上海颅内血管瘤严重吗(上海左肺下叶结节什么意思) (今日更新中)

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The US Food and Drug Administration has raised alarm about one way people might access opioids to misuse and abuse: their pets.As America's opioid epidemic rages, some pet owners could be stealing pain medications intended for their furry friends, according to a statement from FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb."We recognize that opioids and other pain medications have a legitimate and important role in treating pain in animals -- just as they do for people," Gottlieb said in Wednesday's statement."But just like the opioid medications used in humans, these drugs have potentially serious risks, not just for the animal patients, but also because of their potential to lead to addiction, abuse and overdose in humans who may divert them for their own use," he said.Gottlieb also said there hasn't been much information about responsible opioid prescribing for veterinary medicine professionals, and so the FDA developed a resource guide on what veterinarians need to know.The resource includes information on state and federal regulations, alternatives to opioids and how to properly safeguard and store opioids, as well as how to identify if a client or employee may be abusing opioids and take action with a safety plan."While each state creates its own regulations for the practice of veterinary medicine within its borders, including regulations about secure storage of controlled substances like opioids, veterinarians should also follow professional standards set by the American Veterinary Medical Association in prescribing these products to ensure those who are working with these powerful medications understand the risks and their role in combatting this epidemic," Gottlieb said."Veterinarians are also required to be licensed by the Drug Enforcement [Administration] to prescribe opioids to animal patients, as are all health care providers when prescribing for use in humans," he said."These measures are in place to help ensure the critical balance between making sure animals can be humanely treated for their pain, while also addressing the realities of the epidemic of misuse, abuse and overdose when these drugs are diverted and used illegally by humans."The FDA statement came one week after a perspective paper in the American Journal of Public Health called for the veterinary, public health, pharmaceutical and regulatory communities to dedicate time and resources to addressing the issue of prescription opioid diversion in veterinary medicine."I was thrilled to see the FDA commissioner make a statement that not only validated our findings but also demonstrates why research is so important for good policy," said Liliana Tenney, a senior instructor with the Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and deputy director of the Center for Health, Work & Environment, who was a co-author of the paper.Tenney was unaware of the FDA statement until CNN contacted her for an interview, she said.The paper included data from a 24-item online survey that 189 veterinarians in Colorado completed in collaboration with a local veterinary society. The survey, which was about the possible abuse and misuse of opioids by pet owners and the role veterinarians play in prevention, was administered in summer 2016, Tenney said.The survey results showed that 13% of the veterinarians were aware that an animal owner had intentionally made an animal ill or injured -- or seem to be ill or injured -- to obtain opioid medications."This is significant for two reasons. These providers want to ensure the treatment of pets," Tenney said. "If this is truly the case and pet owners are intentionally harming animals, that's an animal rights issue. If opioids are being prescribed and aren't getting to the pets that need them because these drugs are being diverted, that's a public health issue."The survey results also showed that 44% of the veterinarians were aware of opioid abuse or misuse by either a client or a veterinary practice staff member, and 62% believed that they had a role in preventing opioid abuse and misuse."We recognize that this ... sample, representing 10% of the society's members, has limited generalizability and cannot be used to extrapolate to all practices. Nonetheless, these data are sufficient to warrant immediate action," the authors wrote.American Veterinary Medical Association spokesman Michael San Filippo emphasized in a statement Wednesday that the association has provided resources for veterinary staff to help combat this issue and the association will continue to monitor the situation."Though our animal patients are not the ones struggling with opioid addiction, concerns about misuse and diversion are top-of-mind for the veterinary profession, and the AVMA is actively involved in providing resources to practitioners describing alternative ways to treat pain and minimize opioid use," the statement said."While the limited data available suggests diversion from veterinary practices isn't a widespread problem, that doesn't mean we should pretend it doesn't exist," it said. "In fact, AVMA policy calls for further research to determine the prevalence of veterinary drug shoppers and to further clarify the degree to which veterinary prescriptions are impacting, or not, the human opioid epidemic."? & ? 2018 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 5456

The US asked China to close Consulate General in Houston in 72 hours. This is a crazy move.— Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) July 22, 2020 141

The sheriff's sergeant who initially responded to last month's mass shooting at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, was fatally shot by gunfire from a California Highway Patrol officer, officials said Friday.Sgt. Ron Helus was struck five times by gunfire from the suspect, Ian David Long, according to Ventura County Sheriff Bill Ayub, but was hit by a sixth bullet from a CHP officer's rifle.Helus could have potentially survived the five wounds from Long's weapon, but the sixth bullet proved fatal. It struck Helus in the chest and his heart, according to Dr. Christopher Young, the Ventura County medical examiner. It was the "most lethal wound" Helus sustained, Young said.The 29-year law enforcement veteran was set to retire from the Ventura County Sheriff's Office next year. He was among the first officers through the door at the Borderline when the shooting began November 8 and was shot as he tried to stop the gunman, who killed 11 others in the attack.Helus later died at a hospital. 1029

The Senate approved Mike Pompeo's nomination as the next secretary of state on Thursday, installing the former CIA Director as the nation's top diplomat at a time when several high stakes negotiations are underway around the globe.The vote was 57-42.Present Republicans approved Pompeo. In addition, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine had also announced his support as have several Democrats: Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Doug Jones of Alabama, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. 521

来源：资阳报