濮阳东方医院治疗阳痿收费正规濮阳东方妇科评价非常好,濮阳东方医院做人流手术多少钱,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术安全,濮阳东方妇科几点上班,濮阳东方妇科医院好预约吗,濮阳东方妇科医院价格便宜,濮阳市东方医院咨询医生热线

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. — An upcoming rule change at the U.S. Department of Justice means federal inmate executions, which are currently carried out by lethal injection could happen by other means, such as a firing squad or electrocution.Currently, all federal executions are done via lethal injection unless a court specifically orders otherwise. The rule change gives the federal government greater flexibility to execute people by other means.The change states that federal executions are to be carried out by lethal injection “or by any other manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence was imposed or which has been designated by a court.”According to the Death Penalty Information Center, all states that allow the death penalty authorize a lethal injection method. Nine states allow electrocution, seven allow lethal gas and three allow a firing squad. Most states that allow methods other than lethal injection do so only under the provision that the injection is found to be unconstitutional, unavailable or impractical.The DOJ rule change goes into effect on Dec. 24, before three more federal inmates are scheduled to be executed. Inmates are scheduled to be executed on Jan. 12, Jan. 14 and Jan. 15.If executions by other means will happen, it’s unlikely they will happen at the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Terre Haute, where federal executions typically take place. The DOJ notice states that the Terre Haute complex is equipped for carrying out executions only by lethal injection. If another method is used, it may happen somewhere else.The federal government has executed 10 people in 2020.Click here to read more about the rule change.This story was originally published by Matt McKinney on WRTV in Indianapolis. 1752

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was diagnosed with COVID-19 earlier this year but has since recovered, according to reports from The Washington Post and CNN.Barrett was reportedly diagnosed with the virus in the summer. According to White House officials, Barrett tested negative for COVID-19 on Friday morning.President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to take Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's spot on the Supreme Court at a ceremony at the White House on Saturday. At least one attendee at that event, University of Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins, has since tested positive for COVID-19, though it's not clear how or when he contracted the virus.In addition to her work as a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett is also a faculty member at Notre Dame.Trump himself announced early Friday morning that he had contracted COVID-19. He's reportedly suffering mild symptoms. 909

Teachers are spending a lot of their own money to make sure their students have everything they need. But two crafty teachers turned to their communities to help offset the cost of the supplies. Jennifer Boyle-Taurman had several boxes of school supplies to unpack for this school year. But they weren't supplied by her school nor purchased from her own pocket. The supplies were purchased by members of her community through her Amazon wish list. “It was very overwhelming,” Boyle-Taurman says. “In the best way.”Boyle-Tourman posted her wish list on social media, and not only did people start buying these items, but they went above and beyond. 675

Starting Social Security early typically means getting a smaller benefit for the rest of your life. The penalty is steep: Someone who applies this year at age 62 would see their monthly benefit check reduced by nearly 30%.Many Americans have little choice but to accept the diminished payments. Even before the pandemic, about half of retirees said they quit working earlier than they’d planned, often due to job loss or health issues. Some have enough retirement savings to delay claiming Social Security, but many don’t. And now, with unemployment approaching Depression-era levels, claiming early may be the best of bad options for older people who can’t find a job.But the penalty for early filing, and the bonus for delaying your application, are based on old formulas that don’t reflect gains in life expectancy, says economist Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The result is a system that unfairly penalizes early filers, unjustly benefits late filers — and hurts lower-income people the most.“Low-income people disproportionately collect benefits at 62 and their benefits are cut too much, and high-income people disproportionately delay claiming till 70 and their benefits are increased too much,” Munnell says. “So you penalize the low-income and you benefit the high-income.”The problem started off as a solutionOriginally, Social Security had one retirement age: 65. In 1956, Congress authorized a reduced benefit for women, to allow them to retire at the same time as their typically older husbands. The reduced benefit option was extended to men in 1961.The amount of the reduction was meant to be “actuarially neutral,” so that the cost to Social Security would be the same whether those with average life expectancies claimed the smaller check earlier or the larger check later.As life expectancies rose, though, early filers wound up living with the penalty for longer. In 1956, a 65-year-old woman had an average life expectancy of 16.9 years. Today, it’s 21.6 years, Munnell says. Instead of being actuarially neutral, in other words, the current system results in early filers with average life expectancies getting less.On top of that, Social Security offers a bonus for those who can afford to wait. A 1% delayed retirement credit was introduced in 1972, and the amount was increased over the years to the current 8%. So each year you put off claiming Social Security past your full retirement age adds 8% to your payment. Full retirement age varies according to birth year and is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.Let’s say your full retirement age is 67 and your benefit, if started then, would be ,000 a month. Starting at 62 would shrink the benefit to 0, while waiting until 70 to begin would boost the amount to ,240.The longer you live, the more you can benefit from a delayed filing — and the higher your income, the longer you’re likely to live. In fact, most of the gains in life expectancy in recent years have accrued to higher-income people.Between 2001 and 2014, for example, life expectancy rose by more than two years for men and nearly three years for women with incomes in the top 5%, according to a study for the Social Security Administration. During the same period, life expectancies for those in the bottom 5% of incomes rose a little less than four months for men and about two weeks for women.How benefits could change to be fairerTo restore actuarial fairness, the penalty for early filing should be lower, Munnell says. Someone who retires at 62 instead of 67 should get 22.5% less, rather than 30% less. Similarly, the bonus for waiting should be reduced to just below 7% per year.“The way it’s set up now, people will get 124% of their full benefit if they wait till 70 and they really should only get 120%,” Munnell says.Obviously, Social Security has bigger problems. Once its trust fund is depleted, as projected in 15 years or so, the system will be able to pay only 79% of promised benefits in 2035. That proportion is estimated to drop to 73% by 2094.When Congress finally gets around to fixing the system, Munnell says, it should consider making the payouts more fair.“I think there’ll be some grand bargain on Social Security at some point because I don’t think anybody’s really going to allow benefits to be cut 25%,” Munnell says. “This [actuarial fairness] probably should be put on the agenda.”This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by the Associated Press.More From NerdWalletHow to Renegotiate Your Bills to Save MoneyFeeling Out of Control? These Money Moves Could HelpRenters at Risk: Ways to Cope in the Financial CrisisLiz Weston is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston. 4771

Thanks to an iconic pop music superstar, the world's loneliest elephant has a new home and on Monday started his new life at an elephant sanctuary.According to the Los Angeles Times, Cher was first alerted to Kaavan in 2016, who was living in dire conditions at a zoo in Pakistan on Twitter.USA Today reported Kaavan - now 36 - was gifted to Pakistan by the Sri Lankan government when he was 1 in 1985 and lost his only elephant companion Saheli in 2012.According to Cher's charity, Free the Wild, in July, a Pakistani High Court decided to relocate Kaavan to a different sanctuary, and the Marghazar Zoo was closed. The Islamabad Wildlife Management Board then determined that Kaavan be moved to an elephant sanctuary in Cambodia.On Monday, through the Eric S. Margolis Foundation, who donated the Kaavan’s flight, the elephant was transported from Pakistan to Cambodia. According to the animal welfare organization, Four Paws, the flight went smoothly, and Kaavan even slept during the trip. 1001