濮阳东方医院割包皮手术很好濮阳东方医院妇科网上咨询,濮阳东方妇科医院评价很不错,濮阳东方医院位置在哪,濮阳东方医院做人流手术口碑好不好,濮阳东方医院治阳痿收费透明,濮阳东方看男科病口碑很好价格低,濮阳东方男科医院口碑很高

Citing deadlock in negotiations between the administration and congressional Democrats to create a second stimulus bill, President Trump signed four executive orders Saturday aimed at helping Americans struggling with the ongoing pandemic.Here is a look at what each one says and what next steps could be.Unemployment benefitsOne of the most highly-anticipated and most debated executive order is focused on increased weekly benefits for those claiming unemployment. President Trump’s executive order would make it 0 a week and require states to provide 25 percent of the funds.The CARES Act had added an additional 0 a week to what states offered in unemployment benefits. The funding came from the federal government for that added weekly benefit, and ended August 1.It's unclear whether states have the money or the will to fund the new plan. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont says it would cost his state alone 0 million to provide the extra benefit through the rest of 2020.He is one of several who have come out since Saturday’s announcement and expressed concern at states being able to afford to participate in the extra unemployment benefits.Many states are already facing budget crunches caused by the pandemic. Asked at a news conference how many governors had signed on to participate, Trump answered: “If they don’t, they don’t. That’s up to them.”By Sunday night, Trump clarified how the process could work, telling reporters states could apply to have the federal government provide all or part of the 0 payments. Decisions would be made state by state, he said.On CNN’s “State of the Nation” on Sunday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said conflicting things about whether the federal money was contingent on an additional contribution from the states.Initially Kudlow said that “for an extra 0, we will lever it up. We will pay three-quarters, and the states will pay 25 percent.” In the same interview, though, he later said that “at a minimum, we will put in 300 bucks ... but I think all they (the states) have to do is put up an extra dollar, and we will be able to throw in the extra 0.”A clarifying statement from the White House said the “funds will be available for those who qualify by, among other things, receiving 0/week of existing assistance and certify that they have lost their jobs due to COVID-19.”Evictions moratoriumThe previous moratorium, which was part of Congress-approved aid earlier this year, ended at the end of July, leaving an estimated 12 million households potentially at risk that were protected. Some states have taken action on their own to extend the moratorium, but not all.The original ban on evictions applied to mortgages that were backed by federal funds. By some estimates, this only covered about a fourth of the country’s rental units. The majority of units have private mortgages or owners and were not covered by the ban.The new executive order signed Saturday states "the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the CDC shall consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19."The president’s plan calls on the Housing and Urban Development and Treasury secretaries to identify any available federal funds to “provide temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners" who are "struggling" to pay mortgages and rents.On Sunday, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said the order will put a complete stop to evictions.“The health secretary has the authority, working with the CDC to declare it an emergency. And, therefore, there will be no evictions,” Kudlow said in an interview with CNN. He reaffirmed that if Health and Human Services declares an emergency, evictions will be stopped.Kudlow added that the executive order sets up “a process. A mechanism. I can't predict the future all together. All the federally financed, single families and multifamilies will be covered as they have been.”There has been no update yet on how long this process could take to identify available funds, and how much assistance the administration could provide.Payroll taxesTrump’s executive order on payroll taxes is a postponement of the collected taxes until the end of the year, and defers the due date for the portion of taxes paid by employees. Federal payroll taxes are roughly 6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.45 percent for Medicare.The deferment would only apply to employees making less than roughly 0,000 a year.Think of it like the deferring of federal income taxes, American still had to file and pay their taxes but they weren’t due until July 15.The payroll taxes would still be due at the end of the year, and companies control whether the taxes are withheld from paychecks or not. There is no word yet if companies will continue to collect the payroll taxes from paychecks in order to pay at the end of the year.President Trump during Saturday’s press conference on the executive orders said if he was elected president he would work to forgive the levy and make cuts to payroll taxes. However, many are clarifying that the power to change tax laws lies with Congress and not with the president.Student loansThe fourth executive order directs the Education Department to extend the student loan relief until the end of the year.Loan payments and the accruing of interest on federally-held students loans is on hold right now until September 30. The executive order would move that date until December, and potentially longer. Trump eluded to possibly extending the deadline out further.Trump originally waived student loan interest by executive order in March, and the policy was clarified to include pausing loan payments and included in the CARES Act passed by Congress. 5841

