梅州做微管无痛人流 时间梅州治疗阴道炎大概需要多少钱,梅州哪里隆鼻手术医院好,梅州董浜社区卫生服务中心妇科,梅州盆腔炎的西医疗法,梅州轻度盆腔炎症状,梅州普通人流手术多长时间,梅州盆腔炎治疗手术

The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass."Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored," the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. "Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs."The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including "a single question" from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted "at the discretion of the President or other White House officials."The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."You failed to abide" by "basic, widely understood practices," the letter to Acosta claimed.CNN won the temporary restraining order earlier on Friday, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access for 14 days. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled on Fifth Amendment grounds, saying Acosta's right to due process had been violated. He did not rule on CNN's argument that the revocation of Acosta's press pass was a violation of his and the network's First Amendment rights.Many journalists have challenged the administration's actions against Acosta, pointing out that aggressive questioning is a tradition that dates back decades.But Trump appeared eager to advance an argument about White House press corps "decorum," no matter how hypocritical.Since the judge criticized the government for not following due process before banning Acosta on November 7, the letter looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that could empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.The letter gave Acosta less than 48 hours to contest the "preliminary decision" and said a "final determination" would be made by Monday at 3 p.m.CNN's lawyers had signaled a willingness to settle after prevailing in court on Friday. Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN and Acosta, said they would welcome "a resolution that makes the most sense so everyone can get out of court and get back to their work."But in a new court filing on Monday morning, CNN's lawyers said the defendants "did not respond to this offer to cooperate." Instead, the letter from Shine and Sanders was an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the filing alleged.So CNN and Acosta asked the judge to set a schedule of deadlines for motions and hearings that would give the network the chance to win a preliminary injunction, a longer form of court-ordered protection to Acosta's press pass.They were seeking a hearing "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to the court filing.A preliminary injunction could be in effect for much longer than the temporary restraining order, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.In a response Monday morning, government lawyers called the CNN motion a "self-styled 'emergency'" and sought to portray the White House's moves as a lawful next step."Far from constituting an 'emergency,' the White House's initiation of a process to consider suspending Mr. Acosta's hard pass is something this Court's Order anticipated," they said.The DOJ lawyers continued to say that the White House had made "no final determination" on Acosta's access, and asked the court to extend its own deadline, set last week, for a status report due at 3 p.m. Monday, in light of the White House's separate self-imposed deadline for the Acosta decision.At lunchtime, Kelly granted the government's request and extended the status report deadline to 6 p.m. Monday.The case was assigned to Judge Kelly when CNN filed suit last Tuesday. Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate. He heard oral arguments on Wednesday and granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Friday."We are disappointed with the district court's decision," the Justice Department said in response at the time. "The President has broad authority to regulate access to the White House, including to ensure fair and orderly White House events and press conferences. We look forward to continuing to defend the White House's lawful actions."Trump seemed to shrug off the loss, telling Fox's Chris Wallace in an interview that "it's not a big deal."He said the White House would "create rules and regulations for conduct" so that the administration can revoke press passes in the future."If he misbehaves," Trump said, apparently referring to Acosta, "we'll throw him out or we'll stop the news conference.""This is a high-risk confrontation for both sides," Mike Allen of Axios wrote in a Monday item about Trump's new targeting of Acosta. "It turns out that press access to the White House is grounded very much in tradition rather than in plain-letter law. So a court fight could result in a precedent that curtails freedom to cover the most powerful official in the world from the literal front row."The-CNN-Wire 5546

The revolution is coming. The much-anticipated video premiere of “Hamilton” will be available on Disney+ Friday, July 3.Here are the details: The video is 2 hours and 41 minutes long, and includes a minute countdown for intermission. It was recorded using several cameras during two of the last performances of the initial 2016 Broadway run of the hit musical, and includes most of the original cast.It will only be available on the Disney+ streaming service starting at 12 a.m. PT/3 a.m. ET on Friday. Disney is holding a Twitter watch party later in the day at 7 p.m. ET/4 p.m. PT. 591

The world has spent the last several months wearing masks in public, avoiding gatherings and, in general, spending less time outside the home. But a new report suggests household transmission is one of the most common ways COVID-19 is spreading; an individual is most likely to contract COVID-19 from their spouse or significant other.That conclusion is part of a new report from the University of Florida which was published in the journal JAMA Network Open on Monday. Researchers looked at the results of 54 studies across 20 countries that included nearly 78,000 subjects.They found more than one in three, roughly 38%, of COVID-19 patients passed the virus to their spouses or significant others they live with."Infection risk was highest for spouses, followed by non-spouse family members and other relatives, which were all higher than other [close] contacts," the authors wrote.In the studies, about 17% of COVID-19 patients transmitted the virus to children they live with.Anyone living in the same home as someone who has contracted the coronavirus is at a heightened risk, but researchers say spouses and significant others are more likely to pass along the virus for various reasons, including "intimacy, sleeping in the same room, or longer or more direct exposure to index cases," according to the report's authors.The researchers found no significant difference between male and female transmission rates inside the home.A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 53% of people who live with someone who has COVID-19 will contract the virus within seven days.Health experts have urged those who have COVID-19 or have symptoms to wear a mask in their home, and isolate within the home as much as possible away from others under the same roof. 1798

