濮阳东方医院男科治疗早泄技术可靠濮阳东方医院技术先进,濮阳东方男科医院好不好啊,濮阳东方医院做人流手术费用价格,濮阳东方看妇科收费正规,濮阳东方看男科口碑很好价格低,濮阳东方医院妇科做人流口碑比较好,濮阳东方妇科免费咨询

He's the most popular figure in the Democratic Party by far, revered by liberals, moderates and even some Republicans.But former President 151

Here's our next rocket, built and ready for system-level testing in our final integration area as it waits for its turn to fly to space. pic.twitter.com/Zhc2uDtMMC— Virgin Orbit (@Virgin_Orbit) May 25, 2020 219

For Monica Cooper, making it on the outside was tougher than she thought it would be. After spending more than a decade behind bars, Cooper came out of prison ready to rebuild her life. She finished college, earned a bachelor's degree to make herself marketable, and set out to find employment.Monica isn't alone. The National Employment Law Project says an estimated 70 million people, or one in three adults, have a prior arrest or conviction record. And while many exit prison ready to rejoin and contribute to their communities, they're often stopped by one little box. On an initial job application, many employers ask if applicants have been convicted of a felony. This forces many returning from incarceration to check yes, explain their conviction, or leave it blank. Advocates say that pesky box is leaving thousands of qualified workers on the shelf. Since 2004, a growing number of states have taken actions to get that box removed. The latest effort is happening in Maryland.Kimberly Haven says she was haunted knowing she'd have to check "yes" on her application for decades after completing her sentence. She's spent years advocating to get rid of that box, first successfully in Baltimore. The first version of the bill was passed in Baltimore City, and then several other counties adopted their own version. Now a statewide bill has made it to the capitol in Annapolis for consideration.Maryland Delegate Nick Mosby is pushing a statewide bill that would get rid of the box on the initial application. An employer can ask about a criminal history in the first interview but must wait to run a background check until a conditional offer has been made. He says it's just about getting employers to meet these applicants face-to-face.Certain jobs, like ones in law enforcement or one that would require you to work with minors, are excluded from the bill. Those who support it say it reduces recidivism and hits an untapped skilled resource. Put simply, they say it's a smart economic decision.But Cailey Locklair Tolle, who testified against the bill, says employers have a right to know up front whether the potential employee has a criminal history.A 2012 ruling at the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission said employers should only consider convictions directly related to a job and whether the applicant is likely to commit the same crime again. The EEOC made discrimination based on conviction records a violation of federal employment law. Maryland hopes to be the 12th state to pass the law mandating the box removal in both the public and private sectors. A federal bill has also been introduced in Congress. Kimberly says laws like these will make the difference to thousands of returning from incarceration every year. 2792

