濮阳东方妇科收费低(濮阳东方医院看男科口碑好收费低) (今日更新中)

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced that they've officially canceled the Oct. 15 debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.In a press release, the commission stated that since both candidates made different arrangements for Oct. 15, the commission will focus on the third and final presidential debate, which is slated for Oct. 22."Subject to health security considerations, and in accordance with all required testing, masking, social distancing, and other protocols, the debate will take place at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee," the commission said in the press release.The move to a virtual debate was as a precaution since Trump tested positive for COVID-19 last week.Trump was airlifted to Walter Reed Medical Center last Friday and then discharged from Walter Reed on Monday.According to the Associated Press, The White House has been mum about releasing any information as to when the president last tested negative for the virus.Trump told Fox Business that he would not "waste his time" with a virtual debate.CNN reported that because of Trump backing out and Biden agreeing to do a town hall with ABC, the commission didn't see the Oct. 15 debate likely happening.NPR reported that another reason behind the cancelation was because the Trump campaign and the commission couldn't agree on safety protocols.The Oct. 22 debate will be divided into six 15-minute segments. NBC News' Kristen Welker, who will be serving as the moderator for the debate, will announce the topics sometime next week.Both candidates have agreed to participate in the Oct. 22 debate, the commission noted. 1665

The decision to reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado will be decided by the people, and both sides of the issue say the decision will impact the entire country.“Only in 2020, the weird year that we are having would Colorado be voting to introduce a species that’s already here in Colorado,” said Shawn Martini, the vice president of advocacy for the Colorado Farm Bureau.“The western part of Colorado is primarily owned, and majority-owned, by the people as public lands,” said Rob Edward, who is part of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project. “We all have interests on what happens on our public lands.”For centuries, the gray wolf roamed North America in large populations. But in the 1900s, the wolves were nearly hunted out of existence.The wild wolves haven’t lived in Colorado since 1940, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified the animal as an endangered species in 1978.“They are the missing link in the Rocky Mountain chain,” Edward said. “From the high arctic to New Mexico, we can re-establish a population of wolves again by reintroducing wolves to western Colorado. The presence of wolves on those wild landscapes is important for the long-term health of those landscapes.”With Proposition 114 in Colorado, the people will be able to vote in November on whether this will become a reality. This is something that has never happened in the nation’s history.“Wolves are already all over the place,” Martini said. “They’ve come down from Wyoming and Montana through a natural process. We’re asking voters to say no to this ballot initiative, because it makes something a natural process into a political one.”Having people vote on this is something Martini is strongly against.“So, this the first time a species would be introduced into a state via a ballot measure,” Martini said. “The reason it’s never been done before because it’s a really bad idea to make a scientific process a political one. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife and biologists should be the ones making this decision, not voters who don’t always have access to the info and are not biologists and who don’t do this for a living.”The main reason wolf advocates like Edwards want to re-introduce wolves to the area is that they believe it could improve the ecosystem. In 1995, the gray wolf was reintroduced into the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to help manage the high population of elk. But that decision wasn’t voted on by the people.Biologists came up with a plan and brought it to Congress. After years of public comment, the secretary of the interior finally signed off on the project.“Colorado is not Yellowstone,” Martini said. “Yellowstone is subject to a ton of environmental regulations, so the people managing the area don’t have the same tools as Colorado does.”Regardless of what side people are on this issue, both sides agree that this a historic ballot measure that could change the course of the country ecologically and politically. 2941