The Trump campaign has officially filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin's Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn election results in the state.The Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed Joe Biden's victory Monday in the battleground state following a partial recount. Milwaukee and Dane counties finished their recounts over the weekend and results added to Biden's 20,600 vote margin over President Donald Trump.The president's campaign has repeatedly alleged fraud in the state's election, though it has not presented any proof. The election officials for both counties who did recounts said there was no fraud uncovered in the process.The WEC confirmation of the results opened a five-day window for the president's campaign to file a lawsuit.The campaign filed a lawsuit Tuesday morning, in an attempt to overturn results by disqualifying as many as 200,000 ballots."What we had is an abuse of the absentee process, dramatically in Dane and Milwaukee County,” said Jim Troupis, attorney for the Trump Campaign.The suit is specifically seeking to dismiss absentee ballots where the clerks' offices "inserted missing information,” people cast ballots "claiming Indefinite Confinement status" even If they "no longer qualified,” and absentee ballots "improperly cast or received at ‘Democracy in the Park’ events,” which were held in Madison.The lawsuit also targets many in-person absentee voters who the Trump campaign claims did not follow Wisconsin law which requires "voters submit a written application.""We introduce evidence in the proceeding we introduced evidence that they in fact followed the law. They in fact required appropriate application in advance of the in-person voting,” said Troupis.In a filing late Tuesday evening, Gov. Evers and his legal team issued a forceful rebuttal against the lawsuit: "President Trump’s Petition seeks nothing less than to overturn the will of nearly 3.3 million Wisconsin voters. It is a shocking and outrageous assault on our democracy. The relief he seeks is wrong as a matter of law, incorrect as a matter of fact, and mistaken as a matter of procedure. Indeed, he has sought relief in the wrong court and has refused to follow the proper steps under the statute that he himself acknowledges governs the appeal of recounts. And by focusing on alleged technical violations in only two counties, he has made plain 7 that his intent is not to fairly determine who Wisconsinites voted for to lead our country. He is simply trying to seize Wisconsin’s electoral votes, even though he lost the statewide election."Mayor Tom Barrett says Milwaukee conducted in-person absentee voting exactly like all the other counties in the state. Barrett addressed the Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday to voice his opposition to the Trump campaign's attempt to throw out those votes."They are challenging the entire election system in Wisconsin claiming entire groups of absentee by mail and absentee in person were not legitimate. And I would add they are only doing it in select counties. These claims are obviously an egregious attempt to discredit this fair election,” said Barrett.Wisconsin Election Commissioner and Republican Dean Knudson spoke out Tuesday afternoon in the commission meeting that he believes this lawsuit still proves Wisconsin has safe elections.“I am in a position to look at fraud in Wisconsin and I have yet to see a credible claim of fraudulent activity in this election. The Trump campaign has not made any claims of fraud in this election. The filing in, there is some disputes over matters of law,” said Knudson.The WEC has debunked previous claims for the campaign about fraud in the election process.The president's campaign lawsuit included four instances where it claims votes were counted illegally:Lawsuit claims municipal clerks were instructed to fill in missing information on returned absentee ballots based on their "personal knowledge" or "lists or databases."Lawsuit claims municipal clerks issued absentee ballots to voters without requiring written absentee ballot applications.Lawsuit claims election officials permitted voters who claimed to be indefinitely confined to "circumvent voter ID laws" without "meeting the requirements for that status."Lawsuit claims the city of Madison created "unlawful polling locations at over 200 parks and city locations" through its Democracy in the Park voting events. The suit claims that these locations were outside of the county's approved polling locationsRead the full petition below:2020AP1971 Pet for Orig Action (12!1!20) by TODAY'S TMJ4 on ScribdRead the supporting memo below:2020AP1971 Memo in Supp Pet. Orig Action (12!1!20) by TODAY'S TMJ4 on ScribdThis story was originally published by WTMJ in Milwaukee. 4761

The showdown over mail-in ballots is expected to heat up this week.Democrats are calling back Congress to vote on legislation to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from changing any of its operations. A House committee also called an emergency hearing for next week to address mail delays and concerns the White House is interfering.The USPS is removing hundreds of mail processing machines across the country and has warned 46 states that it may not be able to process all mail-in ballots in time to be counted for the election.“Are we going to force people to have to choose between their fundamental right to vote and their health?” asked Shaundra Scott with the South Carolina Democratic Party. “The American voters are going to be very frustrated that we may not know who the winner is until frankly December.”Political experts agree the presidential race, pandemic and mail-in voting will all lead to massive increases in voter turnout and probably a lot of contested results.Some states have streamlined mail-in and absentee voting for years. However, other states are rushing to change their voting process because of the pandemic.“When things like that happen, it doesn't inspire confidence. It leads to the fear that people who shouldn't be voting may potentially be voting or people that should vote are not going to get ballots because of a snafu,” said Matt Klink, a GOP strategist with Klink Campaigns.For example, New York changed the rules to make it easier to vote by mail ahead of the primary, and it provided pre-paid envelopes. But those envelopes were not postmarked, or they were returned late. And there were other issues like ballots that weren't signed. That led to one out of four mail-in ballots being disqualified.But voting by mail could close the gap on inequities.“Yes, there are rules and regulations that say your employer should give you two hours to be able to vote but if you’re working hourly and you’re working on a job that is shift based, even though voting is extremely important, taking away that two hours of pay from someone and them having to make that decision is huge,” said Scott.Some expert say Republicans fear mail-in ballots would capture new Democratic voters, but seniors also benefit from absentee and mail-in voting. They often skew red, according to the Brookings Institute.A major study of California, Utah, and Washington state's elections between 1996 and 2018 found there was no partisan advantage to voting by mail. 2482