梅州安全人流的费用梅州治尿道炎的治疗疗程,梅州在线问答 妇科医院,梅州女性月经推迟的原因,梅州打胎前 注意事项,梅州慢性附件炎可以诊治好吗,梅州怀孕无痛人流要多长时间,梅州治疗宫颈炎疾病

A doctored animation of Parkland shooting survivor Emma Gonzalez ripping the US Constitution in two went viral on social media after Gab, a so-called "free speech social network" that features the controversial Pepe the Frog as its account image, posted it on Twitter.The tweet gathered 1,500 retweets and 2,900 likes and only after a few hours did Gab specify the fake animation was "obviously a parody/satire."The original animation is from a Teen Vogue story released March 23 featuring Gonzalez and other teen activists, as Allure & Teen Vogue communications director Jaime Ellyn Marsanico confirmed to CNN. It shows Gonzalez ripping a target poster, not the Constitution.Teen Vogue chief content officer, Phillip Picardi, also set the record straight on Twitter:"The fact that we even have to clarify this is proof of how democracy continues to be fractured by people who manipulate and fabricate the truth," Picardi said.The most popular debunk was from Donald Moynihan, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who said: "Just a sample of what NRA supporters are doing to teenagers who survived a massacre (real picture on the right)":However, this series of debunks did not stop the fake image from going viral, crossing platforms, websites and blogs.For example, actor Adam Baldwin, who has a verified account on Twitter, tweeted the doctored animation to his 270,000 followers. The tweet was still online at the time of writing.Over the past few weeks, Gonzalez has become the face of the #NeverAgain movement that flooded Washington, D.C. and other American cities over the weekend for the March for Our Lives rally.Her iconic speech in Washington, which included a prolonged moment of silence, is the latest in a series of appearances that made the 18-year-old a popular household name since a gunman killed 17 people on February 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.But her gun-control activism also attracted a smear campaign and personal attacks from conservative figures and far-right fringes. 2061

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 day after General Motors announced plant closures and job cuts, President Donald Trump has taken to Twitter saying his administration is looking into cutting the automaker's subsidies.Trump tweeted the following Tuesday afternoon: 240

A chickenpox outbreak among students at Asheville Waldorf School in North Carolina has grown to 36 cases as of Monday, and exemptions from vaccination were a contributing factor, according to the Buncombe County Health Department, which has been monitoring the situation since the end of October.Asheville Waldorf School, which serves students from nursery through sixth grade, is part of an educational movement that subscribes to a philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through hands-on tasks, according to its website. There are more than 900 Waldorf schools in 83 countries, and the Asheville school, which was founded in 2009, is one of about 160 in the United States.The school is closed for Thanksgiving break and could not be reached for comment.Chickenpox is a very contagious disease that causes a blister-like rash, itching, tiredness and fever, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The disease is caused by the varicella-zoster virus, and a vaccine was introduced in 1995. Two doses of the vaccine, given at ages 12 months through 15 months and then again at 4 through 6 years, are about 90% effective at preventing chickenpox. 1189

A Hartford, Connecticut, police officer was fired after authorities investigated a video of him telling a group of young men he might shoot them if they fight or run.Officer Stephen Barone was answering a suspected trespassing call August 9 when he was recorded questioning a group of young men in the street."If anybody wants to fight or run, I'm a little trigger happy, guys. I'm not gonna lie, and I get paid a ton of money in overtime, if I had to shoot somebody. Don't do anything stupid," Barone says on the video.When Barone asks why the men are not saying much, one of them replies, "You said you're trigger happy, that's why people are quiet.""Well, there's four of you and one of me," Barone said. 715