梅州女孩妊娠两个月打胎梅州治疗导致宫颈炎,梅州细菌阴道炎多少钱,梅州尿道炎 费用,梅州怀孕打胎得多少钱,梅州附件炎会影响生育吗,梅州有效丰胸,梅州怀孕多久能做超导无痛人流手术

In mid-July, California’s department of transportation, known as CalTrans, was supposed to break ground on a highway construction project that was expected to take 18 days.The work was to repair and repave 800 feet of the busy 101 Freeway that connects San Francisco to the mainland, but the work never started because the project wrapped up in April, months before it was originally expected to begin."In the Bay Area, it was one of our busier years,” said CalTrans spokesman Bart Ney.The only reason contractors were able to start and complete the project months ahead of schedule was because of COVID-19.“We had to reduce traffic in normal situations by 30%, which was going to be very difficult,” said Ney. "In this case, we already had about a 40% traffic reduction because of people staying home for COVID-19.”In Colorado, something similar happened as plans to add an express lane through the main mountain corridor were able to accelerate a month.“It was over a 50% drop in traffic,” said Colorado Department of Traffic spokeswoman Presley Fowler.In April, the Federal Highway Administration says Americans drove 40% fewer miles than they did during the same time in 2019. It allowed projects in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Texas, Virginia, and Florida to all start ahead of schedule as well.The reduction in traffic didn’t only speed up work timelines, it also increased safety for workers as they could work during daylight hours that typically would have been off limits because of rush hour traffic. It also allowed states to save taxpayers millions in worker payroll.“You would quantify that impact in numbers in the tens of millions of dollars,” said Ney of the Highway 101 project.But as some states sped up their projects, others had to apply the brakes to theirs. The reduction in traffic volume hurt states in the pocket when it comes to gas tax revenue. Starting in March, states started seeing their biggest loss in gas tax revenue in decades as some had to defer billions in repair projects, saying they were short billion in funding.To help, Congress has been working on a transportation bill since road work was left out of the CARES Act, but that still has not passed.As states have reopened their economies, traffic volume has resumed to around 80% of its pre-COVID-19 levels. That will help with gas tax revenue. But at the same time, it will take some projects out of the fast lane. 2421

