濮阳东方看妇科病技术很好(濮阳东方妇科医院做人流便宜吗) (今日更新中)

It's official: The NBA is coming back on Dec. 22.The NBA and the National Basketball Players Association have struck a deal on rules for this coming season, setting the stage for what will be a frenzied few weeks before games resume. Teams will play a 72-game schedule, with the league announcing the full regular-season and broadcast schedules at a later date.The league said a new system would be used to ensure that the split of basketball-related income continues, one of the many details that had to be collectively bargained with the union because the current agreement between the sides had a great deal of language needed reworking because of the coronavirus pandemic.Teams will be able to negotiate with free agents beginning at 6 p.m. ET on Nov. 20, and at 12:01 p.m. ET on Nov. 22, teams will be able to sign them, the league announced in a press release.The league said the salary cap and tax level would remain the same heading into the new season. During the 2019-20 season, the cap was 9.14 million, with the tax level at 2,627,000."A new system will be used to ensure the parties' agreed-upon split of basketball-related income (BRI)," the league said in the news release. "In the event, player compensation were to exceed the players' designated share in any season, necessary salary reductions beyond the standard 10 percent escrow would be spread across that season and potentially the following two seasons, subject to a maximum salary reduction in any season of 20 percent."This season, teams will not be playing in a bubble, so health and safety protocols amid the coronavirus pandemic will need to be worked out as teams will be traveling from city to city once again.Last season ended on Oct. 10, so the Los Angeles Lakers and the Miami Heat will only have rested seven weeks before they start training camp on Dec. 1. 1856

In just the latest reminder of the dangers of pollution in our oceans, a dead whale in Indonesia has been found with 13.2 pounds (six kilograms) of plastic waste in its stomach.The 31.17-foot sperm whale was found near Kapota Island in Wakatobi National Park, southeast of Sulawesi.Park officials found bags, plastic bottles, sandals and 115 plastic cups in the whale's stomach, as well as a sack containing more than 1,000 pieces of string."Although we have not been able to deduce the cause of death, the facts that we see are truly awful," said Dwi Suprapti, marine species conservation coordinator at WWF-Indonesia, in a statement to CNN.The macabre discovery was made in an area popular with tourists and comes at a time of increasing concern over the impact of plastic pollution on marine life.In June, a short-fin male pilot whale died in southern Thailand and was later found to have ingested more than 17 pounds of plastic bags and packaging.During an autopsy, veterinarians found more than 80 plastic bags in the whale's stomach.A 2015 report by Ocean Conservancy and the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment found that over 50% of the plastic leaking into world oceans comes from China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, suggesting that the two whales died in dangerous waters for marine life.The report claims that a 65% reduction in plastic waste leakage in those five countries would lead to a 45% reduction globally.Without intervention, the amount of plastic cluttering the Earth's oceans will triple within a decade, according to a recent study by the UK government.However, there is evidence that lawmakers are taking notice of the threat, as the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastics in October.The proposal covers items such as straws, cotton swabs and cutlery, in addition to obliging EU states to recycle 90% of plastic bottles by 2025.In October, the dangers of plastic were underlined when a decades-old bottle washed up almost intact on a UK beach.The plastic bottle of dishwashing liquid was at least 47 years old, with its branding still clearly visible.The-CNN-Wire 2140

In the wake of the deadly school shooting in Florida last week, one gun shop owner has decided to act, and will no longer sell AR-15 rifles to people under age 21."I changed policy yesterday. So to buy a long gun, including an AR, you have to be 21 years old," Jason Cazes, from Washington state, told HLN's Carol Costello.Legally, people can buy rifles at 18 years old in Washington, just like in Florida. But you have to be 21 to buy a pistol."I would like to be proactive rather than reactive because the reactive solutions that we come up with don't work," Cazes said, explaining why he's not waiting for legislation to pass.Seventeen people were killed last Wednesday in a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. It was the ninth-deadliest shooting in modern US history.Nikolas Cruz, 19, confessed to the shooting and is suspected to have obtained at least 10 firearms, all of them rifles.Investigators are trying to track the purchases, which Cruz appears to have made in the past year or so, according to a source briefed on the investigation.These are the victims of the Florida school shootingCazes, who is originally from Louisiana, told Costello he's lived on both sides of the political spectrum and believes that raising the age limit on AR-15s is a solution that both sides will accept."Currently the handgun age is 21. And it has an FBI check and a state check. But the long gun age, which includes ARs, is only an FBI check," he said."It doesn't have a state check, and the age issue is also another problem. So I would say let's meet in the middle and say let's get this age thing fixed. And put it into a bill."A firm supporter of the right to bear arms, Cazes made clear that the bill he's proposing should not touch ARs, which are legal, or high-capacity magazines.He told Costello he keeps an AR-15 in the trunk of his car."That's my weapon of choice for defending myself and my family," he said, adding, "There's no button we can push magically to get rid of all guns. Some people think that's some option we have, and it's not."Cazes, who has been a gun shop owner for more than 15 years, made one exception to his new rule."If you're on active duty or honorably discharged military, you would be exempt because you have been through boot camp and know how to be a man and use this gun."The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2018 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 2445