Colorado voters rejected a ballot measure that, if passed, would have banned abortions in the state after the 22nd week of a woman’s pregnancy unless her life is at risk and potentially punished doctors who performed them.ABC News called the race around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, with 60% of Coloradans voting against Proposition 115’s passage, compared to 40% who voted in favor of the measure, with 79% of precincts reporting.Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Action Fund President and CEO Vicki Cowart released a statement Tuesday evening praising Coloradans’ decision."Today, we can proudly confirm that Colorado remains a safe haven for access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion care. Once again, Colorado voters confirmed what we have always known: that health care decisions belong between a patient and their health care provider, without political interference,” Cowart said.The rejection of Proposition 115 means abortions will continue to be legal at any time during a woman’s pregnancy in Colorado, with a restriction which specifies that the parents or guardians of a minor seeking an abortion must receive written notification about the procedure at least 48 hours in advance.If Proposition 115 had passed, a doctor who broke the rule and performed an abortion outside of 22 weeks would have been guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, which would have been punishable by a fine.Physicians who performed abortions outside of the 22-week window would have faced disciplinary action by the state medical board and a suspension of their license of at least three years under the proposal. Women who received an abortion would not have been penalized had Proposition 115 passed.The number of abortions performed in the state after 22 weeks is hard to come by. The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) believes the number is between 20 to 300 per year. Opponents of the measure said these types of abortions represent just 1% of abortions.The citizen-led measure narrowly made the ballot, only doing so after a cure period at the end of May.Proponents had argued they believe that 22 weeks of gestation is when a fetus is viable and that abortions after that date were inhumane.This story was originally published by Blair Miller at thedenverchannel.com. 2340

COMPTON, Calif. – Dr. Keith Claybrook says he'll never forget the way he felt when a national guardsman was stationed near his backyard in Compton During the 1992 Los Angeles riots.The uprising happened after a jury acquitted four L.A. police officers in the caught-on-camera beating of Rodney King, a Black man.“I have vivid memories of a national guardsman being posted on the roof. Here’s a national guardsman, looking over the side of a building, automatic weapon in hand, as far as I’m concerned, 13 years old, staring at my dad and I. Why are you standing on this roof looking at a man and his son doing lawn maintenance?” asked Claybrook.Shades of ’92 -- that’s all Keith says he sees this year, especially in Portland.“In my experiences, and in my studies, and in my conversation with other people, the presence of law enforcement in general, and the presence of other, you know the national guard, forces like that, it doesn’t do anything but escalate the situation," said Claybrook.Federal forces have been used in the past on U.S. soil for a variety of reasons.We found more than 10 examples in the last 100 years. From dispersing protesters after World War I in Washington D.C., to integrating schools in the south in 1950s and ‘60s, to the Los Angeles Riots in 1992."It is rare, and it's usually used in extraordinary circumstances," said Kevin Baron, the founder of Defense One, an online publication focusing on national security, foreign policy and the U.S. military.He says there are some big differences between what happened in Portland, and what happened in some of these other instances."At least in L.A., for example, the U.S. soldiers and National Guard were asked to come in and bring peace and deter further rioting and violence that was happening," said Barron.In the case of Portland, the mayor, and the governor of Oregon have been on record several times saying they did not want federal law enforcement involved.“No one knew who these people were originally. Right? It was these, people who suddenly arrived dressed in camouflage, military uniforms, with very little markings indicating who they are,” said Ian Farrell, a professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.His main focus teaching is constitutional and criminal law. He says while people were confused at first, there was legal basis for the officers to be in Portland."There is a section of the U.S. federal code that authorizes homeland security, get employees of homeland security and have them protect federal property and the people on federal property," said Farrell.There are other things about what happened in Portland that stand out as well.“They seem to be essentially abducting people off the streets,” said Farrell."The image of them as militarized, wearing combat fatigues, without insignia using rental cars and unmarked vehicles," said Barron.“Individuals walking on the streets and a minivan would pull up and these camouflaged, officers, as it turned out, would just grab them and put them in the minivan and drive off,” said Farrell.U.S. Customs and Border Patrol said in a statement its agents did in fact pick up protesters in vans, but did so for the safety of everyone.As of July 31, federal law enforcement had arrested at least 25 protestors in Portland.Claybrook says while they are differences between Portland in 2020 and L.A. in 1992, it’s the similarities that stick out to him.“I’m still questioning what law of the land is being enforced in 2020. I don’t know, to bring in that level of policing,” said Claybrook. 3557

Coffee giant Starbucks has set a goal to become more diverse: by 2025, they want 30% of its corporate employees and 40% of its retail and manufacturing employees to be Black, indigenous, and people of color.The Seattle-based company made the announcement Wednesday as they look to create a more diverse and equitable workplace to "advance racial and social equity as part of its ongoing journey to create a welcoming and inclusive Third Place.""As we consider the role and responsibility of Starbucks, as a company, to lead by example in areas of inclusion, diversity, and equity, we will be intentional about the actions we take and how they line up with our Mission and Values, commit to transparency with all stakeholders about our thinking and our goals, and hold ourselves accountable," Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson said in a letter to employees.They also are starting a new mentorship program, anti-bias training requirements, and other initiatives.The company added that it'll connect its executive compensation program to its goals of building "inclusive and diverse teams."Starbucks says these diversity goals will ensure that its coffee shops are "welcoming places for all." 1191

Crazy Horse III strip club is preparing for the arrival of their new neighbors, the Las Vegas Raiders, by introducing a daily "Hard Hat Happy Hour" from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. starting Wednesday, Nov. 8.The promotion will help the Raiders stadium’s construction crew unwind from long days of work by offering a complimentary drink each hour of the daily special. All it will take is for workers to present their work card or pay stub upon arrival.Oh, did we forget to mention that they will be granted free entry to the club as well?Crazy Horse III is just minutes away from the future site of Raiders stadium, which means workers, fans and players should expect a lot more of these specials to be announced as 2020 draws near.  735