梅州打胎手术费一般多少钱(梅州附件炎怎么医治) (今日更新中)

A magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck southeastern Mexico on Friday night, with the epicenter in the state of Oaxaca, the US Geological Survey reported.An earthquake alert was issued in Mexico City, about 348 kilometers (216 miles) away from the center of the earthquake. Buildings were evacuated there, CNN's Leyla Santiago said, and video showed people streaming out of buildings and into the streets.  413

A decision by McDonald’s to change the way it subsidizes franchisees could lead to an increase in the price of a Happy Meal.The fast food chain is reportedly getting rid of a decades-old deal with franchise owners that helps cover the cost of those Happy Meal toys.Starting in 2021, McDonald’s will stop sending the roughly 0 monthly contribution, called the “Happy Meal rent and service fee,” to it’s U.S. restaurants, according to an internal message."We recognize this subsidy has been in place for many years," reads the memo viewed by Business Insider. "However, it is no longer fueling growth in the way it once was."Franchisees will be able to increase the price of a Happy Meal by 20 cents to offset the difference. McDonald’s doesn’t set menu item prices, and lets franchisees decide depending on location.Franchisees are reportedly not happy about the subsidy being eliminated, and other new fees that will start next year."COVID is surging, and they're worried about taking our Happy Meal subsidy?" a franchisee told Business Insider. "It's not something that families in America want. They want a value-priced Happy Meal."McDonald’s told CNN they are finding ways to provide other subsidies.McDonald’s only owns about 5% of their restaurant locations in the U.S., the other 95% are owned and operated by independent franchisees. 1351

A man riding a horse on Saturday was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence when he entered the 91 freeway near Long Beach, California.The California Highway Patrol Santa Fe Springs division posted pictures of the arrest on Twitter saying "Don’t put yourself, your beautiful animal, or others in danger of being killed in traffic." So a horse walks onto the 91 freeway...no joke. Rider arrested by CHP for DUI in the greater Long Beach area. Don’t put yourself, your beautiful animal, or others in danger of being killed in traffic. @CBSLA @NBCLA @KTLA @ABC7 @FOXLA @CNN @FoxNews @ABC @NBCNews @CBSNews @CHP_HQ pic.twitter.com/YdiL54ctvQ— CHP Santa Fe Springs (@CHP_SFS) February 25, 2018 721

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719

A federal judge has dismissed several charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala in the historic female genital mutilation case, ruling that the federal law against female genital mutilation is unconstitutional.U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that Congress did not have the power to enact a federal law that banned female genital mutilation in the United States.Instead, Friedman made the argument that the law was too broad and it violated Congress' powers, as the law does not stand up to scrutiny under either the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.He also found that laws penalizing Female Genital Mutilation should be handled at the state level, similar to laws regarding Criminal Sexual Conduct, battery or child abuse.  Shannon Smith is the Defense Attorney for Dr. Nagarwala.  She says the ruling is "absolutely a huge victory. When you actually studied the law they enacted, there was no constitutional basis for them to enact the law. It’s really an issue that should be left to the states."Smith also claims the doctors did not perform Female Genital Mutilation, saying instead they performed a mild form of female circumcision."What Dr. Nagarwala was doing, if we had gone to trial, would have been vindicated that she was not mutilating little girls. While we’re happy with the victory and we’ll certainly take it, there’s a part of me that’s a little disappointed that the public isn’t going to see the evidence brought out at a trial to see that she was never guilty of it in the first place," Smith said.The ruling comes after Friedman also dismissed a "conspiracy to transport minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity" charge in January. That was the only count that could have lead to life in prison for both Nagarwala and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar.Friedman's ruling leaves two counts in place in the case. Nargarwala is charged with "conspiracy to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct," and four of the defendants are charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.Judge dismisses several charges in FGM case by WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit on Scribd 2194

来源：资阳报