徐州孕几月做四维(徐州孕妇做四维彩超的好处) (今日更新中)

In a stunning announcement to those in preparing to embark into medical school, New York University announced it would offer free tuition to all NYU medical program students — current and future.The reveal came during NYU School of Medicine's annual "White Coat Ceremony," where each new student is presented with a white lab coat to mark the start of their medical education and training.The bold offering is available to all current and future students in NYU's MD degree program, "regardless of need or merit.""Thanks to the extraordinary generosity of our trustees, alumni, and friends, our hope — and expectation — is that by making medical school accessible to a broader range of applicants, we will be a catalyst for transforming medical education nationwide," Kenneth G. Langone, Chair of the Board of Trustees of NYU Langone Health, said.The annual tuition costs covered by the scholarship is about ,000.NYU's free tuition initiative began with an endowment. So far, the university has raised more than 0 million of the roughly 0 million needed to fund full-tuition scholarships for all medical students "in perpetuity," according to ABC News.Crushing college debt strikes medical students particularly hard.About 75 percent of all doctors in the U.S. graduated with debt in 2017, the university said. The average cost for a private medical school is about ,605 a year. The median debt of a graduating student comes out to more about 2,000, NYU says."We believe that with our tuition-free initiative, we have taken a necessary, rational step that addresses a critical need to train the most talented physicians, unencumbered by crushing debt," said Robert I. Grossman, the Saul J. Farber Dean of NYU School of Medicine. "We hope that many other academic medical centers will soon choose to join us on this path." 1874

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference regarding the extension of increased unemployment benefits on Friday, hours before those benefits are set to expire.As part of the CARES Act, a coronavirus stimulus bill passed by Congress in March, federal unemployment benefits were increased by 0 a week. At the time, lawmakers thought it was a necessary move as millions lost their jobs amid lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus.However, those benefits are set to expire this weekend. And with the unemployment rate still in double digits and the virus spreading at its highest levels yet, Democrats say increased unemployment benefits should be extended.On Thursday, reports emerged that Republicans were considering extending unemployment benefits, only at a level of about 0 a week. GOP lawmakers are expected to unveil their plan for another round of coronavirus stimulus next week.Pelosi slammed the Republicans' delay in her press conference Friday, calling it a "dereliction" of their duty. She asked that Republicans "get something on paper" so that Democrats and the American people could see their plan.House Democrats passed the HEROES Act in May — a trillion bill that would extend the 0 unemployment benefits through the end of the year. It would also extend those benefits to gig workers, independent contractors, and other self-employed people.Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, called on Congress to keep up the "momentum" of the CARES Act by adopting the HEROES Act.Republicans argue that extending the benefits is too expensive and that the ,400 payments encourage people not to seek unemployment. However, Rep. Danny Davis, D-Illinois, argued that the benefits were needed because COVID-19 made it too dangerous for some to work, made others unable to work due to lost jobs, and made childcare more difficult due to the closure of schools. 1893

If American religion were traded at a stock exchange, your broker might be telling you to sell. The trend lines don't look great and haven't for quite some time.Social scientists and religious leaders have lots of theories about the long, slow slide, blaming it on everything from the internet to the politicization of conservative Christianity.A new Pew Research Center study offers something different: a survey of 4,729 Americans telling us precisely why they do (or don't) attend religious services.Some of their answers are unsurprising. Americans who don't believe in religion don't often attend church. Because duh.But the survey may confound other stereotypes about other Americans who rarely, if ever, attend church. As it turns out, they're all not atheists, or even members of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd. Many say religion is important in their lives, and lean conservative, politically."The people who attend religious services less often are not a monolithic group," said Becka Alper, a research associate at Pew.First, here are the top 10 reasons given by Americans who attend religious services at least once a month, according to Pew. Survey respondents were allowed to give more than one reason. The percentage refers to people who said this was a "very important" reason for their decision: 1329

