梅州怎么治急性附件炎比较好梅州人流比较好的医院,梅州怀孕80天能做人流吗,梅州leep刀治疗宫颈糜烂费用,梅州哈市附件炎治疗专科医院,梅州附件炎医院哪家好,梅州细菌性阴道炎症该如何医治,梅州女子做人流总价格是多少

The United States could see an increase in immigrants coming to the country after Hurricanes Irma and Harvey, according to new research from the University of Michigan.According to the study, there are multiple reasons this happens, including migrants might find it easier to flee destruction in their own country.Another reason, according to U-M economists Dean Yang and Parag Mahajan, is they are able to secure green cards or legal permanent residency through their families already established in the country."When there's a bigger stock of previous migrants to the U.S., when someone in their home country is more likely to have a connection to some sort of migrant in the U.S., then the effect of hurricanes on migration is larger," Yang said.The researchers first studied the severity of a hurricane in a given country, using data from meteorological reports to estimate actual damage.Yang and Mahajan then analyzed restricted U.S. Census data from 159 counties over 25 years to see if America saw a rise in immigration following large storms in other countries.The largest effect came from Central America and the Caribbean."These regions get hit a lot by hurricanes that cause severe damage, and there are a lot of Central American and Caribbean immigrants in the U.S., so if you're looking for someone to sponsor you, you actually have that opportunity," Mahajan said.One example of that is Hurricane Cesar hitting Nicaragua in 1996. It caused food shortages, .5 million in damage, left 100,000 people homeless and killed 42. Yang and Mahajan found that in 1996 and 1997, there was a 50 percent increase in legal permanent residencies for Nicaraguans than in 1995."Much of this increase came from immediate relatives of U.S. citizens - parents, spouses and children," Mahajan added. "Repeated, similar responses like this in the data helped us conclude that networks of U.S. citizens from sending countries provide opportunities for family members to escape severe weather events." 2007

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can end census field operations early, in a blow to efforts to make sure minorities and hard-to-enumerate communities are properly counted in the crucial once-a-decade tally.The decision was not a total loss for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to end the count early. They managed to get nearly two extra weeks of counting people as the case made its way through the courts.However, the ruling increased the chances of the Trump administration retaining control of the process that decides how many congressional seats each state gets — and by extension how much voting power each state has.The Supreme Court justices’ ruling came as the nation’s largest association of statisticians, and even the U.S. Census Bureau’s own census takers and partners, have been raising questions about the quality of the data being gathered — numbers that are used to determine how much federal funding and how many congressional seats are allotted to states.After the Supreme Court’s decision, the Census Bureau said field operations would end on Thursday.At issue was a request by the Trump administration that the Supreme Court suspend a lower court’s order extending the 2020 census through the end of October following delays caused by the pandemic. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately to give the bureau time to meet a year-end deadline. Congress requires the bureau to turn in by Dec. 31 the figures used to decide the states’ congressional seats — a process known as apportionment.By sticking to the deadline, the Trump administration would end up controlling the numbers used for the apportionment, no matter who wins next month’s presidential election.In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the Supreme Court’s decision “regrettable and disappointing,” and said the administration’s actions “threaten to politically and financially exclude many in America’s most vulnerable communities from our democracy.”Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high court’s decision, saying “respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy for expediency.”The Supreme Court ruling came in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of local governments and civil rights groups, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the census ended early. They said the schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from President Donald Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from being counted in the numbers used for apportionment.Opponents of the order said it followed the strategy of the late Republican redistricting guru, Thomas Hofeller, who had advocated using voting-age citizens instead of the total population when it came to drawing legislative seats since that would favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction suspending a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the apportionment numbers. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.The plaintiffs said the ruling against them was not a total loss, as millions more people were counted during the extra two weeks.“Every day has mattered, and the Supreme Court’s order staying the preliminary injunction does not erase the tremendous progress that has been made as a result of the district court’s rulings,” said Melissa Sherry, one of the attorneys for the coalition.Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how .5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said that his city lost 0 million in federal funding over the decade following the 2010 census, and he feared it would lose more this time around. The California city was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.“A census count delayed is justice denied,” Liccardo said.With plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October, and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.The Senate Republicans’ inaction coincided with Trump’s order directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration appealed that case to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court decision comes as a report by the the American Statistical Association has found that a shortened schedule, dropped quality control procedures, pending lawsuits and the outside politicization of some parts of the 2020 census have raised questions about the quality of the nation’s head count that need to be answered if the final numbers are going to be trusted.The Census Bureau says it has counted 99.9% of households nationwide, though some regions of the country such as parts of Mississippi and hurricane-battered Louisiana fall well below that.As the Census Bureau winds down field operations over the next several days, there will be a push to get communities in those two states counted, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the litigants in the lawsuit.“That said, the Supreme Court’s order will result in irreversible damage to the 2020 Census,” Clarke said.___Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP 6792

