梅州女性怀孕1个月流产梅州较好可视人流医院,梅州无痛的人流需要多少钱,梅州子宫内膜炎炎治疗,梅州尿道炎是如何引起的,梅州妊娠多少天能做打胎,梅州自然打胎注意事项,梅州尿道炎病因及治疗

New payment options are popping up in your online shopping cart.There's been an explosion of retailers, including Amazon and Target, adding buy now, pay later options.“In general, I'm not a huge fan of these services really, because I'm worried about any sort of consumer debt,” said Ted Rossman, a financial expert at Bankrate. “And if you don't really have the money to pay for it today, but you think you'll have it in six weeks, that's a slippery slope.”Rossman says point-of-sale apps have seen triple digit growth over the holiday season.They typically require a payment up front and a few more payments spread out over six weeks or so. If you pay on time, usually there's no interest or fees.Rossman says research has found that almost half of buy now, pay later customers have paid late at some point, mainly because they were disorganized.Stores like them for several reasons, including because they tend to get people to spend more.“They also like the potential loyalty and big data play that they can actually learn a lot about their customers, and they work very closely with a lot of these services,” said Rossman.Most buy now, pay later lenders typically do a soft credit check. They won't typically help you build credit, but they could hurt your credit if you pay late because they will report that.“I just think that's a little bit short sighted, because if you use a credit card and are paying full, you avoid interest, but you get better promotions, you get rewards, you get better buyer protections,” said Rossman.Rossman says these options are appealing even to people who have credit, because of their predictability.He thinks we will see more of these with retailers not being able to push store credit cards as much with fewer in person shoppers. 1778

No charges will be filed against two Baton Rouge police officers in the 2016 shooting death of Alton Sterling after an investigation determined the officers' actions were "well-founded and reasonable," Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said Tuesday."This decision was not taken lightly. We came to this conclusion after countless hours of reviewing the evidence," Landry said.Landry's announcement in Baton Rouge -- coming 10 months after federal prosecutors determined they wouldn't file civil rights charges against the officers -- was made moments after he met Tuesday morning with Sterling's relatives to tell them of his decision.Outrage over Sterling's death led to renewed "Black Lives Matter" protests across the nation.Sterling, 37, was shot and killed by one of two police officers who confronted him outside a convenience store in July 2016. Cell phone video showed Sterling, a black man, pinned to the ground by the white Baton Rouge police officers before he was shot; police said Sterling was shot because he was reaching for a gun.The officers were responding to a call about a man with a gun. The call was from a homeless man who said that after he approached Sterling for money, Sterling showed him the weapon.In May 2017, federal prosecutors found there wasn't enough evidence to warrant civil rights charges against Officers Blane Salamoni, who shot Sterling, and Howie Lake II.The feds determined the officers' actions were reasonable under the circumstances -- including that the two used several less-than-lethal techniques before using force; that Sterling struggled with the officers and failed to follow orders; and that video evidence couldn't prove or disprove Salamoni's assertion that Sterling was reaching for a gun.Despite the federal findings, Sterling's five children filed a wrongful death lawsuit last summer, alleging their father's shooting violated his civil rights and fits a pattern of excessive force and racism within the Baton Rouge Police Department.Abdullah Muflahi, the owner of the Triple S Food Mart in Baton Rouge where Sterling was shot, also sued Baton Rouge and its police department. Muflahi accused authorities of illegally taking him into custody and confiscating his security system without a warrant. 2270

NEW YORK (AP) — A new government report shows that since the coronavirus pandemic began, the U.S. has seen 300,000 more deaths than it usually would.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been tracking how many deaths have been reported and comparing them with counts seen in other years. Usually, between the beginning of February and the end of September, about 1.9 million deaths are reported. This year, it’s closer to 2.2 million – a 14.5% increase.The CDC says the coronavirus was involved in about two-thirds of the excess deaths. CDC officials say it’s likely the virus was a factor in many other deaths too. For example, someone with heart attack symptoms may have hesitated to go to a hospital that was busy with coronavirus patients.The largest segment of the excess deaths, about 95,000, were in elderly people ages 75 to 84. That was 21.5% more than in a normal year. But the biggest relative increase, 26.5%, was in people ages 25 to 44. Deaths in people younger than 25 actually dropped slightly.Deaths were up for different racial and ethnic groups, but the largest increase – 54% – was among Hispanic Americans.According to a printed study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, since the pandemic began, the mortality rate among hospitalized patients dropped by 18 percentage points.Researchers said the patients in the study now have a 7.6% chance of dying, whereas they had a 25.6% chance of dying at the start of the pandemic. 1465

NORTH READING, Mass. – An off-duty police officer in Massachusetts is being credited with saving three people from an early morning house fire on Tuesday.The North Reading Police Department says Sgt. Thomas Encarnacao had just finished his shift and was on his way home when he noticed flames emerging from inside the home.After alerting dispatch of the fire, Encarnacao entered the home to alert the residents. He was able to locate a man sleeping on a coach at the front of the house and helped him outside to safety, according to police.The man told Encarnacao and other officers who had arrived to help that there were two more residents in the home, a 13-year-old boy sleeping in a back bedroom and a man in the basement of the home.The man in the basement was able to get out on his own after officers alerted him, but police say first responders had to pull the boy out through a window of a smoke-filled room.All three residents were evaluated by EMS at the scene and didn’t go to the hospital. No firefighters were injured. One officer suffered a cut to his hand while attempting to breach a basement window.Firefighters were able to put the blaze out, but the house ended up sustaining smoke, fire and water damage. Police say the residents were displaced and are being assisted by family members.The origin and cause of the fire is under investigation.“The work of the three officers this morning was truly courageous, and I am incredibly proud of them,” said Police Chief Michael Murphy. “Sgt. Encarnacao took decisive and immediate action, which very likely saved the lives of the residents inside the house. Once he got the first resident out, all three officers went back into the house, without protective gear, to look for additional residents. Their actions to get all of the residents out safely was truly heroic.” 1841

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Louisiana is suing the state of California over its decision to ban the import and sale of alligator products, saying the ban will hurt an important Louisiana industry and ultimately could hurt the state’s wetlands.In a lawsuit filed Thursday, Louisiana said the economy surrounding alligators has played a key role in bringing back the American alligator population and is an important factor in protecting wetlands and other species besides alligators that depend on the wetlands.“California has nevertheless attempted to destroy the market for American alligator products notwithstanding the fact that no such alligators live in California,” the lawsuit says.According to The Times-Picayune/the New Orleans Advocate, California banned alligator skins and meats in the 1970s but repeatedly issued exceptions that allowed sales. The newspaper reports that the most recent exemption expires on Jan. 1 of next year, and this time California’s legislature did not pass another exemption. The newspaper reports the alligator ban was backed by a coalition of animal rights and environmental groups.Louisiana said in its lawsuit that because most of the state’s coastal habitat is privately owned, the state does not have direct control over how it is managed. But the alligator industry provides economic incentives for landowners to take steps to protect marshlands that serve as habitat for the alligators.The state argues that if California’s ban goes into effect, “landowners will be forced to greatly reduce or cease their erosion control efforts because they will be unable to economically sustain those efforts, resulting in irreparable harm to their property as well as harm to Louisiana’s sovereign environmental interests in wetland preservation.”According to the lawsuit, California’s large economy often means that their product standards become de facto national standards so California’s alligator ban will have effects in other states. Louisiana says the upcoming ban is already having effects up and down the supply chain with the price of alligator hides decreasing, and alligator farmers reducing their investments.According to Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries, over 300,000 alligators are harvested every year from both farm and wild sources. 2282