濮阳东方妇科医院做人流收费便宜不(濮阳东方男科医院割包皮口碑很不错) (今日更新中)

A day after Judge Amy Coney Barrett mostly sidestepped questions on her judicial views of politically-charged topics, Barrett returned to the Capitol on Wednesday for another marathon session of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.On Tuesday, Democrats continued their attempt to pry Barrett into sharing her judicial views on topics like abortion, public healthcare, LGBTQ+ rights and gun control — topics which Barrett is considered to take a conservative slant. However, Barrett continued to repeatedly invoke the "Ginsburg rule.""Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts," Barrett said on Tuesday.Ginsburg — whose seat Barrett seeks to fill following the longtime justice's death in September — coined the phrase during her confirmation hearings 27 years ago. While she did not set that precedent, she's credited with the concise phrasing that has been recited by many prospective justices in the decades since.But The Associated Press notes that Ginsburg was open on her views of at least one hotly-debated topic — abortion."The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity," Ginsburg said in 1993 during her confirmation hearing, according to the AP. "It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."As Democrats lobbed questions at Barrett regarding her judicial views, the judge offered few insights. Here's how she answered on the following topics:AbortionLike she did on Tuesday, Barrett attempted to avoid answering specific questions regarding her personal views on abortion. However, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett specifically about legislation he introduced that would prevent a woman from receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. When asked if Barrett would listen to both sides of that case, Barrett said she would.Graham went on to say that if Barrett were to be confirmed, it would punch through a "reinforced concrete barrier" facing conservative women, adding it would be the first time in history that a woman who is "unashamedly pro-life" would be appointed to the Supreme Court.Affordable Care ActBarrett mostly stuck to the "Ginsburg Rule" by attempting not to tip her hand when it came to sharing judicial views. However, questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, forced Barrett to admit that while she had written negatively about the Affordable Care Act and some Supreme Court rulings upholding it in the past, she had not ever written favorably about the law.Cameras in the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has famously been one of the most secretive branches of government. Cameras and recording devices weren't allowed in high court hearings until this year when arguments were forced to be held via teleconference due to the COVID-19. In fact, it wasn't until 2018 that the court published case filings online.However, Barrett said Wednesday that she would "keep an open mind" about allowing cameras in the courtroom moving forward.Climate changeSen. Richard Blumenthal asked Barrett directly if she believed if humans are causing climate change. She declined to answer the question directly and added that she didn't think it was relevant to her job.Her comments come a day after she said during the first day of questioning that she has "no firm views" on climate change and added that she's "not a scientist."COVID-19 lockdownsFeinstein also asked Barrett about a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in which the court said Wisconsin could not extend mail-in voting during its primary elections. The primary took place on April 7 — in the throes of pandemic-related lockdowns.Feinstein asked Barrett specifically about her view of the case. Barrett declined to give one, again citing the fact that she did not want to provide a judicial view.PolygamyWhen asked by Graham if a group of Americans had a right to polygamous marriage, Barrett declined to give a direct answer, keeping in line with avoiding direct judicial answers.Presidential powersLeahy asked Barrett specifically if a president had a right to pardon himself for any crimes he may have committed. Barrett responded that such a hypothetical was not settled law and that she did not want to speculate lest a similar case come before the courts.ImmigrationSen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat who ran for the party's presidential nomination, question Barrett on her views on separating children at the border. "Do you think it is wrong to separate a child from their parent, not for the safety of the child or parent, but to send a message? As a human being, do you believe that that is wrong?"Booker asked. "That's been a matter of policy debate and that's a matter of hot political debate in which I can't express a view or be drawn into as a judge," Barrett responded. What's nextSenators will meet privately to review Barrett's FBI file and background check. On Thursday, witnesses for and against Barrett's confirmation will go before the committee. _____Tuesday's hearings were also beset by technical issues. During Blumenthal's questioning, the committee was forced to take a brief recess when microphones in the room stopped working. Upon the committee's return, microphones again went dead as Blumenthal was wrapping up his time, forcing another brief recess.On Tuesday, Barrett also often invoked the "Ginsburg Rule" when discussing abortion, an upcoming case that could decide the legality of the Affordable Care Act, gun control and voting rights.Barrett was also asked about comments from President Donald Trump, who has hinted in the past that Ginsburg's seat must be filled prior to the election in the event the Supreme Court needs to make a crucial ruling. Barrett did not commit to recusing herself should such a case arise, but said she would consider the case and the recommendations of other justices.Barrett's thorniest stretch on Tuesday came in a denouncement of discrimination of LGBTQ+ people when she used the term "sexual preference." The term, generally deemed to be outdated, is classified as "offensive" by GLAAD because it implies that sexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Barrett later apologized for using the term when confronted by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.The 22 Senators on the committee were each given 30 minutes to question Barrett on Tuesday. Senators will each be given 20 minutes for questioning on Wednesday. Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, says he hopes to wrap up the confirmation hearing Thursday, and that Barrett is on track to be confirmed later this month, about a week before the 2020 election.Several swing-vote Republicans have already indicated that they will vote to confirm Barrett, suggesting that she will likely be confirmed. 6963

