梅州去哪里医治白带异常梅州女性上环价格,梅州祛眼袋手术哪里好,梅州打胎安全哪家医院更好,梅州怎样可以瘦下巴,梅州人流前要做的准备,梅州盆腔炎的常用疗法,梅州做超导可视人流价钱

A couple arrested in Mexico while pushing a baby stroller filled with human body parts may have killed up to 20 women, according to the chief investigator on the case.The man and woman were detained Thursday in the Mexico City suburb of Ecatepec on suspicion of murdering 10 female victims. However, the male suspect has since claimed that they are responsible for twice as many deaths.Police arrested the pair, identified only as "Juan Carlos N." and his wife "Patricia "N.," during an investigation into the disappearance of three women and a two-month-old baby. The man gave detailed accounts of the original 10 deaths. He also told police that he and his wife had killed a further 10 people, according to State of Mexico Prosecutor Alejandro Gomez and reported by AFP.Police found eight plastic buckets full of dismembered body parts and cement in the couple's house, Gomez revealed in a Facebook post on Sunday. More remains were found in a refrigerator, wrapped in plastic bags. Tests are now being carried out on the grisly evidence. 1048

A growing group of Republicans want Attorney General Jeff Sessions to be the party's choice in the Alabama Senate race, but ethics experts say Sessions either would have to have to leave the Department of Justice or continually disavow campaigns to put him in the seat if he wants to run for the office and avoid legal trouble.This week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas both said they would support Sessions as a write-in candidate over Republican candidate Roy Moore, who has been accused of pursuing sexual relationships with teenagers when he was in his 30s.Moore denies the allegations, and says he has no plans leave the race. And Sessions has not indicated that he's planning to run for his old seat.But ethics experts say that even if Sessions does not himself campaign to be a write-in candidate in the race, he could have an "affirmative duty" to disavow campaigns to put him in the Senate while he's still the attorney general. If he remains silent, he could be in violation of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law restricting the ability of most federal employees to engage in political campaign activities.Walter Shaub, a former director of the US Office of Government Ethics who's now at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, told CNN that the federal Office of Special Counsel has issued an advisory opinion on write-in candidates, which specifies:"(S)uch a candidacy is permissible only if spontaneous and accomplished without an employee's knowledge. You acknowledge that you have heard rumors of a write-in effort to elect you to the school board. It would be a violation of the Act if you encouraged this effort or remained silent. The Act imposes on you an affirmative duty to disavow this effort through public announcements and other appropriate means." It remains to be seen whether the OSC considers the comments by McConnell and Cornyn as imposing an "affirmative duty.""There's a question as to whether it's a write-in campaign or a stray comment from one guy," Shaub said following McConnell's comments. "If McConnell keeps talking about it, he's going to create an affirmative duty."Larry Noble, a senior director at the Campaign Legal Center who's a CNN contributor, said Republicans such as McConnell are "putting (Sessions) in a very difficult position" by even suggesting he be a write-in candidate."We are close to the line of his having to disavow," Noble added.For Sessions to be eligible as a write-in candidate, Noble said, he would have to "affirmatively disavow" any campaign or resign from office to avoid violating the Hatch Act.Sessions would likely be asked about his support for the write-in candidacy frequently until the December 12 election. Questions could also be raised about whether he was having private conversations about the effort with the state party and the Republican National Committee, which also would violate the Hatch Act.In response to a request for comment, Sarah Isgur Flores, director of public affairs for the Department of Justice, said, "Our ethics officials will need to evaluate precisely what has been said by others and then review what, if any, affirmative obligations we may have."Samuel Bagenstos, a University of Michigan Law School professor who specializes in constitutional litigation, noted that a few previous attorneys general -- including Dick Thornburgh and Robert Kennedy -- have campaigned for Senate seats, but neither were floated as write-in candidates."It's extremely suboptimal for an attorney general, who is supposed to have some insulation from electoral politics, to be actively running for a political office," Bagenstos said, adding, "And of course there would be lots of possible recusal questions."Aside from ethical considerations, running as a write-in candidate would be a long shot even if Sessions resigned.Few candidates have won Senate seats via write-in campaigns. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, won her seat that way in 2010, but prior to her election the last person to do it was Strom Thurmond in 1954.However unlikely, a Sessions victory would serve two purposes for the GOP: The party would retain the seat, and Sessions would leave the DOJ after months of public criticism by President Donald Trump over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and not to prosecute Trump's political enemies. 4412

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 historically active Atlantic Hurricane season is nearing a close, but there appears to be at least one more threat looming in the Caribbean Sea.Hurricane Zeta is currently churning just south of the Yucatan Peninsula with maximum sustained winds of 80 mph — and is currently projected to make landfall on the Louisiana coast later this week.The National Hurricane Center issued a hurricane watch for portions of the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts on Monday. The hurricane watch runs from Morgan City, Louisiana to the Alabama/Mississippi border. The hurricane gained hurricane status Monday afternoon after Hurricane Hunters flew through the storm. In addition to gustier winds, the Hurricane Hunters found Zeta's pressure has dropped. According to the National Hurricane Center's latest update, Zeta is projected to make landfall on the eastern part of the Louisiana coastline on Wednesday evening or early Thursday morning. At that point, officials believe the system will be "at or near hurricane strength."Zeta is the 28th named storm of 2020 — the second-most all-time in a single year. And no region has been targeted more by tropical storms this year than the Louisiana coast.The Louisiana coastline has already been targeted by four major storms this year — Cristobal, Laura, Marco and Delta. The strongest of those storms, Laura, reached category 4 status and caused extensive damage to the Lake Charles area, contributing to 17 deaths in the U.S.According to one NOAA researcher, the Louisiana coast has spent more than three whole weeks in NHC forecast cones this year, by far the most of any region. 1624

A Cape Coral pilot is in jail in a Middle Eastern country which says will not free him unless he pays nearly ,000.Steven Bral is an international pilot who lived in Oman in 2012. While living there, he bought a car and owed ,000, but had to leave the country when he lost his job. Oman law requires all foreign nationals to pay all debt before leaving the country.When Bral was flying from Rwanda to Bahrain, he made a stop in Oman to change planes and was immediately arrested upon landing on March 8."You can't help but just think 'what's going to happen?'" his son, Nolan Bral said."It's a small cell and there's six men in that cell, and they have concrete floor and nothing else. That is where they sleep and eat. They eat in a circle on the floor with their hands," Cheri Bral, Steven's first wife, said.Bral has been ordered to pay ,600 to be released."He does not have that money in savings," Cheri Bral said. "It's too much."Bral's current wife, Shamirah has been able to talk to him on the phone in the middle of the night."I know it's very hard on her, and it's scary," Cheri Bral said.She said guards are trying to move Bral to an even bigger jail."Where you hear about torture and all this other stuff, you just don't know what's going to happen to him," Nolan Bral said.Bral's youngest son, Trevor, is trying to stay hopeful. "I just wouldn't understand or know if I never see him again. I just know he'll come back," he said.The family said the U.S. Embassy in Oman hasn't been helpful.The State Department's press officer emailed the following statement to Scripps station WFTX in Fort Myers, Florida: 1679