It may not be as oft-quoted as the First Amendment or as contested as the Second Amendment, but the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a critical role in supporting some of our closest-held notions of American freedom and equality.For one, it clearly states that American citizenship is a birthright for all people who are born on American soil -- something that President Donald Trump has announced he wants to end. Not only would this unravel 150 years of American law, it would loosen a significant cornerstone of the Constitution's interpretation of American identity.In order to better understand this part of the 14th Amendment, we asked two experts in constitutional and immigration law to walk us through the first section. The amendment has five sections, but we will only be dealing with the first, which contains the Citizenship Clause and three other related clauses.But first, some historyThe 14th Amendment is known as a Reconstruction amendment, because it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868. That places it at an important historical crossroads, when lingering wounds of divisiveness and animosity still plagued the nation and the reality of a post-slavery America begged contentious racial and social questions."Thomas Jefferson said men were created equal, but the original Constitution betrayed that promise by allowing for slavery," says Jeffrey Rosen. "The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were designed to enshrine Lincoln's promise of a new America."However, as so often is the case, this reaffirmed American ideal fell short of reality. Rosen notes that issues of civil rights and equal treatment continued to be denied to African Americans, LGBT people and other citizens for more than a century after the amendment's ratification.And Erika Lee points out that Native Americans weren't even allowed to become citizens until 1925."Even as [these amendments] were written, obviously there were major built-in inequalities and maybe at the time weren't intended to apply to everyone," Lee says.Why was citizenship by birthright such an important concept?"Citizenship was a central question left open by the original Constitution," says Rosen. "At the time it was written, the Constitution assumed citizenship, but it didn't provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans can't be citizens of the US and 'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'"The US Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.READ MORE: Scott v. Sandford"The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright," Rosen says. "It is really important that it's a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to our Constitutional values."What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"According to Rosen, this is one of the greatest questions of citizenship. There are two clear examples of people not subject to the jurisdictions of the United States: diplomats and their children, and -- at the time of the 14th Amendment -- Native Americans, who were not recognized as part of the American populace."With those two exceptions, everyone who was physically present in the United States was thought to be under its jurisdiction," Rosen says. "There are numerous Supreme Court cases that reaffirm that understanding, and almost as importantly, there are lots of congressional statutes that assume birthright citizenship."Some scholars, like John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, have argued that children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus should not be considered citizens under the Constitution.But Rosen says this is a minority view among constitutional scholars of all political backgrounds."While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled [on the instance of children of illegal immigrants], Congress has passed all kinds of laws presuming their citizenship," Rosen says.What is the connection between birthright citizenship and immigration?In 1898, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court reached a defining decision in a case known as the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Lee explains that Wong Kim Ark was the American-born son of Chinese immigrants."Asian immigrants were the first immigrants to the US that couldn't be considered white," Lee says. "So they are treated differently. They are taxed differently, they are stripped of many rights. In the 1880s, they are excluded from immigration and barred from citizenship."READ MORE: The United States v. Wong Kim ArkSo, the main question of the case was, could a person born in America be a citizen in a place where his parents could not be as well? The Supreme Court decided yes, and the case remains the first defining legal decision made under the banner of birthright citizenship."