A changing of the seasons has ushered in a change of a different kind for day cares across the country.Father Stephen Lundrigan has overseen Annunciation Parish for the last three years. For the last three decades, the church here has run The Caring Place, a day care that has seen generations of children come through.“It’s developed a tremendous amount of trust with the families that have sent their children there,” he said. “That’s evidence by children who have gone there end up sending their children.”But in two weeks, the playgrounds at The Caring Place will no longer be filled with kids, because the day care is closing.Day cares across the country are facing similar hardships.Most had to shut down during the spring. Unlike schools, they couldn’t provide care virtually. Day cares that have reopened have seen enrollment numbers plummet, as many parents who are working from home and don’t need child care.With nearly 18 million Americans also out of work, some families simply can’t afford daycare anymore.“I’s not just about business. If we could run it at a ,000 loss, we would, but we can’t,” said Father Lundrigan.By some estimates, a staggering 50 percent of child care providers throughout the country could close permanently by the end of the year.Capacity limits due to COVID-19 safety procedures have limited the total number of kids many places can care for. U.S. day cares also lack any kind of public funding.“Even before the pandemic, parents were struggling to afford and find child care, and this may make that worse,” said Elizabeth Davis, an economist with the University of Minnesota.Davis says without some kind of federal aid, an untold number of day cares nationwide will permanently close, and it could have long-term impacts on families and the economy.“It’s shown us how important child care is to our modern economy and it’s part of the infrastructure, and so yes, this is a sector that needs some of that support,” Davis explained.It’s just another layer of uncertainty as families try to navigate the pandemic. 2062

A changing of the seasons has ushered in a change of a different kind for day cares across the country.Father Stephen Lundrigan has overseen Annunciation Parish for the last three years. For the last three decades, the church here has run The Caring Place, a day care that has seen generations of children come through.“It’s developed a tremendous amount of trust with the families that have sent their children there,” he said. “That’s evidence by children who have gone there end up sending their children.”But in two weeks, the playgrounds at The Caring Place will no longer be filled with kids, because the day care is closing.Day cares across the country are facing similar hardships.Most had to shut down during the spring. Unlike schools, they couldn’t provide care virtually. Day cares that have reopened have seen enrollment numbers plummet, as many parents who are working from home and don’t need child care.With nearly 18 million Americans also out of work, some families simply can’t afford daycare anymore.“I’s not just about business. If we could run it at a ,000 loss, we would, but we can’t,” said Father Lundrigan.By some estimates, a staggering 50 percent of child care providers throughout the country could close permanently by the end of the year.Capacity limits due to COVID-19 safety procedures have limited the total number of kids many places can care for. U.S. day cares also lack any kind of public funding.“Even before the pandemic, parents were struggling to afford and find child care, and this may make that worse,” said Elizabeth Davis, an economist with the University of Minnesota.Davis says without some kind of federal aid, an untold number of day cares nationwide will permanently close, and it could have long-term impacts on families and the economy.“It’s shown us how important child care is to our modern economy and it’s part of the infrastructure, and so yes, this is a sector that needs some of that support,” Davis explained.It’s just another layer of uncertainty as families try to navigate the pandemic. 2062

