梅州人工流产手术费用是多少梅州慢性阴道炎怎样治疗,梅州一般打胎费用是多少,梅州妇科医院哪家疗效好,梅州少女阴道炎的症状,梅州白带褐色带血,梅州三个月人流的总价格,梅州怀孕后几个月后可以做打胎

The pathway to higher education has never been without barriers. But trying to break through them during a pandemic can crack an already fragile foundation."I'm doing everything for my family so they feel proud of me and I can keep going forward and get a good job, so I don't end up in the fields," said 19-year-old Maria Salvador, who spoke in Spanish during the interview, which was later translated into English.Salvador is a first-generation college student attending Oxnard College in Ventura County, California. Born in the central coast of California, Salvador's parents came to the United States from Oaxaca, Mexico, and work in the fields. While long hours can reap little reward for migrant farmworkers, many work in hopes to pass down a better life for their children."They always tell me we have to keep studying, we have to keep learning and keep growing so that we can get a good job, so that we don't suffer the way they suffered," said Salvador.But studying was made more difficult by the lack of access to a laptop and the internet during her final year of high school. While the schools gave Salvador and her brothers and sisters hotspots, she said they often didn't work."It was always hard, because since I would use my mom's cell phone, sometimes she would take it with her and sometimes I couldn't do my homework," the teen said.And when the pandemic derailed the final months of her high school experience, Salvador and her sister worked in the fields to help their family."With the whole pandemic came a lot of financial hardships for families, where there wasn't before," said Sonya Zapien-Torres, the Tequio Youth Coordinator.Zapien-Torres works to get these students from the fields to college."Help them navigate this system because a lot of them are first-generation. They may not understand what are the requirements to get to graduate high school, you know, what classes do I need to take?" said Zapien Torres.She says virtual learning has made the process a lot harder."I would definitely want to be on campus. I wish the pandemic would end and everybody could get back to normal and go back to class. I wouldn't be having all of these problems with my studying. It's hard as it is," said Salvador. Heading into her first week of college, Salvador still did not have her own laptop and reliable internet, but the organization Mixteco Indígena Community Organizing Project (MICOP) was able to secure her a device. Mixteco leaders say donations to the organization help to fulfill these needs. It's an issue not unique to just Salvador and made even more complicated with a surge in demand for laptops.Around the country, the technology supply chain is struggling to keep up with the boom in demand. Research company NPD Group reports notebook computer sales grew 50 percent this summer.Around the country, schools and families are dealing with shipping delays, limited selections, and higher-than-usual costs."Our students are not only falling behind but then, they're getting graded for not showing up to these virtual classes where it's really not even up to them," said Zapien-Torres.Oxnard College serves a population of 60 percent first-generation students. In a survey, they found 20 percent of respondents don't have access to the internet, computers, or basic software programs. Despite challenges, they've been able to fulfill every laptop request.Organizations like Mixteco are working to keep vulnerable students on the path to higher education."They see the struggles of their families; working in the field is not something they want to do. They know by personal experience the hard labor of working in the fields, so they want to, and they aspire to grow from that," said Zapien-Torres. While the job of advocates has grown more complicated, their efforts may matter more now than ever before. 3847

The House of Representatives successfully completed an override of a presidential veto for the first time since the Obama administration on Monday. With overwhelming majorities in both caucuses, the House issued an override of the National Defense Authorization Act.The bill needed a two-thirds majority for a successful override.The bill returns to the Senate, where it will also need a two-thirds majority to pass.The veto was President Donald Trump’s ninth since taking office. Eight previous vetoes were successfully sustained.The National Defense Authorization Act provides the Pentagon with 0 billion in funds, and authorized pay raises for members of the armed forces.Trump objected to the bill due to the Pentagon’s policy of renaming US bases that are named for confederate leaders. Trump also used the legislation as an opportunity to state his grievances on Section 230, a US code that offers legal protection for internet sites and social media companies.A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in condemning Trump for objecting to the defense funding bill.“It’s definitely been erratic at the end here,” Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger said in a Monday interview on MSNBC. “I think he’s more focused on grievances than finishing out strong… The NDAA, veto of that makes no sense, but hopefully, we override that. Section 230, if you have a real issue with Section 230, that’s fine but the defense bill isn’t the place to deal with it. That’s through the Energy and Commerce Committee and others.”Overrides of presidential vetoes are relatively rare. President Barack Obama had just one of his 12 vetoes overridden. President George W. Bush had four of his 12 vetoes not sustained. President Bill Clinton issued 37 vetoes, only two were not sustained. President George H.W. Bush had all but one of his 44 vetoes sustained. 1850

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The Justice Department has dropped its case against a woman who laughed out loud during the confirmation hearing for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, ending months of legal wrangling.The woman, Desiree Fairooz, was protesting with Code Pink, a progressive group whose activists are regularly seen around Washington. She was arrested by a Capitol Police officer after audibly laughing during Sessions' confirmation hearing in January.But prosecutors filed a "nolle prosequi," or notice that it would no longer pursue charges, with the DC Superior Court on Monday.She had been prosecuted by the DC US Attorney's Office and had been convicted of a misdemeanor before a judge threw out the conviction in July and ordered a new trial. The government had decided to retry the case after Fairooz rejected a plea deal, and a trial date had been set for next week.Fairooz tweeted the notice was a "relief" Monday night."Just received this, "Governments Notice of Nolle Prosequi" What a relief! Guess they've got enough "laughing" matters to deal with!" she tweeted.The US Attorney's Office declined to explain what had changed."The US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia yesterday filed a notice dismissing the case involving Desiree Ali-Fairooz," said spokesman Bill Miller. "The US Attorney's Office typically does not discuss charging decisions, and has no comment on the decision to dismiss this particular case."The original arrest happened after Fairooz laughed after Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby told senators at Sessions' confirmation hearing that his former colleague had a record of "treating all Americans equally under the law."Her laughter lasted a few seconds and Shelby continued with his speech without acknowledging the disturbance.Fairooz's attorney said in a statement his client is "relieved and happy" about the result."Yesterday the government dismissed the case for reasons I can only speculate about. And which I may never fully know (though I have various theories)," Samuel Bogash said in an email. "Though as her lawyer I would have preferred a 'not guilty' at the first trial, I'm happy for Ms. Fairooz." 2156

The House & Senate should IMMEDIATELY Approve 25 Billion Dollars for Airline Payroll Support, & 135 Billion Dollars for Paycheck Protection Program for Small Business. Both of these will be fully paid for with unused funds from the Cares Act. Have this money. I will sign now!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2020 344