濮阳东方看妇科收费低濮阳东方妇科收费低服务好,濮阳东方医院看妇科病价格透明,濮阳东方口碑非常好,濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿技术比较专业,濮阳东方医院妇科价格公开,濮阳东方医院男科看病好吗,濮阳东方医院治疗早泄价格不高

WASHINGTON — Retiring U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, gave his farewell address from the Senate floor Wednesday morning, urging for a "change of behavior."Alexander is retiring after more than 40 years in public service. During his farewell remarks, he called for bipartisanship among what has been a deeply divided Senate over the past decade."Divided government offers an opportunity to share the responsibility — or the blame — for hard decisions," Alexander said. "That's why our country needs a United States Senate, to thoughtfully, carefully and intentionally put country before partisanship and personal politics, to force broad agreements on controversial issues that become laws most of us have voted for and that a diverse country will accept."Alexander also offered a defense of the filibuster, the parliamentary rule that allows a minority party to block legislation. He says the rule forces the Senate to work together to solve problems as opposed to allowing one party to dominate the chamber.Some progressive Democrats have floated eliminating the filibuster in the hopes of passing more legislation.Alexander's career began in 1978 when he famously walked more than 1,000 miles across Tennessee to make his case to be governor. He served two terms as the state governor and later took the helm at the University of Tennessee. He also served as President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Education.Alexander has served as a senator since 2002. He will be replaced by Senator-elect Bill Hagerty, a fellow Republican.This story was originally published by Laken Bowles on WTVF in Nashville. 1622

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration endangered public health by keeping a widely used pesticide on the market despite extensive scientific evidence that even tiny levels of exposure can harm babies' brains.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to remove chlorpyrifos from sale in the United States within 60 days.A coalition of farmworkers and environmental groups sued last year after then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt reversed an Obama-era effort to ban chlorpyrifos, which is widely sprayed on citrus fruit, apples and other crops. The attorneys general for several states joined the case against EPA, including California, New York and Massachusetts.RELATED: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt quits amid ethics scandalsIn a split decision, the court said Thursday that Pruitt, a Republican forced to resign earlier this summer amid ethics scandals, violated federal law by ignoring the conclusions of agency scientists that chlorpyrifos is harmful."The panel held that there was no justification for the EPA's decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children," Judge Jed S. Rakoff wrote in the court's opinion.Michael Abboud, spokesman for acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, said the agency was reviewing the decision, but it had been unable to "fully evaluate the pesticide using the best available, transparent science."RELATED: Trump administration wants to lower emissions standards for carsEPA could potentially appeal to the Supreme Court since one member of the three-judge panel dissented from the majority ruling.Environmental groups and public health advocates celebrated the court's action as a major success."Some things are too sacred to play politics with, and our kids top the list," said Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The court has made it clear that children's health must come before powerful polluters. This is a victory for parents everywhere who want to feed their kids fruits and veggies without fear it's harming their brains or poisoning communities."The attorneys general of California and New York also claimed victory.RELATED: EPA Pushes Back Against Asbestos Comeback Claims"This is one more example of how then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt skirted the law and endangered the health of our children — in this case, all because he refused to curb pesticide levels found in food," Attorney General Xavier Becerra of California said in a statement.Chlorpyrifos was created by Dow Chemical Co. in the 1960s. It remains among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with the chemical giant selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year through its subsidiary Dow AgroSciences.Dow did not respond to an email seeking comment. In past statements, the company has contended the chemical helps American farmers feed the world "with full respect for human health and the environment."Chlorpyrifos belongs to a family of organophosphate pesticides that are chemically similar to a chemical warfare agent developed by Nazi Germany before World War II.As a result of its wide use as a pesticide over the past four decades, traces of chlorpyrifos are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of the pesticide.Under pressure from federal regulators, Dow voluntarily withdrew chlorpyrifos for use as a home insecticide in 2000. EPA also placed "no-spray" buffer zones around sensitive sites, such as schools, in 2012.In October 2015, the Obama administration proposed banning the pesticide's use on food. A risk assessment memo issued by nine EPA scientists concluded: "There is a breadth of information available on the potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects in infants and children as a result of prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos."Federal law requires EPA to ensure that pesticides used on food in the United States are safe for human consumption — especially children, who are typically far more sensitive to the negative effects of poisons.Shortly after his appointment by President Donald Trump in 2017, Pruitt announced he was reversing the Obama administration effort to ban chlorpyrifos, adopting Dow's position that the science showing chlorpyrifos is harmful was inconclusive and flawed.The Associated Press reported in June 2017 that Pruitt announced his agency's reversal on chlorpyrifos just 20 days after his official schedule showed a meeting with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris. At the time, Liveris headed a White House manufacturing working group, and his company had written a million check to help underwrite Trump's inaugural festivities.Following AP's report, then-EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said that March 9, 2017, meeting on Pruitt's schedule never happened. Bowman said the two men had instead shared only a "brief introduction in passing" while attending the same industry conference at a Houston hotel and that they never discussed chlorpyrifos.However, internal EPA emails released earlier this year following a public records lawsuit filed by The Sierra Club suggest the two men shared more than a quick handshake.Little more than a week after the conference and before Pruitt announced his decision, the EPA chief's scheduler reached out to Liveris' executive assistant to schedule a follow-up meeting."Hope this email finds you well!" wrote Sydney Hupp, Pruitt's assistant, on March 20, 2017. "I am reaching out today about setting up a meeting to continue the discussion between Dow Chemical and Administrator Scott Pruitt. My apologies for the delay in getting this email into you — it has been a crazy time over here!"Subsequent emails show Hupp and Liveris' office discussing several potential dates that the Dow CEO might come to Pruitt's office at EPA headquarters, but it is not clear from the documents whether the two men ever linked up.Liveris announced his retirement from Dow in March of this year.Pruitt resigned July 6 amid more than a dozen ethics investigations focused on such issues as outsized security spending, first-class flights and a sweetheart condo lease for a Capitol Hill condo linked to an energy lobbyist.Bowman, who left EPA in May to work for GOP Sen. Joni Ernest of Iowa, declined to comment on her earlier characterization of the March 2017 interaction between Pruitt and Liveris or what "discussion" the internal email was referring to."I don't work for EPA anymore," Bowman said.___Follow Associated Press investigative reporter Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck 6863