The future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program got murkier Tuesday when the Texas attorney general made good on a threat to challenge it in court.The lawsuit throws a wrench in an already-complicated legal morass for the DACA program, which protects young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children and which President Donald Trump has been blocked from ending, for the time being, by other federal courts.The lawsuit has the potential to create a headache for the Justice Department and courts as it could potentially conflict with rulings from judges in three separate judicial regions of the country who have blocked the end of DACA and could force the government to take an awkward position in the case.It may also potentially seal the issue's path to the Supreme Court.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and six other states on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of DACA, arguing that former President Barack Obama's initial creation of DACA in 2012 violated the Constitution and federal law.The case was also re-assigned late Tuesday to District Judge Andrew Hanen, the judge who initially issued the nationwide ruling preventing DACA from being expanded through a similar program in 2014. Hanen was seen as particularly unfriendly to DACA based on his ruling in the related case, and advocates feared a DACA challenge before him would likely be decided the same way. His ruling ended up remaining in place after a Supreme Court challenge deadlocked 4-4 while awaiting a new justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.The move follows through on a threat from Paxton and what was originally nine other states to challenge DACA in court as part of a lawsuit regarding a similar but broader program that expanded upon DACA to include parents. Paxton issued an ultimatum to Trump: End DACA himself or defend it in court and face the prospect it is overturned by a judge that had already rejected the program's expansion in that other lawsuit.Under Paxton's threat, Trump and his administration decided to end the program in September, with a wind-down period ostensibly to allow Congress to act to save it legislatively. After the administration said they would rescind the program, Paxton backed off and allowed the other lawsuit to be dispensed with.But multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the way Trump ended the program -- resulting in multiple federal judges putting the brakes on the move and ordering the Department of Homeland Security to resume processing renewals for the roughly 700,000 participants in the program. A federal judge in DC last week went a step further, saying the department had to resume accepting new applications unless it issued a new legal justification for ending the program that passed muster within 90 days.The Trump administration had used the possibility of a court immediately terminating DACA in response to such a lawsuit from Paxton as the justification for ending the program altogether -- a justification the federal judge in DC found flimsy.Congress, meanwhile, has failed to reach consensus on how to preserve the program with legislation, and the court rulings preserving the program only served to further take the pressure off lawmakers.The states challenging DACA are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia.Tuesday's move leaves plenty of questions going forward -- including whether the Justice Department will defend DACA in court in Texas or allow another entity to argue in its favor. The ruling could also have implications for the DC case and whether the administration's legal reasoning gains credence.If the Texas court were to also issue a nationwide ruling in favor of the termination of DACA, it could set up dueling nationwide decisions that would likely end up at the nation's highest court."The first three courts have ruled in favor of DACA recipients," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell Law School professor and attorney with Miller Mayer. "If this lawsuit goes the other way, the Supreme Court may have to decide the issue." 4126

The founder and CEO of a fitness business in Phoenix says he intends to file a lawsuit against Governor Ducey in response to his executive order closing select businesses.The executive order said that as of 8 p.m. Monday night, gyms, bars, waterparks and tubing areas will all have to close to try to help slow the spread of the coronavirus.Tom Hatten, Mountainside Fitness CEO, said during a press conference Monday that the governor’s move is "arbitrary" and lacks clarity.“If this is truly as bad as we are being told, I don’t think health clubs closing tomorrow is going to solve the problem. I don’t think tubing is going to solve the problem,” Hatten said. “I don’t think closing a movie theater that hasn’t been open is going to solve the problem.”Hatten also called for unity from the governor, saying that if the governor is serious about coronavirus, the executive order shouldn't be limited to bars, gyms, and movie theaters.A representative for Mountainside Fitness says several other large gyms are taking part in the lawsuit as well, though that has not been confirmed with the other gyms.Dozens of members showed up to work out at Mountainside Fitness as soon as it opened Tuesday morning.Those like John Kiesewetter say they agree with the CEO's reasoning to remain open if other businesses aren't also forced to close. He says regular physical activity puts them in a better position to beat the virus."It seems to be unfair that things like casinos are still open but gyms, they are not. So, anyone who's healthier, who keep our distance, are the people who go to the gym and clean our equipment, so I think it was the right decision," Kiesewetter said.Governor Ducey said Monday that local authorities will have the ability to enforce the new rules, with a focus on educating the public.This story originally appeared on abc15.com. 1859

The coronavirus pandemic may have started earlier than previously thought, according to scientists from the CDC.A study from government scientists published November 30 appears to confirm what some health experts have suggested, patients infected with COVID-19 were in the US before the beginning of 2020.“The findings of this report suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infections may have been present in the U.S. in December 2019, earlier than previously recognized. These findings also highlight the value of blood donations as a source for conducting SARS-CoV-2 surveillance studies,” the report states.The first officially documented case of COVID-19 in the US was reported on January 19, a person who had returned to the US after traveling from China.The World Health Organization was alerted to the novel coronavirus by officials in Wuhan, China on December 31, 2019. The CDC researchers say further reports have identified a patient in Wuhan with COVID-19 symptoms as early as December 1, 2019.The study looked at more than 7,000 routine blood donation samples taken by the American Red Cross from people in nine states between December 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020.They found COVID-19 antibodies in 106 samples, mostly from the states of California, Oregon and Washington, from blood collected between December 13-16, 2019. Other samples that indicated COVID-19 antibodies were from Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin taken in early January 2020.“The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized or that a small portion of the population may have pre-existing antibodies that bind SARS-CoV-2,” the report states.Scientists acknowledge that patients presenting with what is now known as COVID-19 symptoms before mid-January would likely not have had clinical samples taken or kept because of how new the virus was. Therefore, the CDC used the existing repository collected by the American Red Cross during their routine blood donation process.“These specimens were previously archived for potential future studies to identify emerging transfusion-transmissible infections but were re-purposed for the present study,” researchers stated.Researchers caution that these results are subject to limitations. Although they detected antibodies, that does not mean they are “true positive” COVID-19 tests. In order to get a true positive, a different test would need to be a run. 2545

来源：资阳报