濮阳东方医院看早泄咨询濮阳东方看妇科病价格透明,濮阳东方医院治早泄非常便宜,濮阳东方医院做人流口碑非常高,濮阳东方医院做人流手术很靠谱,濮阳东方妇科价格非常低,濮阳东方可靠吗,濮阳东方男科收费不贵

In a press conference on Tuesday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds said the driver who hit the Black Lives Matter protester while driving her away from an event "acted appropriately." 185

If Monday's opening statements were any indication, Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court will face a bitter partisan fight in the days and weeks ahead.Given the timing — less than a month ahead of the 2020 general election — and the implications of appointing a sixth Supreme Court justice nominated by a Republican president, Democrats painted a bleak picture of America should Barrett be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.Barrett's confirmation process was already set to be fraught with political controversy, given that Republicans successfully blocked President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for over half a year ahead of the 2016 presidential election, claiming that voters should have a say in the confirmation processIn fact, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, used her opening statement to share a 2016 quote from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, in which he said he would wait to fill a Supreme Court seat if it came open between the opening of the primary process and the 2020 election.Feinstein also added that Democrats intended to focus on the "consequence" of "rushing" a Supreme Court nominee through the Senate.Senators will question Barrett beginning at 9 a.m. ET Tuesday, a process that will last into Wednesday. Graham says he hopes to have the confirmation hearing process wrapped up by Thursday.Democrats warn of loss of health careSeveral Democrats noted that in the past, President Donald Trump has only promised to nominate justices who will undo the Affordable Care Act — the law that enacted public health care and offered more consumer protections. They also pointed to Barrett's past criticism of Supreme Court decisions that have upheld parts of the law.Other Democrats, like Sen. Cory Booker, argued that Barrett's nomination was a ploy by Republicans to undo public healthcare initiatives and protections afforded by the Affordable Care Act, saying that a Barrett nomination would look like "deciding between buying medicine and buying groceries."Sen. Kamala Harris — the current Democratic vice presidential nominee — echoed those statements, claiming that President Donald Trump was attempting to "bypass the will of the American people" so they can strike down the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Mazie Hirono, herself a cancer survivor, wondered aloud if she would have survived had she been in a position that many Americans may find themselves in without government-backed healthcare.Graham has said that he expects Barrett to be confirmed to the Supreme Court a week before the Nov. 3 election. On Nov. 10, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a key case to determine the legality of portions of the ACA.COVID-19 fears shape hearingSeveral Democrats called out their Republican colleagues for even holding hearings amid a pandemic. Appearing virtually, Harris claimed it was "reckless" for the Judiciary Committee to hold in-person hearings and called out Graham for not requiring Senators to test negative for the virus before appearing in the room.At least two of the senators on the committee — Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina — have recently tested positive for the virus. Both at Barrett's nomination ceremony at the White House in late September — an event that has been described as a "superspreader" after about a dozen people in attendance, including President Donald Trump, tested positive for COVID-19. Lee, having been cleared by a Congressional physician, appeared in person. Tillis appeared on video teleconference.Graham said Monday that the hearing room had been deemed by the Capitol architect to be in compliance with CDC social distancing guidelines. Other Democrats said their time would be better spent working on passing more COVID-19 stimulus — something Trump has been willing to entertain in recent days.Republicans defend Barrett's character, call out those questioning her faithRepublicans defended Barrett's character by accusing Democrats of attacking her Catholic faith, often pointing to constitutional statues against "religious tests" as a qualifier for public office. Sen Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, specifically accused Harris of "anti-Catholic bigotry" by questioning past judiciary appointments fitness for office due to their membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization.Sen. Joni Ernst, R-IA, further defended Barrett's character against those who she says had labeled her a "handmaid," saying that such accusations were "demeaning to women.""We don't have to fit a narrow definition of womanhood," Ernst said. At this point, Republican Senators have the votes to confirm Barrett. Graham has said he expects the process to be finished in the next two weeks — about seven days ahead of election day.Barrett pays homage to Scalia, GinsburgIn her opening statement, which was obtained and published by several media outlets, Barrett paid tribute to the late Justice Antonin Scalia — a conservative icon for whom Barrett worked for as a clerk early in her career. She said she shared in Scalia's philosophy of "textualism" — apply the law directly as it is written."A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were," Barrett said.Her opening statement also offered condolences to the justice whose seat she hopes to fill, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg."I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat, but no one will ever take her place," Barrett will say. "I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led." 5554

