临沧怀孕第一个月会来月经吗(临沧如何让姨妈快点来) (今日更新中)

The co-founder of the Salt Life apparel brand is in a Florida jail following his arrest in connection with the death of an 18-year-old woman at a Singer Island hotel.Michael Hutto, 54, was booked into the main Palm Beach County jail Sunday. Hutto was arrested Oct. 30 on a manslaughter charge in Jacksonville.Hutto is accused of shooting Lora Grace Duncan at the Hilton Singer Island oceanfront resort. Police said the 18-year-old Lake City woman was found dead of a single gunshot wound inside a room at the hotel.According to a probable cause affidavit, Duncan's father had requested a welfare check on his daughter on Oct. 29 after he hadn't heard from her in several days. Using her cellphone's location, her father was able to track her down at the Hilton, where police found her lying dead on the floor with a gunshot wound to the stomach.The room had been rented in Hutto's name, and his wallet and identification card were inside the room, police said.An investigation revealed that one day earlier, Hutto had been taken to a Jacksonville hospital after deputies in St. Johns County found his car illegally parked in a St. Augustine gas station parking lot. Hutto was reported to have been "twitching, making delusional comments and crying while his eyes were rolling into the back of his head."When detectives questioned Hutto at the hospital, he told them, "Oh my God, I think I hurt my Gracie" and then began to cry, the affidavit said.Later, Hutto told detectives he and Duncan were headed to the Florida Keys to visit some of his friends when they stopped at the Hilton. After spending time together on the beach, Hutto said, they were "playing inside of the hotel room as if they were shooting with their finger and a gun."Hutto told detectives that Duncan was sitting on the counter in the bathroom when he pointed the gun at her and it fired, shooting her. Hutto said he then put the gun in his backpack and left her in the room, driving until he ran out of gas.Duncan's father told police that Hutto, who was her boyfriend, had been giving her drugs to keep her sedated.The co-founder of the popular Salt Life apparel brand appeared before a Palm Beach County judge Monday morning. The judge set Hutto's bond at 5,000 and ordered that he not have any weapons or contact with Duncan's family.This story was originally published by Peter Burke at WPTV. 2378

The family flick "Show Dogs" is getting an immediate re-cut after parents who took their children to see the movie criticized scenes they say depict sexual abuse.The edits address scenes in which the lead undercover police dog Max, voiced by Ludacris, who while being inspected at a dog show becomes comfortable with his private parts being touched, according to Deadline.In a statement, Global Road Entertainment said the revised version of the film will be in theaters this weekend:  508

The company that makes Cream of Wheat says it is initiating an immediate review of its brand and packaging as the nation's institutions hold ongoing conversations about race amid weekslong protests."B&G Foods, Inc. today announced that we are initiating an immediate review of the Cream of Wheat brand packaging," the company said in a statement Wednesday. "We understand there are concerns regarding the Chef image, and we are committed to evaluating our packaging and will proactively take steps to ensure that we and our brands do not inadvertently contribute to systemic racism."Cream of Wheat's packaging includes an image of a black chef. In early advertisements, copy refers to the chef as "Rastus" — a term now considered a slur. The name refers to a minstrel show caricature of a stereotypically happy black man.Cream of Wheat follows in the footsteps of Aunt Jemima pancake mix, which announced Wednesday that it would drop its mascot (also rooted in minstrel show tropes) and change its name. Uncle Ben's rice, which also uses a black man's portrait on its packaging, said it planned to "evolve" the brand, but did not offer specifics.Protests against systemic racism and police brutality across the country were sparked by the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis. Bystander video from Floyd's arrest showed a police officer, later identified as Derek Chauvin, kneeling on Floyd's neck for more than eight minutes. 1478

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The continuing debate about children and vaccines can get pretty heated. One of the concerns is that vaccines weaken a baby's immune system against other diseases, but new findings should ease that fear           For many little ones, routine vaccinations are a rite of passage.  And sometimes, there can be a lot of them."Some parents are concerned that kids get too many vaccines in too short of a time," says Dr. Jason Glanz with the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research. "So by the age of two children receive up to 10 vaccines and 26 shots and so that is a lot of shots."That's why Dr. Glanz and his team set out to see if getting that many vaccines was harmful."Thankfully our study show that it wasn't harmful," Dr. Glanz says.Dr. Glanz says many parents are concerned vaccines could overload their child's immune system and increase their risk of getting an infection in the future.The NOW's Kumasi Aaron asked Dr. Glanz, "Is there such thing as overloading an infant with vaccines?" "We did not see a list of that," Dr. Glanz replied. "We saw no evidence that receiving all the vaccines and receiving them on time in anyway damaged the child's immune system."The study looked at infants two years after they got those vaccines, and found they weren't likely to be more susceptible to other infections not targeted by those vaccines.Dr. Glanz says, "I'm hoping he provides some reassurance that these vaccines are safe and the benefits greatly outweigh the risks and that if they have any concerns that they should talk about it with the doctors." 1658

来源：资阳报