The Sikh community is speaking out after a Sikh Canadian minister was asked to take off his turban while going through a TSA checkpoint at Detroit Metro Airport.The incident happened in April 2017.  Navdeep Bains, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, went through the TSA checkpoint once without any issues but was asked to go through additional screenings because of his turban."Once they realized my position, who I was, I was ultimately allowed to fly but for me this is an issue that speaks for discrimination and discrimination happens with many people," Bains said. The agency is now issuing a statement and the U.S. government is apologizing to Canada.TSA responded to the incident saying in part: 767

The Sinaloa drug cartel, once run by one of the most wanted men in the world, El Chapo, has made its way to Northeast Ohio. It's a drug-trafficking ring moving large amounts of drugs from Mexico onto the streets."I don't think people understand how significant and embedded it is in Northeast Ohio," said Keith Martin, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of Cleveland's Drug Enforcement Administration. Authorities recently found a stash house in a Maple Heights neighborhood and another on Cleveland's west side. "The unfortunate fact is the drugs on our streets come from somewhere. Coco plants don't grow in Cleveland. Poppy plants don't grow in Parma, they come from somewhere else. They are, increasingly, in almost every case, the drugs are coming from Mexican cartels," said Justin Herdman, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. A three-year long DEA investigation, dubbed "Operation Loaded Deck," focused on taking down the local arm of the notorious Sinaloa cartel. During the investigation, authorities seized large quantities of heroin, cocaine and fentanyl, some of which were concealed in hidden compartments in cars. The drugs were moved across the U.S.-Mexican border and transported in these cars outfitted with secret traps. "Often times they'll go to great lengths, whether they've constructed a trap in a vehicle or a natural void in the vehicle," Major Gene Smith with the Ohio State Highway Patrol said.Just as astonishing, Cartel members were hiding in plain sight the whole time, even taking in a Cavaliers game — courtside."These aren't street-level dealers, they were dealing in massive quantities and, in return, huge amounts of cash," Herdman said. By the end of the investigation, 29 kilos of cocaine, eight kilos of heroin, a kilo of fentanyl and four pounds of marijuana were seized, along with nearly 0,000, guns, vehicles and dozens of cell phones. Operation Loaded Deck ended with 19 people sent to federal prison for their roles in the drug trafficking organization. 2115

The U.S. continues to lead the world in deaths linked to COVID-19 with more than 222,000 — and some experts believe that figure is much higher. But according to a new study, at least 130,000 of those deaths could have been avoided.According to a study by the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, the U.S. could have avoided between 130,000 and 210,000 COVID-19 deaths had the country adopted mitigation policies similar to those used by other "high-income nations."It's clear that the U.S. has disproportionately felt the affects of the pandemic — though it has just 4% of the world's population, it accounts for 20% of COVID-19 cases worldwide. The U.S. death toll stands in stark contrast to countries with similar resources, like South Korea, Japan, Australia, Germany, Canada, and France.To calculate the U.S.'s "avoidable deaths," the study applied the death rates of those countries to the U.S.'s population. Researchers then subtracted that figure from the U.S.'s current death count.By that calculation, researchers concluded that 130,000 lives could have been saved had the U.S. adopted policies similar to that of Canada's, and that as many as 215,000 lives could have been saved had the country adopted policies similar to South Korea.In explaining why U.S. deaths are disproportionately high, the Columbia researchers cited four key mistakes:Insufficient testing capacity: Researchers cited issues the U.S. had early on in the pandemic in developing and acquiring tests, while countries like South Korea were prepared almost immediately to test for the virus on a widespread scale.Delayed response: A previous Columbia University study determined that instituting national social distancing measures just one or two weeks earlier would have saved 36,000 of lives.Lack of a national mask mandate: Top health officials recommended against masks early on in the pandemic, fearing that doing so would lead to a shortage. Even today, masks have become politicized in some circles despite evidence showing that wearing one reduces the spread of droplets that can carry the virus.Failure from federal leadership: The Columbia study cited the Trump administration's "hostility to much of the critical guidance and recommendations put forth by its own health agencies," specifically citing the president's attempts to "downplay" the virus.Read more about the Columbia University study here. 2430