If it's hard to understand how a service member could end up on the streets, listen to Chris Perry's story.“When I got out, my transition back into civilian life didn’t work out too well," Perry said. "I became homeless for about five or six years and kept getting into a lot of trouble."Perry battled addiction when he left the Marine Corps after eight years of service. He is an Iraq War veteran, who enlisted in the Marine Corps as soon as he could.“I joined when I was 17. My mama had to sign a paper to let me go in early," Perry recalled.When he left the military, he found himself lost in the country he swore to protect.“Honestly, I didn’t see any light at the end of my tunnel," Perry said.Finding that light can take a village, and for Perry, it's not a figure of speech.The tiny homes of Kansas City's Veterans Community Project are a unique approach to the all-too-common problem of veteran homelessness.Army Veteran Brandonn Mixon, who served in Afghanistan, is one of the founders of the Veterans Community Project, and he knows the challenges so many veterans face.“The most successful I’ve ever been was in the military. When I came back home, I couldn’t adjust. I couldn’t transition out of the military mentality back to the civilian-life mentality," Mixon said.The veterans who live in the village get to keep everything inside their tiny home, and the staff helps connect them with services so they can move forward.While some nonprofits may consider factors like whether a veteran looking for help was honorably discharged from the military to join this community, the promise at the core of service is what matters most.“By veteran, I mean, you raised your right hand, you took the oath to serve your country, you could have served one day or 100 years; you’re a veteran in our book," said Bryan Meyer, one of the founders of Veterans Community Project who served in the Marine Corps and was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and 2005.The tiny homes model is expanding nationwide. The Veterans Community Project broke ground on a new village in Longmont, Colorado.The expansion is important because each veteran, like Chris Perry who is now enrolled in community college, is now on the right path.“They got me to a point where there is no going back, so it’s just straightforward from here," Perry said.However, there are still people who took the oath to protect this country and living on its streets in need of help."I know there is a veteran who is sleeping on the streets. There is a veteran crying right now, wanting to commit suicide because there’s nobody who has his back. I’m not going to lie, we’re not going to be done until we find that veteran," Mixon said. "We save his life, we have his back, because he would do that for me, and I owe it to do it for him.” 2794

In a victory for employers and the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday said that employers could block employees from banding together as a class to fight legal disputes in employment arbitration agreements.Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, his first major opinion since joining the court last spring and a demonstration of how the Senate Republicans' move to keep liberal nominee Merrick Garland from being confirmed in 2016 has helped cement a conservative court."This is the Justice Gorsuch that I think most everyone expected," said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. "Not only is he endorsing the conservative justices' controversial approach to arbitration clauses, but he's taking it an important step further by extending that reasoning to employment agreements, as well."Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench, calling the majority opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis "egregiously wrong.""The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts -- including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one. Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees," she said.In the majority opinion, Gorsuch maintained the "decision does nothing to override" what Congress has done."Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," he said.As the dissent recognizes, the legislative policy embodied in the (National Labor Relations Act) is aimed at 'safeguard[ing], first and foremost, workers' rights to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining," he wrote. "Those rights stand every bit as strong today as they did yesterday."Gorusch, responding to Ginsburg's claim that the court's decision would resurrect so-called "yellow dog" contracts which barred an employee from joining a union, said that "like most apocalyptic warnings, this one proves a false alarm."The case was the biggest business case of the term, and represented a clash between employers who prefer to handle disputes through arbitration against employees who want to be able to band together to bring their challenges and not be required to sign class action bans.It also pitted two federal laws against each other.One, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), gives employees the right to self organization to "engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection" the other, the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows employers to "settle by arbitration."Lawyers for employers, who have long backed arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, argued that class action waivers are permissible under the 1925 law. They say the NLRA does not contain a congressional command precluding enforcement of the waivers.The Trump administration supported the employers in the case, a switch from the Obama administration's position.  3034

Hundreds rallied outside Paul Ryan's office in Milwaukee Monday for the Dream Act. Watch the Facebook live below: (KGTV) - After a successful fundraising campaign, a group of San Diego DACA recipients have made it to the nation’s capital to speak with lawmakers. 280