郑州开封最好眼科医院郑州眼部激光手术能做几次,郑州近视眼手术飞秒激光,郑州眼睛做激光手术好不好,郑州激光全飞秒手术价格,郑州参军近视做手术得多少钱,郑州激光真的可以治疗近视吗,郑州近视手术费医保报销吗

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment."A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home. 722

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's governor vowed on Monday to continue expanding taxpayer funded health benefits to adults living in the country illegally next year, ensuring the volatile issue will get top billing in the 2020 presidential election as Democrats vying for the nomination woo voters in the country's most populous state.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a 4.8 billion operating budget last week that includes spending to make low-income adults 25 and younger living in the country illegally eligible for the state's Medicaid program. California is the first state to do this, with an expected cost of million to cover about 90,000 peopleDemocrats in the state legislature had pushed to also cover adults 65 and older living in the country illegally, as well as all adults regardless of age. But Newsom rejected those proposals because they were too expensive — about .4 billion for all adults living in the country illegally in California.But Monday, Newsom told a crowd of supporters at Sacramento City College "we're going to get the rest of that done.""Mark my words," Newsom said. "We're going to make progress next year and the year after on that. That's what universal health care means. Everybody, not just some folks."If Newsom follows through, it will ensure California's legislature will be debating the issue at about the same time California voters are voting for a Democratic presidential nominee. The state has an outsized role in the selection process this year because its primary is scheduled for March 3.Republicans seemed to welcome the debate. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump said California doesn't "treat their people as well as they treat illegal immigrants.""At what point does it stop? It's crazy what they are doing," he said. "And it's mean. And it's very unfair to our citizens, and we're going to stop it. But we may need an election to stop it, and we may need to get back the House."Newsom's comments highlight how quickly Democrats have embraced using tax dollars to provide services for people living in the country illegally. Former Democratic President Barack Obama's health care law dramatically expanded Medicaid coverage in 2014, but only for people living in the country legally.Last week, all 10 Democratic presidential candidates during the second night of a televised debate raised their hands when asked if they supported expanding Medicaid to cover people living in the country illegally. They included front-runners like former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris."I think the anti-immigrant stance by the Trump administration has in some sense created this as the bigger issue," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "The Trump administration has pushed Democrats even further to defend immigration and provide services to people who are already here."California's 4.8 billion operating budget, which took effect Monday, also brings back an Obama-era tax on people who refuse to purchase private health insurance. State officials will use the money from the tax to help middle income families — including families of four who earn as much as 0,000 a year — pay their monthly health insurance premiums."To Donald Trump: eat your heart out," Newsom said.___This story has been corrected to show the budget bill signing was last week. 3457

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general is demanding that a university journalism program return a state list that includes law enforcement officers convicted of crimes in the past decade, saying the information wasn't meant to be public and shouldn't have been given out by another agency.Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office sent reporters from the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California, Berkeley a notice that confidential information had been inadvertently released from a confidential database, the program reported Tuesday.The attorney general's office said possessing the list was a misdemeanor and asked the reporters to destroy it. They received it last month from California's police training agency through a public records request.The reporters refused, but so far have released only limited details about the list. They say the list of nearly 12,000 names includes current and former officers and those who applied to be officers. It's not clear how many are active officers and how many had never been officers.The list outlines crimes including shoplifting, child molestation, embezzlement and murder. It's not clear how many of the convicted officers remain on the job.In a statement to The Associated Press late Tuesday, Becerra's office reiterated its position that the information came from a confidential database to which the reporters should not have had access."State law protects the records of all Californians in this database by prohibiting the possession and use of this information by anyone not identified by statute," his office said.The report comes as he is also refusing to release old records of serious misconduct by his own justice department agents under a new law that requires the release. Becerra is citing conflicting court decisions on whether records should be made public for incidents that happened before the disclosure law took effect Jan. 1.In a letter to reporter Robert Lewis with the reporting program's production arm, Investigative Studios, Deputy Attorney General Michelle Mitchell said the criminal history information was taken from a confidential law enforcement database where "access to information is restricted by law.""You are hereby on notice that the unauthorized receipt or possession...is a misdemeanor," she wrote, threatening unspecified legal action.First Amendment Coalition executive director David Snyder told the reporting program that, "It's disheartening and ominous that the highest law enforcement officer in the state is threatening legal action over something the First Amendment makes clear can't give rise to criminal action against a reporter."Without providing many details, the reporting program said the list includes current, former or prospective officers who dealt drugs, stole from their departments, sexually assaulted suspects, took bribes, filed false reports and committed perjury. A large number drove drunk, and sometimes killed people while doing so.The reporting program said the list came after a law last year allowed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to keep records of when current or former officers are convicted of felonies or other crimes that would disqualify them from law enforcement. Previously, the commission would have to wait until the officer had exhausted all appeals before deeming them unqualified, but now the initial conviction is enough.That led the attorney general's office to provide the commission with the list of current and former officers with convictions. The commission provided the reporting program with 10 years' worth of convictions.Nic Marais, an attorney representing Investigative Studios, said in a letter to Becerra's office that the records are publicly releasable because they are summaries. He added that state law exempts reporters from prosecution for receiving records.Attorney Michael Rains, who represents police officers, told the reporting program that he understands there is public interest in police officers convicted of crimes, but said the same disclosure should apply to everyone. He noted there is no broad public disclosure of crimes committed by lawyers, doctors or teachers. 4210

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — New York Attorney General Letitia James is promising to expedite the release of body camera footage in cases of alleged police misconduct that her office investigates. James spoke Sunday in Rochester, which has been in turmoil since the footage of Daniel Prude’s fatal encounter with police was released more than five months after his death. James said her office “will be proactively releasing footage to the public on our own.” It's unclear how many cases will be affected by the policy, since the attorney general’s office does not review all footage of police interactions with the public. 620