梅州念球菌阴道炎梅州怀孕两个多月做人流,梅州做打胎大概多少钱,梅州脸部埋线提升术,梅州女性打胎的所需费用,梅州得了急性阴道炎怎么办,梅州妇科人流价钱,梅州如果怀孕什么时候做无痛人流

The first vote of my life We are here to serve We pray for every servant leader in the world ?? pic.twitter.com/UWSrKslCt1— ye (@kanyewest) November 3, 2020 178

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The Department of Education said Thursday that it would wipe away student debt for 15,000 borrowers, implementing an Obama-era rule that Secretary Betsy DeVos has fought to block for more than a year.The debt cancellations will total about 0 million.The rule, known as Borrower Defense to Repayment, was designed to help students cheated by for-profit colleges get relief on their education debt.The announcement comes about two months after a federal judge ordered immediate implementation of the rule. The judge had sided with attorneys general from 18 states and the District of Columbia who sued DeVos for delaying the rule while she worked on rewriting it. 677

The former chief administrative officer for the Department of Housing and Urban Development says she was demoted in part for refusing to spend more than was legally allowed to redecorate Secretary Ben Carson's new office.In a November 2017 complaint obtained by CNN, Helen Foster said she was told to "find money" beyond the legal ,000 limit for redecorating. In one instance, she says a supervisor said that ",000 will not even buy a decent chair."Foster's sworn complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, the independent agency charged with investigating whistleblower complaints made by government employees, says that after she refused to misuse taxpayer dollars for the office redecoration project she was "retaliated against by being taken out of my position as Chief Administrative Officer."She says that HUD's Acting Secretary Craig Clemmensen pulled her aside more than a month before Carson's March confirmation and told her that Carson's wife, Candy, wanted to "help the Secretary redecorate his office suite." Clemmensen asked Foster to assist with "getting Mrs. Carson access and funds for the project," the complaint states.Foster said she told Clemmensen that legally, the department was limited in how much it could spend on the office redecorating project to ,000, information she says she also passed along to the administrative officer in the Secretary's office. But even so, Foster said she received repeated pressure in multiple conversations to "find money" for the redecorating project in excess of what was legally allowed, including in a one-on-one meeting on February 10. Clemmensen, according to the complaint, told Foster that the administration "has always found money for this in the past."In an exclusive interview with CNN, Foster said each time Clemmensen pushed her to assist Carson's wife with finding the money, it was always "in the context of Mrs. Carson wants to do this. We have to find the money.""There was a sense of 'we are not going to take no for an answer.' There was a lot of staff time spent on this" a former HUD employee with knowledge of the situation told CNN."The most frustrating part of all this was spending so much time on this issue," the former employee said. "Instead of focusing on HUD's mission, we were talking about furniture for the Secretary's office.A HUD official disputed Foster's account."When it comes to decorating the Secretary's office, the only money HUD spent was ,200 to put up new blinds in his office and the Deputy Secretary's office,"HUD spokesman Raffi Williams told CNN. "The Secretary's Administrative officer is aware of the limit and ensured that the limit was not exceeded." HUD provided receipts to CNN that total ,373.Neither Candy Carson nor Clemmensen responded to a request for comment.On Tuesday, the liberal group American Oversight sued HUD in an attempt to find out how much taxpayer money Carson used to renovate or redecorate his office.American Oversight said that in November it submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for more than 20 agencies, including HUD, but that HUD did not respond to the information request.The latest allegations come as Carson is facing scrutiny for the role that his family has played in his department, after reports that his son, Ben Carson, Jr., organized an official listening tour in Baltimore last year against the advice of department lawyers that the move risked violating federal ethics rules. Carson has called on HUD's inspector general to review the issue. The IG's office calls it an "open matter." Carson has said that his family is "under attack" and that he wants to "put to rest these unfounded biases."Foster said she was so frustrated and concerned about the pressure she was under that she reached out to Sarah Lyberg, HUD's acting assistant chief financial officer for budget, on February 13. In the email which has been reviewed by CNN, she wrote that she had been asked about "finding additional money.""Is there any way Admin could appropriately spend additional funds over 00 to provide new furnishings or decorating for the Secretary's Office without getting appropriations approval," Foster asked Lyberg in the email.Lyberg responded: "We cannot exceed the cap."Further evidence that the issue continued to be a topic for discussion came On February 22, when the office of HUD's Chief Financial Officer sent a memo to Clemmensen and Janet Golrick, the department's acting deputy secretary, detailing the rules surrounding funds for decorating Carson's office.The memo, which was obtained by CNN, said that spending of more than ,000 "requires advance notice to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations." If the department failed to give that notice, it would violate the Antideficiency Act, which bars federal agencies from spending federal money before it has been appropriated by Congress.Securing the Secretary 4926

The coronavirus outbreak has put a hold on many things over the last few months, including some elective surgeries.When Nohely Uriostegui and her husband, Jose Pava, found out they were pregnant with a little boy, they were ecstatic. Then, the unfortunate news: their baby had spina bifida."After that, she said we’re going to do a test. You might be eligible for an in-utero surgery," said Uriostegui.That means surgery while the baby is still in the womb, and it had to be performed before 26 weeks of pregnancy. Everything was set up to go in Chicago until a phone call came from her doctor."He said, 'You know what? Based on COVID, everybody here on the team doesn’t feel like it’s an essential type of surgery,’" recalled Uriostegui.The same situation was unfolding for all types of patients around the country. Those hoping surgery could help their chronic pain were told they’d have to endure it for months longer. Organ transplant candidates were forced to wait as well. For Nohely and Jose, a delay meant they might miss their window to help their baby. But then, hope from three states away in Colorado."For this family, the clock was ticking. She had until she was 26 weeks to have fetal intervention, and that was literally five days, four days away. And they had to get from Chicago to here, be evaluated, have surgery set up to be performed, and so, we were able to do that for them," said Colorado Fetal Care Center surgeon Dr. Ken Liechty.The couple decided to travel to Colorado to have the procedure done."I got there on the 4th; my surgery was set for Monday, April 6, which was the exact same date that I was going to get it done in Chicago, and it was one day before I hit the 26-week mark," said Uriostegui."It’s open fetal surgery on the fetus as the actual patient," said Dr. Liechty. "We excise the cyst, we put the spinal cord back into the spinal canal."Doctors then put the muscle back over to seal it, close the skin over it, and then close the uterus. Without the in-utero surgery, Dr. Liechty says 90 percent of babies with spina bifida have a shunt put in to decompress the brain. However, that likely wouldn’t have been the only surgery he would have needed."These shunts fail, they can get infected, they can have all kinds of problems, they average seven surgeries at least for these shunts in their first few years of their life," said Dr. Liechty.In the time of this pandemic, that could mean more waiting as hospital beds begin to fill back up with coronavirus patients."COVID-19 caused a lot of places around the country to reexamine what cases could be done in their facilities, and a number of fetal centers are actually located in adult centers," said Dr. Liechty.Those places are filling up faster than children's hospitals, causing families like Uriostegui and her husband to almost miss opportunities to help their children before they even enter the world."The neurosurgeon over there actually said to us last time, that if you were to look at him, you would have never guessed that he’s born with spina bifida or that we went through this whole journey," said Uriostegui. 3126