[The Supreme Court's decision] said that the right of citizenship is not a matter of inheritance, that it never descends from generation to generation, it is related to where you're born," Lee says. "It's about the power of place. That has been a very expansive, and at the time, a corrective measure to a more exclusionary definition both legally as well as culturally as to what an American is."Why must it be stated that the privileges of citizenship need to be protected?Before the Civil War, states didn't necessarily have to follow the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights; only Congress had to. The 14th Amendment changed that."This second sentence of the Amendment means that states have to respect the Bill of Rights as well as basic civil rights and the rights that come along with citizenship," Rosen says. "The idea was that there were rights that were so basic; so integral to citizenship that they could not be narrowed by the states."Despite the promises and protections of citizenship, Lee says it is abundantly clear that different racial groups were, and often are, seen as unable or unworthy to function as true American citizens. After all, basic rights of citizenship, like suffrage and equal treatment, were denied certain racial groups for a hundred years after the 14th Amendment."The idea of a law applying to 'all people' seems to be clear. But in reality, the debate and the laws and practices that get established are very much based on a hierarchy of, well sure, all persons, but some are more fit and some are more deserving than others," she says.Throughout history, Asian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Muslim immigrants and their children, to name a few, have had unspoken cultural caveats applied to their ability to be Americans."For Asian immigrants, the racial argument at the time was that 'It didn't matter whether one were born in the US or not, Asians as a race, are unassimilable. They are diametrically opposite from us Americans,'" Lee says."That was the argument that was used to intern Japanese citizens. It was the denial of citizenship in favor of race: 'The ability to become American, the ability to assimilate, they just didn't have it.'"Why was it important to legalize rights for non-citizens?So far, we've covered the first clause, the Citizenship Clause, and the second, the Privileges and Immunities Clause. These both deal with American citizens.The final two clauses, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection clause, are a little different, and deal with the rights of all people in the United States.Eagle-eyed Constitution readers will notice that the 14th Amendment contains a "due process" clause very similar to the Fifth Amendment. This, says Rosen, was a technical addition to ensure the Fifth Amendment wasn't theoretically narrowed down to protect only American citizens."The 14th Amendment distinguishes between the privileges of citizenship and the privileges of all people," Rosen says. "The framers [of the amendment] thought there were certain rights that were so important that they should be extended to all persons, and in order to specify that they needed a new 'due process' clause."What does it mean to have 'equal protection of the laws'?"At the time following the Civil War, at its core, it meant all persons had the right to be protected by the police, that the laws of the country should protect all people," Rosen says. "In the 20th century, more broader questions were litigated under the 14th Amendment, like Brown v. Board of Education -- whether segregation was constitutional. Cases involving the internment of Japanese citizens, case from the marriage equality decisions, even Roe vs. Wade have strains of equal protection language and invoke due process law."READ MORE: Brown v. Board of EducationAnother interesting case that speaks directly to the immigration side of the 14th Amendment debate is the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, in which the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the state of Texas to deny funding for undocumented immigrant children.READ MORE: Plyler v. DoeWhy are we talking about all this right now?This week,?Trump vowed to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.But his interest in repealing birthright citizenship isn't a new idea. Lee says for the last 30 years or so, there have been several overtures by the political right to explore "citizenship reform," a timeline that she says aligns with the ascendancy of modern American conservatism.Lee fears if the current push to end birthright citizenship is successful, it could have wider implications than most people assume. People from other countries who are here legally on work or student visas, for instance, could have children who do not legally belong to the only country they know."There have been attempts since the 1990s to break away birthright citizenship, or narrow it down, and it did not seem that they would have a chance at succeeding until now," she says."To me this not only reflects the ascendancy of an extreme right position but also a return to a very narrow and exclusionary definition of Americanness." 10356

It is considered one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports, but one California man took the game too far.Daniel Lee Rippy, 29, of Livermore, Calif., was sentenced to one-year in federal prison after pleading guilty to making an interstate threat. Federal law enforcement officials say Rippy threatened members of the Ohio State football team during the 2018 game against Michigan.According to the DOJ, Rippy directed death threats toward Ohio State players and then head coach Urban Meyer through Facebook. Rippy also threatened at shooting at Ohio State University. He was originally arrested in December 2019, and was summoned to appear. When he failed to appear, he was arrested again and US Marshals extradited him to Ohio to face charges.“In the middle of Ohio State’s annual rival game with the University of Michigan and with more than 100,000 fans in the stadium, law enforcement suddenly had a potential threat of a shooting,” said U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers. “Because of Rippy, law enforcement officials at the stadium were placed on high alert and re-allocated resources to investigate the threat. His words are not without consequence, as illustrated by today’s sentence of imprisonment.” 1219

来源：资阳报