濮阳东方妇科专业吗濮阳东方医院看病专业吗,濮阳东方医院治阳痿收费透明,濮阳东方医院妇科做人流评价好很专业,濮阳东方医院男科咨询预约,濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿好吗,濮阳东方医院看男科评价很不错,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术安全放心

The topics to be discussed during the first presidential debate next week include “the integrity of the election,” according to the official list released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.President Donald Trump and Former Vice President Joe Biden will face-off for the first time on September 29 in Cleveland. Chris Wallace, a host on Fox News, will moderate the debate.The debate will have six, 15-minute segments. Wallace selected the topics, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:The Trump and Biden RecordsThe Supreme CourtCovid-19The EconomyRace and Violence in our CitiesThe Integrity of the ElectionThis list is subject to change before the debate if there are large news developments.The debate on September 29 will be held at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. This debate was originally scheduled to take place at the University of Notre Dame, however they withdrew citing coronavirus pandemic concerns.Trump and Biden will debate two more times, on October 15 and 22. Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris will have their debate on October 7. 1130

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The two children who were rescued from an RV after an hours-long chase ended in Kern County, California have been reunited with their mother. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office posted pictures on Twitter at about 2 a.m. Wednesday, showing the children with their mom at an office. LACSO says both children were unharmed following Tuesday's pursuit.  377

The University of Utah nurse at the center of a highly controversial arrest that was recorded on the officers' body cameras has reached a 0,000 settlement with all parties involved.In addition, Alex Wubbels announced Tuesday afternoon that she will use part of that money to launch a new initiative to make body camera video more accessible to all residents in Utah involved in a police incident."I am not in the business of setting anyone up for failure. I want us to be successful in moving forward. And I think this is a small step we can provide to enable that potential success if we are going to start asking the police departments to have body cameras,” Wubbels said outside the Salt Lake City Police Department while standing next to her attorney, Karra Porter.The nurse added "it's shocking" that today's police forces don’t all have body cameras."We all deserve to know the truth. And the truth comes when you see the actual raw footage. And that’s what happened in my case. No matter how truthful I was in telling my story, it was nothing compared to what people saw and the visceral reaction people experienced when watching the footage," she said.Wubbels' widely publicized arrest happened July 26 when Salt Lake detective Jeff Payne was sent to University Hospital to collect blood from a man injured in a crash that killed the driver who caused it. Wubbels — citing policy agreed upon by the hospital and the police department — declined to tell Payne where the patient was or allow him to draw blood.The detective, with direction from his supervisor that day, Lt. James Tracy, ultimately arrested the screaming nurse after physically pushing her out of the emergency room and holding her against a wall while handcuffing her. Police body camera video of the incident caused outcries of protest from across the country and prompted Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Salt Lake Police Chief Mike Brown to personally apologize to Wubbels for the way she was treated while doing her job.Payne was fired from the police department. Tracy was demoted to the rank of officer. Both men have since appealed their discipline. Their appeals remained pending as of Tuesday.Wubbels and Porter — who never filed a civil lawsuit — announced she had reached a settlement with all "U.-related and Salt Lake City-related parties" who would have potentially been named if a lawsuit had been filed."There will be no legal lawsuit. This part of this is over. We’re hopping the discussion about body cameras continues,” Porter said.Matthew Rojas, spokesman for Salt Lake Mayor Jackie Biskupski, said both the city and the university agreed to pay 0,000 each."Salt Lake City has been focused first and foremost on ensuring policies and procedures are changed so things like this don’t happen again, and we are glad we could come to a resolution with nurse Wubbles," he said.Since Wubbels went public with the arrest video, Porter said her client has had several goals, including changes to policy on how police interact with nurses; accountability by the officers involved; starting a public discussion on the importance of body camera video; compensation; and helping others.Wubbels is working with the American Nurses Association on a campaign to prevent what happened to her from happening elsewhere. She also would like to speak before the Utah Legislature during the next session about the importance of making body cameras mandatory for all police agencies. And she and Porter want to help all Utahns have access to body camera video for their own cases."Thanks to Alex, there will be more transparency as body cam footage becomes more readily available in Utah,” Porter said.Wubbels said she was grateful for how Salt Lake City has responded to her arrest and the settlement, but also noted she still becomes emotional when thinking about the incident."This landed in my lap. This is not something I sought out. I didn’t seek out the last four months," she said. "I’m incredibly humbled by change that’s happened."This is very emotional," Wubbels continued, "This is an emotional situation. … I’m still processing this. I mean, this is something I never expected to happen. But I’m also honored by the weight of it and honored to be the one to help make progress in our society at large."Porter said body cameras are also important for protecting officers, with both Wubbels and Porter emphasizing there are many good officers. They stressed that fact when talking about the fatal shooting and manhunt at the university that forced the campus to go into lockdown Monday night."I literally park where this incident happened. I walk, in the dark, every night to my work, back and forth to my car where this incident happened,” Wubbels said, adding the police "did a really good thing today. And that’s a highlight for what comes out when good cops do good work."Watch the original body camera video here: 4923

The state of Michigan has agreed on a 0 million settlement in lawsuits regarding the Flint Water Crisis, Attorney General Dana Nessel announced Thursday.The settlement will be given to parties who claim they were affected by the city of Flint's 2014 transition of its public water supply to the Flint River; the majority of the money will be going to settle claims filed on behalf of children.The settlement was reached by the state parties and legal counsel after 18 months of negotiations.“Providing relief for the people of Flint and resolving these long-standing legal disputes has been a top priority for me since taking office,” Nessel said in a press release. “Flint residents have endured more than most, and to draw out the legal back-and-forth even longer would have achieved nothing but continued hardship. This settlement focuses on the children and the future of Flint, and the State will do all it can to make this a step forward in the healing process for one of Michigan’s most resilient cities. Ultimately, by reaching this agreement, I hope we can begin the process of closing one of the most difficult chapters in our State’s history and writing a new one that starts with a government that works on behalf of all of its people.”The preliminary agreement specifies that about 80 percent of the net settlement fund will be spent on claims of children who were minors when first exposed to the Flint River water, with a large majority of that amount to be paid for claims of children age 6 and younger, and earmarking 2 percent to go to special education services in Genesee County. Another 18 percent of the net settlement funds are to be spent on claims of adults and for property damage. Roughly 1 percent will go toward claims for business losses.If the settlement receives final court approval, it is likely to be the largest in Michigan state government history, affecting tens of thousands of people and resolving more than a hundred cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts."Protecting all Michiganders and their access to clean water is a priority for my administration to make sure nothing like this ever happens again," Governor Gretchen Whitmer said in a press release. "What happened in Flint should have never happened, and financial compensation with this settlement is just one of the many ways we can continue to show our support for the city of Flint and its families.""We acknowledge that this settlement may not completely provide all that Flint needs, and that many will still feel justifiable frustration with a system and structure that at times is not adequate to fully address what has happened to people in Flint over the last six years. We hear and respect those voices and understand that healing Flint will take a long time, but our ongoing efforts and today’s settlement announcement are important steps in helping all of us move forward."View a summary of the settlement below:Terms of Settlement 699810 7 by WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit on Scribd This story was first reported by WXYZ in Detroit, Michigan. 3079