郑州治疗儿童近视哪里最好(郑州郑州眼科医院在那) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Despite a late-night tweet in which President Donald Trump attacked Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and called on him to declare a special session in the hopes of overturning election results in the state, Georgia's Elecoral College vote went off without a hitch on Monday and the state awarded all 16 of its votes to president-elect Joe Biden.In a tweet early Monday morning, Trump called Kemp both a "fool" and a "clown," Trump wrote that his supporters should demand the governor “call a Special Session and open up signature verification, NOW.”Without proof, Trump claimed that if the state legislator doesn’t call a special session in an attempt to appoint new Electoral College voters in his favor, it could negatively affect the GOP’s chances of holding on to their two U.S. Senate seats in Georgia’s runoff elections.“Otherwise, could be a bad day for two GREAT Senators on January 5th,” wrote Trump.Georgia’s two Senate seats will determine which party controls the chamber come next year. Democrats would need to win both seat to take control back.Despite the threats, Georgia convened its noon ET Electoral College vote and granted all 16 votes to Biden. That vote was held without incident or interruption.However, while Georgia electors were casting their ballots, Republican electors held their own vote in a separate room of the Capitol, according to the Washington Post and WSB-TV, wrongly claiming that the election has yet to be decided. That vote is inconsequential and will have no legal bearing.The next big date in the 2020 election will be Jan. 6, when the House and Senate will hold a joint session to count the electoral votes. Biden will then be sworn in on Jan. 20, Inauguration Day.Trump’s tweet is only the latest in the ongoing feud between him and the governor. The Washington Post detailed the feud in an article Monday that says Trump is “furious with Kemp for not heeding his calls to question the integrity of the state’s election results." Since the election, The Post reports Trump has berated Kemp on phone calls and said the governor was losing all his popularity for not fully supporting him.Last week, Georgia recertified President-elect Joe Biden won the state after multiple recounts showed the Democrat defeated Trump by more than 11,000 votes. Even if Trump was able to somehow overturn the Georgia election in his favor, he would still be far behind Biden in electoral votes. 2440

WELLINGTON, Florida — Imagine going to the hospital to have back surgery, only to wake up and learn one of your major organs was mistakenly removed.That nightmare was a reality for one West Palm Beach, Florida woman at Wellington Regional Medical Center.“It was an ordinary day," described Maureen Pacheco, who was 51 when it happened back in April 2016.Pacheco was suffering from back pains from a car accident and after a lengthy process and diagnosis from her doctors, she was checked into Wellington Regional to have back surgery to help with the pains.“There was no red flags or anything," she said of the day she went into the operating room.But she ended leaving the hospital without one of her healthy kidneys. One of the surgeons, Dr. Ramon Vazquez, mistook it for a cancerous tumor and removed it from her body without her consent.“He just took my life and just dismissed it," said Pacheco.Pacheco recently settled in a lawsuit against her doctors  -- Dr. John Britt and Dr. Jeffrey Kugler -- and Dr. Vazquez.However, a complaint by the Florida Department of Health is still ongoing. Adding to the frustration, Pacheco says Dr. Vazquez wasn't even her doctor -- his job was just to cut her open so her physicians could perform the back surgery.“If he would have looked at the MRIs that were given to him, he would’ve realized it," she said. According to the state's?health department website, Dr. Vazquez has an active medical license. The site shows him practicing at with Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, St. Mary's Medical Center and Good Samaritan Hospital in West Palm Beach, and Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton Beach.“Physicians do get second chances," said Pacheco's attorney, Donald Ward III of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA in West Palm Beach.“It’s unlikely that he would lose his license over something like this. What is most likely is that he would face a fine and possibly be required to do some continuing medical education so that he could learn not to make the same mistake in the future," he added.Ward said Dr. Vazquez would have to pay that fine out of pocket because he didn’t have malpractice insurance.“What is not common is for you to meet that general surgeon the morning of and be told that if something were to happen to you, that general surgeon doesn’t carry any health insurance whatsoever," he said.Dr. Vazquez's attorney, Mike Mittelmark, said his client settled the matter for a nominal amount due to the uncertainty of litigation. He added that in no way did Dr. Vazquez admit liability by agreeing to the settlement.“I wish no ill will against him. Everyone is entitled to their livelihood but you should have consequences when gross mistakes and negligence are made," said Pacheco. “I just wish that he learns a lesson from the consequences."Pacheco said no amount of money will fix the complications she faces for the rest of her life.“It’s always in the back of my mind -- lifelong kidney transplant or dialysis," she said. “Now, I’m always fearful.”Wellington Regional Medical Center issued this statement in response to WPTV's request for comment: 3147

WASHINGTON (AP) — Responding to an outcry from medical experts, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn on Tuesday apologized for overstating the life-saving benefits of treating COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma.Scientists and medical experts have been pushing back against the claims about the treatment since President Donald Trump’s announcement on Sunday that the FDA had decided to issue emergency authorization for convalescent plasma, taken from patients who have recovered from the coronavirus and rich in antibodies.Trump hailed the decision as a historic breakthrough even though the treatment’s value has not been established.Hahn had echoed Trump in saying that 35 more people out of 100 would survive the coronavirus if they were treated with the plasma. That claim vastly overstated preliminary findings of Mayo Clinic observation. 878