It may not be as oft-quoted as the First Amendment or as contested as the Second Amendment, but the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a critical role in supporting some of our closest-held notions of American freedom and equality.For one, it clearly states that American citizenship is a birthright for all people who are born on American soil -- something that President Donald Trump has announced he wants to end. Not only would this unravel 150 years of American law, it would loosen a significant cornerstone of the Constitution's interpretation of American identity.In order to better understand this part of the 14th Amendment, we asked two experts in constitutional and immigration law to walk us through the first section. The amendment has five sections, but we will only be dealing with the first, which contains the Citizenship Clause and three other related clauses.But first, some historyThe 14th Amendment is known as a Reconstruction amendment, because it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868. That places it at an important historical crossroads, when lingering wounds of divisiveness and animosity still plagued the nation and the reality of a post-slavery America begged contentious racial and social questions."Thomas Jefferson said men were created equal, but the original Constitution betrayed that promise by allowing for slavery," says Jeffrey Rosen. "The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were designed to enshrine Lincoln's promise of a new America."However, as so often is the case, this reaffirmed American ideal fell short of reality. Rosen notes that issues of civil rights and equal treatment continued to be denied to African Americans, LGBT people and other citizens for more than a century after the amendment's ratification.And Erika Lee points out that Native Americans weren't even allowed to become citizens until 1925."Even as [these amendments] were written, obviously there were major built-in inequalities and maybe at the time weren't intended to apply to everyone," Lee says.Why was citizenship by birthright such an important concept?"Citizenship was a central question left open by the original Constitution," says Rosen. "At the time it was written, the Constitution assumed citizenship, but it didn't provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans can't be citizens of the US and 'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'"The US Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.READ MORE: Scott v. Sandford"The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright," Rosen says. "It is really important that it's a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to our Constitutional values."What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"According to Rosen, this is one of the greatest questions of citizenship. There are two clear examples of people not subject to the jurisdictions of the United States: diplomats and their children, and -- at the time of the 14th Amendment -- Native Americans, who were not recognized as part of the American populace."With those two exceptions, everyone who was physically present in the United States was thought to be under its jurisdiction," Rosen says. "There are numerous Supreme Court cases that reaffirm that understanding, and almost as importantly, there are lots of congressional statutes that assume birthright citizenship."Some scholars, like John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, have argued that children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus should not be considered citizens under the Constitution.But Rosen says this is a minority view among constitutional scholars of all political backgrounds."While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled [on the instance of children of illegal immigrants], Congress has passed all kinds of laws presuming their citizenship," Rosen says.What is the connection between birthright citizenship and immigration?In 1898, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court reached a defining decision in a case known as the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Lee explains that Wong Kim Ark was the American-born son of Chinese immigrants."Asian immigrants were the first immigrants to the US that couldn't be considered white," Lee says. "So they are treated differently. They are taxed differently, they are stripped of many rights. In the 1880s, they are excluded from immigration and barred from citizenship."READ MORE: The United States v. Wong Kim ArkSo, the main question of the case was, could a person born in America be a citizen in a place where his parents could not be as well? The Supreme Court decided yes, and the case remains the first defining legal decision made under the banner of birthright citizenship."[The Supreme Court's decision] said that the right of citizenship is not a matter of inheritance, that it never descends from generation to generation, it is related to where you're born," Lee says. "It's about the power of place. That has been a very expansive, and at the time, a corrective measure to a more exclusionary definition both legally as well as culturally as to what an American is."Why must it be stated that the privileges of citizenship need to be protected?Before the Civil War, states didn't necessarily have to follow the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights; only Congress had to. The 14th Amendment changed that."This second sentence of the Amendment means that states have to respect the Bill of Rights as well as basic civil rights and the rights that come along with citizenship," Rosen says. "The idea was that there were rights that were so basic; so integral to citizenship that they could not be narrowed by the states."Despite the promises and protections of citizenship, Lee says it is abundantly clear that different racial groups were, and often are, seen as unable or unworthy to function as true American citizens. After all, basic rights of citizenship, like suffrage and equal treatment, were denied certain racial groups for a hundred years after the 14th Amendment."The idea of a law applying to 'all people' seems to be clear. But in reality, the debate and the laws and practices that get established are very much based on a hierarchy of, well sure, all persons, but some are more fit and some are more deserving than others," she says.Throughout history, Asian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Muslim immigrants and their children, to name a few, have had unspoken cultural caveats applied to their ability to be Americans."For Asian immigrants, the racial argument at the time was that 'It didn't matter whether one were born in the US or not, Asians as a race, are unassimilable. They are diametrically opposite from us Americans,'" Lee says."That was the argument that was used to intern Japanese citizens. It was the denial of citizenship in favor of race: 'The ability to become American, the ability to assimilate, they just didn't have it.'"Why was it important to legalize rights for non-citizens?So far, we've covered the first clause, the Citizenship Clause, and the second, the Privileges and Immunities Clause. These both deal with American citizens.The final two clauses, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection clause, are a little different, and deal with the rights of all people in the United States.Eagle-eyed Constitution readers will notice that the 14th Amendment contains a "due process" clause very similar to the Fifth Amendment. This, says Rosen, was a technical addition to ensure the Fifth Amendment wasn't theoretically narrowed down to protect only American citizens."The 14th Amendment distinguishes between the privileges of citizenship and the privileges of all people," Rosen says. "The framers [of the amendment] thought there were certain rights that were so important that they should be extended to all persons, and in order to specify that they needed a new 'due process' clause."What does it mean to have 'equal protection of the laws'?"At the time following the Civil War, at its core, it meant all persons had the right to be protected by the police, that the laws of the country should protect all people," Rosen says. "In the 20th century, more broader questions were litigated under the 14th Amendment, like Brown v. Board of Education -- whether segregation was constitutional. Cases involving the internment of Japanese citizens, case from the marriage equality decisions, even Roe vs. Wade have strains of equal protection language and invoke due process law."READ MORE: Brown v. Board of EducationAnother interesting case that speaks directly to the immigration side of the 14th Amendment debate is the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, in which the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the state of Texas to deny funding for undocumented immigrant children.READ MORE: Plyler v. DoeWhy are we talking about all this right now?This week,?Trump vowed to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.But his interest in repealing birthright citizenship isn't a new idea. Lee says for the last 30 years or so, there have been several overtures by the political right to explore "citizenship reform," a timeline that she says aligns with the ascendancy of modern American conservatism.Lee fears if the current push to end birthright citizenship is successful, it could have wider implications than most people assume. People from other countries who are here legally on work or student visas, for instance, could have children who do not legally belong to the only country they know."There have been attempts since the 1990s to break away birthright citizenship, or narrow it down, and it did not seem that they would have a chance at succeeding until now," she says."To me this not only reflects the ascendancy of an extreme right position but also a return to a very narrow and exclusionary definition of Americanness." 10356

Is it time to delete your Facebook account?That's the question many of its users are asking in light of revelations that data firm Cambridge Analytica accessed and improperly stored information from millions of users.The hashtag #DeleteFacebook was trending on Twitter in wake of the news. WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton tweeted "it is time" to delete Facebook. (His comment is particularly noteworthy because Facebook bought WhatsApp for billion in 2014). 468