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday cleared the way for the U.S. government to forbid Central American immigrants from seeking asylum at the two busiest stretches of the southern border in a partial legal victory for the Trump administration.The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows President Donald Trump to enforce the policy in New Mexico and Texas, rejecting asylum seekers who cross from Mexico into either state. Under Friday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar's July 24 order stopping the policy would apply only in California and Arizona, which are covered by the 9th Circuit.The two busiest areas for unauthorized border crossings are in South Texas' Rio Grande Valley and the region around El Paso, Texas, which includes New Mexico. Nearly 50,000 people in July crossed the U.S. border without permission in those two regions, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.The policy would deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there. Most crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty, who would largely be ineligible. The policy would also apply to people from Africa, Asia, and South America who come to the southern border to request asylum.If the policy is implemented, ineligible migrants who cross in New Mexico and Texas could be detained and more quickly deported. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.Under American law, people can request asylum when they arrive in the U.S. regardless of how they enter. The law makes an exception for those who have come through a country considered to be "safe" pursuant to an agreement between the U.S. and that country.Canada and the U.S. have a "safe third country" agreement. But the U.S. doesn't have one with Mexico or countries in Central America. The Trump administration has tried to sign one with Guatemala, but the country's incoming president said this week that Guatemala would not be able to uphold a tentative deal reached by his predecessor.The U.S. government is already turning away many asylum seekers at the southern border.About 30,000 people have been returned to Mexico to await asylum hearings under the government's Migrant Protection Protocols program. Tens of thousands of others are waiting in shelters and camps to present themselves to U.S. border agents at official ports of entry that have strict daily limits on asylum seekers.Mexico's asylum system is itself overwhelmed, and there are widespread reports of migrants being attacked and extorted . Border cities across from New Mexico and Texas include Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, and Reynosa, all of which are well-known for their violence and gang presence.Tigar had ruled the policy could expose migrants to violence and abuse, deny their rights under international law, and return them to countries they were fleeing.The appeals court ruled that Tigar's order hadn't considered whether a nationwide order was necessary and that there wasn't enough evidence presented yet to conclude that it was. The court instructed Tigar to "further develop the record in support of a preliminary injunction" extending nationwide.Judges Mark Bennett and Milan Smith voted to limit Tigar's order. Judge A. Wallace Tashima dissented.Tigar is a nominee of former President Barack Obama. Trump previously derided Tigar as an "Obama judge" after Tigar ruled against another set of asylum restrictions last year. That comment led to an unusual rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who said the judiciary did not have "Obama judges or Clinton judges."Trump nominated Bennett, while Smith was nominated by former President George W. Bush. Tashima was nominated by former President Bill Clinton.The American Civil Liberties Union and other legal groups sued the Trump administration after it announced the restrictions last month."We will continue fighting to end the ban entirely and permanently," said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the ACLU.The Department of Justice declined to comment. 4105

In an emergency, seconds count. But people living in low-income neighborhoods are waiting longer to get help.A new nationwide study released by the University of California San Francisco looked at more than 63,000 cardiac arrest cases and found, on average, it took ambulances nearly four minutes longer to get to patients in low-income neighborhoods compared to rich neighborhoods.“Ambulance response times is really, really important for health outcomes with regards to heart attacks,” says Andrew Friedson, an assistant professor of economics with the University of Colorado Denver.In fact, each minute delayed increases the odd that patient will not survive.“If you live in a wealthier area, your life expectancy is much longer than someone who lives in a poorer area,” Friedson says. “And this paper is starting to get into the mechanism as to one of the reasons this may be the case and that is ambulances tend to be a lot faster in area that are richer opposed to areas that are poorer.”Friedson, who studies economic disparities in healthcare, says one of the biggest reasons behind the difference in ambulance response times has to do with money.“You have a lot more specialty centers that are opening up in wealthier areas and you have hospitals that are closing in poorer areas, so it's not a question of the ambulances are going slower, but it's that the ambulances have further to travel.”With those hospital closures and the rising cost of health care, the authors of the study hope the report will start a conversation about what can be done to help vulnerable patients. 1593

来源：资阳报