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This year has been a historic one for the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only did the justices rule on several important cases with far-reaching consequences, but they’ve done a majority of their work virtually due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.The justices released the last of their opinions on Thursday. Catch up on some of the most significant rulings from the term:Trump’s financial recordsOn Thursday, July 9, the court made rulings in two separate cases regarding President Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records.The first decision was a blow to Trump. Justices ruled that New York prosecutors could see the financial documents as part of a criminal investigation that includes hush-money to women who claim they had affairs with Trump.But in the second case, the court ruled that Congress could not obtain many of the same records, at least for now. The case will be returned to the lower courts, which will consider separation of powers concerns.In the end, the decisions mean the records will likely remain shielded from the public until after the election, or perhaps infinitely.Native American land and OklahomaOn Thursday, July 9, the court ruled that nearly half of the state of Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, including much of Tulsa.The case revolved around a Native American man who argued that state courts didn’t have authorities to try him for crime committed on the lands of Muscogee (Creek) Nation.Justices agreed that Oklahoma prosecutors lack the authorities to pursue criminal cases in the large chunk of the state that remains a Native America reservation.“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”Religion and teachersOn Wednesday, July 8, the court ruled that federal discrimination laws don’t apply to teachers at religious elementary schools.The justices expanded the "ministerial exception," siding with a California Catholic school that did not renew the contracts of two teachers.Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said "state interference" in religious education would violate the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.Birth controlOn Wednesday, July 8, the court upheld a Trump administration regulation that lets some employers refuse to provide free contraceptive coverage on religious or moral grounds.A provision in the Affordable Care Act mandated that most employers provide cost-free coverage for contraception, but the current administration moved to end that requirement.The decision could leave 70,000 to 126,000 without contraceptive coverage. The women may have to pay to per month out of pocket.Electoral College and statesOn Monday, July 6, the court ruled that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.The ruling upholds laws across the country, like in Colorado and Washington, that remove or punish delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.In states without such penalties, electors remain free to change their votes.“The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for president,” Justice Kagan wrote in the opinion.Religion and schoolsOn Tuesday, June 30, the court ruled that states can’t cut religious schools out of programs that send public money to private education.The case involved parents in Montana who sought to use a state scholarship program to send their children to religious schools."A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.Abortion and clinic doctorsOn Monday, June 29, the court struck down a Louisiana law that regulated abortion clinics.Justices ruled that law, which requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospital, violates abortion rights established in the Roe v. Wade decision.If the court would have upheld the law, Louisiana would have been left with only one abortion clinic in the state. The court struck down a nearly identical law out of Texas in 2016.The ruling was a major setback for conservatives hoping that the court would sustain abortion restrictions and eventually overrule Roe v. Wade.Dreamers and immigration lawOn Thursday, June 18, the court ruled that the Trump administration may not proceed with its plan to end legal protections for 650,000 young immigrants, known as Dreamers.Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal justices in upholding the Differed Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but the chief justice said the decision was based on procedural issues and that Trump could try again to end protections.Former President Barack Obama established DACA through an executive order in 2012. The program allows undocumented immigrants, many who were brought to the U.S. as children, to continue working in America.Given Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric during his 2016 campaign and the restrictions the White House has imposed since then, the president is expected to use the court’s decision to elevate immigration issues in his bid for reelection.LGBTQ and workplace rightsOn Monday, June 15, the LGBTQ community celebrated a historic ruling from the court. Justices ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Acts protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex.“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” wrote Trump’s first appointee Neil Gorsuch in the majority opinion.Until the ruling, it was legal in more than half of the states to fire workers for being gay, bisexual or transgender.The ruling came as a surprise to many, with Gorsuch joining Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal leaning justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 6222

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump officially named Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee over the weekend.What we know about herBarrett has long been rumored to be a possible Supreme Court justice and before being nominated, she was believed to be the favorite among conservatives to take the seat vacated by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Barrett is currently serving on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and she spent several years as a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she also earned her own law degree.Barrett is believed to be a true conservative, having formerly clerked for the late right-wing beacon Justice Antonin Scalia. If appointed to the high court, her rulings would likely be in line with her mentor. When accepting Trump’s nomination on Saturday, she said Scalia’s “judicial philosophy is mine, too.” Scalia helped popularize the idea of originalism, which follows the idea that courts should interpret the Constitution as it was originally intended by those who wrote it.In recent years, Barrett has sided with conservatives on cases involving immigration, guns rights and abortion.In a 2017 article, Barrett took issue with Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling to keep the Affordable Care Act intact in 2012. Writing for the Norte Dame Law Journal, Barrett said “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute."Barrett is also by legal standards young at only 48 years of age. Recently, both political parties have opted for younger justices to ensure they can serve for decades.Barrett and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti. They live in South Bend, Indiana, but the judge was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, where she was raised Catholic.If appointed to the Supreme Court, conservatives would hold a 6-3 majority over their liberal colleagues.Senate Republicans plan on swiftly moving forward with Barrett’s nomination, despite being weeks away from the general election.The confirmation process is sure to be a contentious one, with Democrats expected to highlight the possibility of the Affordable Care Act being dismantled and the fate of a woman’s right to choose in question.Watch Barrett accept the Supreme Court nomination: 2326

来源：资阳报