A lawsuit is being filed against Massage Envy after attorneys say seven women throughout California were sexually assaulted or raped by massage therapists, according to KGO.In a lawsuit filed against the company, attorneys say they are looking for other alleged victims to come forward.The reported incidents happened at Massage Envy locations in Southern California, the Sacramento area and the Bay Area.The claims range from inappropriate touching to rape. Attorneys say a massage therapist in Burlingame, Brandon Davis, raped their client.RELATED: More than 180 accuse Massage Envy therapists of assaultDavis was later arrested and is facing 14 charges, including felonies for sexual battery by fraud.Attorneys in the lawsuit claim complaints were made against Davis before their client was raped, yet he was allowed to continue his work for the company.A BuzzFeed investigation in 2017 found that more than 180 women had reported sexual assaults at Massage Envy.  980

A federal judge on Thursday erupted at the Trump administration when he learned that two asylum seekers fighting deportation were at that moment being deported and on a plane to El Salvador.DC District Judge Emmet Sullivan then blocked the administration from deporting the two plaintiffs while they are fighting for their right to stay in the US -- reportedly excoriating the administration and threatening to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt.The government raced to comply with the court's order, and by Thursday evening the immigrants had arrived back in Texas after being turned around on the ground in El Salvador.Sullivan agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that the immigrants they are representing in a federal lawsuit should not be deported while their cases are pending.The emergency hearing in the case turned dramatic when attorneys discovered partway through the hearing that two of their clients were on a plane to El Salvador.During court, Sullivan was incensed at the report that one of the plaintiffs was in the process of being deported, according to the ACLU and The Washington Post. Sullivan demanded to know why he shouldn't hold Sessions in contempt, according to the Post and the recollection of lead ACLU attorney Jennifer Chang Newell.Chang Newell said the administration had pledged Wednesday that no one in the case would be deported until at least midnight at the end of Thursday. But during a recess in the proceedings Thursday, she got an email from attorneys on the ground in Texas that her client, known by the pseudonym Carmen, and Carmen's daughter had been taken from their detention center that morning and deported. After investigating during recess, she informed government attorneys and Sullivan what had happened."He said something like, 'I'm going to issue an order to show cause why I shouldn't hold the government in contempt, I'm going to start with the attorney general,' " Chang Newell said, explaining that Sullivan was suggesting he would issue an order that would require the government to explain why they didn't deserve to be held in contempt. Such an order has yet to be issued by the court.He ordered the plane turned around or the clients brought back immediately, the ACLU said."This is pretty outrageous," Sullivan said, according to the Post. "That someone seeking justice in US court is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her?""I'm not happy about this at all," he continued, adding it was "not acceptable."The lawsuit was brought by immigrants only referred to by their pseudonyms in court: Grace, Mina, Gina, Mona, Maria, Carmen and her daughter J.A.C.F. and Gio.After the hearing, Sullivan issued an emergency order halting the deportation of any of the immigrants as he considers whether he has broader authority in the case.Sullivan also ordered that if the two being deported were not returned, Sessions, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Lee Francis Cissna and Executive Office for Immigration Review Director James McHenry would have to appear in court and say why they should not be held in contempt.The lawsuit brought by the ACLU is challenging a recent decision by Sessions to make it nearly impossible for victims of domestic violence and gangs to qualify for asylum in the US. That decision was followed by implementation guidance from the Department of Homeland Security that almost immediately began turning away potentially thousands of asylum seekers at the southern border.According to their lawsuit, Carmen and her young daughter came to the US from El Salvador after "two decades of horrific sexual abuse by her husband and death threats from a violent gang." Even after Carmen moved away from her husband, he raped her, stalked her and threatened to kill her, the lawsuit states. Further, a gang held her at gunpoint in May and demanded she pay a monthly "tax" or they would kill her and her daughter. Carmen knew of people killed by their husbands after going to police and by this gang and thus fled to the US.But at the border, the government determined after interviewing her that she did not meet the "credible fear" threshold required to pursue an asylum claim in the US, and an immigration judge upheld that decision.The ACLU is using Carmen's story and the similar experiences of the other immigrants to challenge Sessions' ruling on asylum. 4473

来源：资阳报