濮阳东方医院看妇科病技术值得信赖(濮阳东方医院看妇科技术很权威) (今日更新中)

The federal government has placed thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children in the homes of sponsors, but last year it couldn't account for nearly 1,500 of them.Steven Wagner, a top official with the Department of Health and Human Services, disclosed the number to a Senate subcommittee last month while discussing the state of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) that oversees the care of unaccompanied immigrant children.Wagner is the acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. ORR is a program of the Administration for Children and Families.CNN reported earlier this month that, in his testimony, Wagner said during the last three months of 2017, the ORR lost track of nearly 1,500 immigrant children it had placed in the homes of sponsors.Wagner's statement has attracted more attention amid reports that immigrant children are being separated from their parents at the US border. 998

The cost of the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election is now roughly million, according to a new report filed Friday by the special counsel's office.Friday's accounting provided the latest figures covering only the period for April 2018 through September 2018, with special counsel Robert Mueller listing direct expenditures of nearly .6 million.Another roughly .9 million was reported as costs for the work of other Justice and FBI officials who have assisted the investigation but are not under Mueller's direct control. According to the report, those investigation costs would have been incurred "irrespective of the existence of the (special counsel's office)."The department previously reported .7 million in direct and indirect costs from May through September 2017, and  million from October 2017 through March 2018 -- bringing the total from all three reports over the life of the investigation to just over million. Of that amount, only .3 million is the special counsel's direct expenditures.Since taking control of the Russia probe in May 2017, Mueller has advanced on multiple fronts to investigate any links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, along with other crimes arising from the investigation.To date, the investigation has yielded charges against 36 people or entities. Seven people have pleaded guilty to various charges, including President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have relentlessly attacked Mueller and the probe as a waste of money.Trump took aim at the cost of the investigation last month, offering a grab-bag of different numbers Mueller had allegedly spent, untethered to the facts.On November 27, 2018 he tweeted: "now ,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they've got nothing but ruined lives."Then 48 hours later, he tweeted criticizing the "witch hunt" for "wasting more than ,000,000." 2182

The coronavirus has ruined a lot of things, but Children's Hospital of Orange County, California, made sure that the virus didn't cancel prom.Choc Ball 2020 had everything, even a disco ball.“I will never forget asking our maintenance crew to help me hang some disco balls from our valet which has never happened before.” Kara Noskoff, a program coordinator for the Child Life department at Children's Hospital of Orange County, said.It's her job to normalize the hospital environment for kids of all ages. She helps throw the oncology ball, which is held every year, to recreate what teems might miss out on at school."It’s not like going to their school dance,” Noskoff said. “They’re in a room full of 200 plus people dancing and taking pictures and dressed up with the health care professionals that took care of them as well as their peers that all have the same scars.”Except it's 2020. And it almost didn't happen due to too many high-risk patients and too many high-risk exposures. But the staff at Children's Hospital decided happiness is important too.“Their mental health and growth and development is so important as well. I’m so proud of… our staff to see that bigger picture and push the boundaries a little bit and find a way to keep them safe but give them these things to look forward to,” Noskoff said.They turned what was supposed to be a huge party into a socially distanced, masked, drive thru experience complete with a theme. "Driving through the decades" had a photo booth, party favors, music and dancing. And it was everything that 17-year-old Veronica Larson could dream of.“There’s a bridge that crosses from the hospital into the employee parking and I looked up and all the nurses that had finished their shift were up in the bridge they were all cheering and clapping there was music playing,” Larson said.Cancer treatment is hard enough. Add in COVID-19 and its restrictions, and teens like Larson have struggled.“I would be considered immunocompromised so I’m being extra careful but there are safe ways like this oncology ball, but I am able to see my peers and that’s one of the reasons why it was so important to everyone being able to have that interaction in such a time of isolation,” Larson said.Back in 2015, Larson was an aspiring gymnast. She suffered a pulled hamstring that led to exhaustion and then a diagnosis of leukemia. She was only 12 years old. Now, she's in remission and building back her strength. And found her way back into gymnastics as a coach.“My hair is growing back. I’m trying to rock the short hair,” Larson said.The medical staff at CHOC is a huge part of Larson's life. After all, they helped her apply for college from her hospital bed. The soon to be freshman at UCLA wants to go into pediatric medicine and credits the children's hospital that gave her so much life with helping her find her future.“Obviously it’s an area I’ve been involved in and I think I can make a difference there and I’ve met incredible people and I would love to be a part of a team of such amazing people,” she said.Amazing people who all got to be together, even if from a distance for one night, created an evening that was just as magical for the staff as it was for the patients.“The night itself blew me away it was beyond anything I could have imagined,” Larson said.Proof that the coronavirus can't steal joy, happiness, or prom. 3390

The European Union is to propose ending twice-yearly clock changes after a large-scale public survey, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Friday.According to Juncker, more than 80% of EU citizens want to abolish daylight saving time and instead remain on the time used during summer instead.At the moment, each EU member state puts clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday of March and back again on the last Sunday in October."This debate about summertime, wintertime has been around for many years here," Juncker told German broadcaster ZDF."Many people are contributing to this debate. We did a survey, a public survey. Millions responded and think that in the future we should have summertime all year round. So that's what will happen.""The people want this; we will do this," he said.For any change to go into effect, legislation must be drafted and win approval from the 28 member nations and the European Parliament.One of the chief critics of daylight saving time has been Finland, which has one of the most northerly capital cities in the EU.Over 70,000 Finns signed a petition last October to urge the government to move away from daylight saving time.For Finland, the plan is also complicated by the fact it shares borders with non-EU states Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, all of which scrapped daylight saving time in 2011.Those in favor of the time change say the extra light in the morning during standard time and and additional evening light in summer can help prevent road accidents.The-CNN-Wire 1540

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

来源：资阳报