Harvey Weinstein, the movie producer facing sexual assault charges, will appear in court Monday to be arraigned on an indictment, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's office.The indictment, which was returned by a grand jury, has not been publicly disclosed. It's not clear whether additional charges will be brought against Weinstein.The last-minute court hearing Monday could also take up Weinstein's request to have the case moved out of New York, as well as the possibility of "Sopranos" actress Annabella Sciorra testifying in the case."An appearance has been scheduled for Monday, August 26 for the defendant to be arraigned on an indictment," the district attorney's office said Thursday, adding "the defendant is expected to be present."Prosecutors have been jockeying for months to get the actress' account into the trial to support charges of predatory sexual assault against Weinstein.The current charges stem from accounts from two women, but Sciorra is not one of them.Sciorra has publicly accused Weinstein of sexually assaulting her inside her Gramercy Park apartment in 1993.Change of venue requestWeinstein's attorneys want his trial moved out of the city, but prosecutors rejected that argument in court documents filed Friday.Attorneys with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office say that Weinstein's request should be denied.Weinstein and his attorneys have "failed to meet his burden of showing that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in New York County or that media coverage of his case will have any less impact on the residents of Suffolk or Albany counties, who have access to the same news sources and social media as their counterparts in Manhattan," say the documents filed Friday.The prosecution said the request should be viewed as a "transparent attempt" to delay the proceedings of his trial, which is set to begin September 9.The filing comes after Weinstein's attorney said he cannot get a fair criminal trial in New York City and asked to move it elsewhere -- possibly to upstate New York or Long Island. Weinstein, the 67-year-old disgraced movie producer, is accused of raping a woman in a New York hotel room in 2013 and forcibly performing oral sex on another woman at his Manhattan apartment in 2006.He faces five felony charges: two counts of predatory sexual assault, one count of criminal sexual act in the first degree and one count each of first-degree rape and third-degree rape. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty.Despite the trial's rapidly approaching start, his attorney Arthur Aidala has asked for a stay in the proceedings as the court considers the change-of-venue motion.He listed Albany or Suffolk County as possible alternatives to New York City for the trial. Albany, the state capital, is roughly 150 miles north of New York City, and Suffolk County is on eastern Long Island.'Ground zero' for #MeToo activismAttorneys with the Manhattan DA's office argue that online media publication allows individuals, regardless of where they are located, to access news coverage. They also say Weinstein's request ignores "the reality that nearly all of the news outlets covering this case have the resources, interest, and ability to travel to Suffolk and Albany Counties" if the trial were to be moved.They also contend that if the trial was moved out of New York City, they would lose "its rich base of jurors from vastly varied backgrounds" that would allow a greater chance of ensuring a pool of impartial jurors, court documents state.Aidala, Weinstein's attorney, had blamed a "deluge of local, national and international news, press coverage and online social media hysteria that has universally demonized defendant and prejudged him as guilty, not just of the crimes charged, but of many, many others."And he said New York City is particularly hostile to Weinstein."Political, cultural and social organizations with headquarters in Manhattan ("MeToo" and "Times Up") were catapulted to prominence as a direct result of Harvey Weinstein's arrest in this case and New York City is ground zero in their activism, with such activities as the so-called women's march, and the rallying cry "believe all women," a position that is antithetical to due process," Aidala wrote.The attorney also said Weinstein's court appearances "have been characterized by a circus-like atmosphere," including appearances by celebrities "to show support for complainants they do not even know."He said an internet search of the New York Post's Page Six, "a mainstay of local New York City news and the name Harvey Weinstein in 2019, yields over 11,000 hits.""This is a mere prelude to what will greet the jurors on every newsstand and on the courthouse steps, as they make their way through the city each day to perform their duties." 4794

House Democrats on Thursday approved a legislative package aimed at ending the partial government shutdown, while rejecting President Donald Trump's demand for additional funding for a border wall, despite a White House veto threat.As a result, the legislation is expected to be dead on arrival in the Senate, leaving congressional Democrats and the administration at a stalemate that threatens to prolong the shutdown, which is wrapping up its second week.The House of Representatives first voted on Thursday to approve a stopgap spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security that would not allocate any new wall funding, in a rebuke to the President. The bill passed by 239-192, with five Republicans joining Democrats.Shortly afterward, the House voted to approve a legislative package made up of six full-year spending bills to reopen shuttered parts of the federal government.The key sticking point in the shutdown fight has been the President's demand for billion in wall funding, which congressional Democrats have refused to meet.House Democrats have stressed that their plan to reopen the government would not provide any additional funding for a border wall, leading congressional Republicans and the White House to call the effort a "nonstarter." On Thursday evening, the White House issued a veto threat against the legislation ahead of the expected House vote.Earlier in the day, newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the President's wall as "a waste of money" and "an immorality" during a news conference hours after reclaiming the gavel in the new Congress.The partial government shutdown stretched into its 13th day on Thursday, when the new Democratic House majority was sworn in.As the stalemate continues, there is no end in sight to the partial shutdown, which is affecting hundreds of thousands of federal workers who have either been furloughed or have had to work without pay."We're trying to open up government," Pelosi said on Thursday.But she suggested that Democrats don't plan to budge from their refusal to allocate wall money."We're not doing a wall," Pelosi said emphatically. "Does anybody have any doubt? We are not doing a wall." 2200