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired — kill off the Affordable Care Act. That includes its key protections for pre-existing health conditions and subsidized insurance premiums that affect tens of millions of Americans. The justices met a week after the election and remotely in the midst of a pandemic that has closed their majestic courtroom to hear the highest-profile case of the term so far. They took on the latest Republican challenge to the law known as “Obamacare,” with three appointees of President Donald Trump, an avowed foe of the health care law, among them.But at least one of those Trump appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seemed likely to vote to leave the bulk of the law intact, even if he were to find the law’s now-toothless mandate that everyone obtain health insurance to be unconstitutional.“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said.Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court’s three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched.“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said.Tuesday’s arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask.“I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. 2495

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his allies are taking what appear to be increasingly frantic steps to subvert the results of the 2020 election, according to law scholars, including summoning state legislators to the White House as part of a longshot bid to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. Trump also has personally called local election officials in Michigan who are trying to rescind their certification votes in Michigan. His legal team has suggested that a judge order Pennsylvania to set aside the popular vote there. And his allies are pressuring county officials in Arizona to delay certifying vote tallies. During a press conference Thursday, the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who is working on the campaign's lawsuits, made accusations of voter fraud in a handful of states, and seemed to suggest officials in several big cities were working together. "It’s not a singular voter fraud in any one state. There is a pattern in several states," Giuliani said. "To any experienced prosecutor, it would suggest that there was a plan." However, he did not give any evidence or further details about what led him to believe there was a "plan," other than baseless statements that the cities had "a history of corruption."“It’s very concerning that some Republicans apparently can’t fathom the possibility that they legitimately lost this election,” said Joshua Douglas, a law professor at the University of Kentucky who researches and teaches election law.“We depend on democratic norms, including that the losers graciously accept defeat,” he said. “That seems to be breaking down.”Election law experts see this as the last, dying gasp of the Trump campaign and say there is no question Biden will walk into the Oval Office come January. 1774

WASHINGTON — An obscure government agency President Donald Trump created is working behind the scenes to inspire confidence in the vote amid unprecedented challenges.The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, CISA, which Trump signed into existence in 2018, is working with other parts of the government to safeguard an election in the middle of a pandemic.Trump hasn’t made it easy by predicting that voting at a time of COVID-19 will be a “disaster,” insisting mail-in balloting is a recipe for fraud and dismissing reports of Russian interference.CISA quietly offers a counternarrative on these issues and more, and its director projects optimism about the election.CISA started a website, CISA.Gov/RumorControl, to help answer frequent questions about election and voting safety, offer a “risk profile tool,” and provide information to combat misinformation online.Last week, the FBI and CISA released two alerts.One alert warned Iranian hackers are creating fictitious media sites and spoofing media sites to spread voter registration data, anti-American propaganda and misinformation about voter suppression, voter fraud and ballot fraud.The other alert said since at least September, Russian hackers have conducted a campaign against a wide variety of US targets and taken data from at least two servers.Voters are encouraged to contact their local and state election officials for information on voting. 1421