棒出现两条红线一深一浅,喀什怀孕多久可以用试纸测出怀孕,喀什婚后意外怀孕怎么办,喀什去哪家看男科好

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal health officials are unveiling a plan to get approved coronavirus shots to nursing home residents free of cost, with the aid of two national pharmacy chains. No vaccine has yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the distribution program is contingent on that happening first. Trained staff from CVS and Walgreens will deliver the vaccines to each nursing home and administer shots. Assisted-living facilities and residential group homes can also participate in the voluntary program. Nursing home staffers can be vaccinated too, if they haven’t gotten their shots already. The idea is to give hard-pressed states an all-inclusive system for vaccinating their most vulnerable residents, said Paul Mango, a senior policy adviser at the Department of Health and Human Services. “We are trying to eliminate all potential barriers to getting folks safe and effective vaccines,” Mango said.People in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities account for less than 1% of the U.S. population, but they represent about 40% of the deaths from COVID-19, with more than 83,600 fatalities logged by the COVID Tracking Project.Needles, syringes and other necessary equipment will be included. 1240

WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Donald Trump's former life as a casino owner, he might have cheered Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law that barred every state but Nevada from allowing betting on most sporting events.But the Trump administration opposed the outcome reached by the high court at least in part because it could signal trouble in its legal fight against so-called sanctuary states and cities. Seven of the nine justices — five conservatives and two liberals — backed a robust reading of the Constitution's 10th Amendment and a limit on the federal government's power to force the states go along with Washington's wishes.The federal anti-gambling law is unconstitutional because "it unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion. "It's as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals."RELATED: San Diego County Board of Supervisors votes to support sanctuary state lawsuit against CaliforniaThere is a direct link between the court's decision in the sports betting case and the administration's effort to punish local governments that resist Trump's immigration enforcement policies, several legal commentators said."The court ruled definitively that the federal government can't force states to enforce federal law. In the immigration context, this means it can't require state or local officials to cooperate with federal immigration authorities," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's immigrants' rights project, said the ruling reinforced decisions from the 1990s, including one that struck down part of a federal gun control law that required local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.RELATED: Escondido?City Council votes to support sanctuary policy lawsuit"It reiterates that the real thrust of the 10th Amendment and the principles of law in this area is that the fed government can't tell the states or cities how to legislate," Jadwat said. The amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states.The gun law decision split the court's conservatives and liberals in 1997, in keeping with conservatives' complaints about the federal government's overreach and the importance of states' rights. But on Monday, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined their more conservative colleagues.The Justice Department declined to comment on the decision, but it had called on the court to uphold the federal law at issue — the department's usual practice when federal laws are challenged — by arguing that there was no constitutional violation.RELATED: San Diego church becomes 'sanctuary congregation' amid immigration debateIn the most recent ruling about sanctuary cities, the federal appeals court in Chicago held last month that the federal government cannot withhold public safety grants from cities that won't go along with Trump's immigration enforcement policies.In lawsuits challenging the administration, cities argue that turning local police authorities into immigration officers erodes trust with minority communities and discourages residents from reporting crime. The administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street.The administration's efforts to crack down on places that don't comply with immigration authorities have taken several forms. Trump issued an executive order aimed at withholding federal money from recalcitrant jurisdictions. The administration also has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. 3834

WASHINGTON — A group of prominent Christians from both sides of the aisle, including a past faith adviser to former President Barack Obama, is forming a political action committee designed to chip away at Christian support for President Donald Trump. The new super PAC is called Not Our Faith. It plans to roll out six-figure TV and digital ads focused on Christian voters, particularly the evangelical and Catholic voters who helped power Trump to victory in 2016. Its first digital ad in Michigan and Pennsylvania takes sharp aim at Trump’s claim to a foothold with Christians. The ad was shared with The Associated Press before its release. 651

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court said Thursday it plans to review a decision ordering the dismissal of the Justice Department’s case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.The action by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is likely to prolong the fight over Flynn’s fate and represents yet another dramatic development in a case that has taken unexpected twists and turns over the last year and turned Flynn into something of a cause celebre for President Donald Trump and his supporters.Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to FBI agents about his conversations with a Russian diplomat ahead of the inauguration of President Donald Trump.The court set arguments for Aug. 11. It did not offer an explanation for its decision in a brief order posted online, saying only "FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2020. The parties should be prepared to address whether there are 'no other adequate means to attain the relief' desired."A three-judge panel of the court ruled 2-1 last month that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan had overstepped his bounds by not granting the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case against Flynn.The Justice Department in May moved to dismiss the case against Flynn, one of the signature prosecutions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.The motion followed a review by a U.S. attorney appointed by Attorney General William Barr to scrutinize the case.But rather than immediately dismiss the case, Sullivan appointed a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s position and to consider whether Flynn could be held in criminal contempt for perjury. Flynn’s lawyers asked the appeals court to step in and order Sullivan to grant the department’s request. 1894

VISTA (CNS) - A Carlsbad woman who fatally shot her husband during an argument while their children watched cartoons downstairs will not have her sentence reduced in light of a recent gun law.Julie Elizabeth Harper, 45, was convicted in October 2015 of second-degree murder in the death of her husband, Jason Harper. She was sentenced to 40-years-to-life in prison.This year, the 4th District Court of Appeal found Harper's case is affected by a new law (Senate Bill 620) that took effect in 2018. The law gives judges the ability to add a "gun enhancement" to a defendant's sentence because they used a gun in the crime.RELATED: Carlsbad woman convicted of killing husband could have years removed from sentenceIn sentencing Harper in January 2016, Bowman said her testimony that her husband, a popular math teacher and volleyball coach at Carlsbad High, came at her in a rage and that she shot him accidentally was "inherently untrustworthy and not worthy of belief."Harper's attorney, Gloria Collins, argued in court documents that the gunshot Harper fired was not an "execution-style" shot but rather a single shot that entered her husband's side and "unfortunately struck him in the heart."WATCH JULIE HARPER'S EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH 10NEWS (JAN. 2016): 1278