Indonesian police say they have broken up a child trafficking operation that was allegedly buying and selling babies on Instagram.Four people were arrested, including a 22-year-old mother and 29-year-old suspected broker in Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya, police said in a press conference Sunday.A midwife and a suspected buyer were also arrested on the resort island of Bali.Authorities were alerted to an account on the popular photo-sharing site with the handle "Konsultasi Hati Privat," or Private Heart Consultation, that presents itself as offering pregnancy consultations and adoption services.However, police said they have found evidence that monetary transactions were being carried out.The head of criminal investigation unit in Surabaya's police force , AKBP Sudamiran, said Tuesday that his team foiled an attempt by a 22-year-old mother, identified as LA, to sell her 11-month-old baby to a buyer in Bali, known as NS, using the messaging service WhatsApp. The baby was allegedly being offered for 15 million rupiah (about 7).The Instagram account was still active early Friday and had more than 700 followers, having been running for about a year. It has since been taken down.Images featured on the page included black and white photos of ultrasounds, pregnant mothers and babies with their faces blurred.In one image posted on September 15, a baby, referred to as C86, was featured alongside information such as age, gender and religion. A contact number is provided with a message urging those who want to adopt or who want to leave a child for adoption to get in touch.The account also featured screenshots from WhatsApp conversations between the account owner and pregnant women or mothers. In one conversation, a woman who is seven months pregnant says she is unmarried and wants to find someone to adopt her child and to hide her until she gives birth so that her family doesn't find out.The head of Indonesia's National Commission for Child Protection (KPAI), Sustano, who like many Indonesians has one name, said social media has changed the way traffickers conduct business."In the old days, the transaction happened in person and it was usually arranged through a middleman," he said. "But now, they are using new and more advance methods, through social media like Instagram and Facebook. The cyber world has become a tool for promotion and transaction."Sustano says traffickers are drawn to social media because "it is considered more effective, the deal happens directly between seller and buyer, and it is not easy to be detected by law enforcement.""If the use of Instagram is proven in this case then it shows how traffickers constantly adapt to new methods for their trade," added Amanda Bissex, Chief of Child Protection at UNICEF. She believes it's now important that authorities "adapt their policy and legislative response to prevent such crimes, particularly against children, young girls and women."Indonesia is a major source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) estimates that 100,000 children are trafficked each year in Indonesia, with the majority being forced into the sex trade.In its 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report, the US government rated Indonesia as Tier 2, saying that the country "did not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking." Indonesia was however, "making significant efforts to do so."All four of those arrested face up to 15 years in prison for violating child protection laws.The-CNN-Wire 3567

In the summer of 2013, Aimee Stephens sent her employer a letter explaining she was about to change her life. She was a transgender woman, and she intended to start dressing as such at work.She never expected then that she was about to enter into a yearslong legal dispute, one that might soon become a litmus test for lesbian, gay and transgender rights before the next US Supreme Court.Stephens had spent months drafting the message to management at R&G and G&R Harris Funeral Homes, a family-owned business in the Detroit area, she says. She was 52 years old at the time, and she had spent her entire life fighting the knowledge she was a transgender woman, to the point that she had considered ending her life.Now that she was coming out at work, she hoped her nearly six years of positive performance reviews, which had earned her regular raises, would count in her favor.But her boss, a devout Christian, told her the situation was "not going to work out," according to court documents. Thomas Rost offered her a severance package when she was fired, but she declined to accept it.She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor's enforcement agency, and the government sued the funeral home. The department accused the funeral home of firing Stephens for being transgender and for her refusal to conform to sex-based stereotypes.A district court agreed with the funeral home that the federal workplace discrimination law known as Title VII did not protect transgender people. But it found that the funeral home did discriminate against Stephens for her refusal to conform to its "preferences, expectations, or stereotypes" for women. The EEOC appealed.The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Stephens and the EEOC in March. The funeral home's lawyers accused the court of exceeding its authority by expanding the definition of sex in a way that threatens to "shift" what it means to be a man or a woman.In July, lawyers representing the funeral home asked the Supreme Court to take up the case to determine if transgender individuals are protected under Title VII's sex-based provisions. If the court takes up the case, it could have broader implications for the definition of sex-based discrimination. And it could impact case law that precludes firing anyone -- gay, straight or cisgender -- for not adhering to sex-based stereotypes."The stakes don't get much higher than being able to keep your job," said Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy for the National Center for Transgender Equality. "Harris Funeral Homes is a stark example of the job discrimination that so many transgender people face."Advocates say it's one of the most important current civil rights issues for the transgender community, along with similar considerations in education and health care. And they say it has been settled by years of case law. In the past two decades, numerous federal courts have ruled that federal sex discrimination laws apply to transgender and gender-nonconforming people, including Title VII, the Title IX education law, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.But lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian nonprofit representing the funeral home, say it's far from settled."No court or federal agency has the authority to rewrite a federal statute. That power belongs solely to Congress. Replacing 'sex' with 'gender identity,' as the 6th Circuit and the EEOC have done, is a dramatic change," senior counsel Jim Campbell said in a statement."What it means to be male or female shifts from a biological reality based in anatomy and physiology to a subjective perception. Far-reaching consequences accompany such a transformation." 3767