在宜宾祛眼袋哪家效果好宜宾去除眼袋手术费用,宜宾治疗眼袋哪里好,宜宾埋线双眼皮如何拆线,宜宾做双眼皮价格是多少,宜宾有什么脱毛手术,宜宾脱毛每次价格,宜宾埋线双眼皮保持几年

The Senate has passed its long-stalled legislation that would overhaul how sexual harassment complaints are made and handled on Capitol Hill and would hold members of Congress personally responsible for paying such settlements out of their own pockets.The legislation moved forward following a deal reached by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt and Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and praised by leaders of both parties in the Senate.The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives, which passed its version in February and where the expectation is that there will be a conference committee to work out the differences between the two bills after Congress returns from its weeklong Memorial Day recess.The differences between the House's and Senate's versions of the legislation include the language used in describing when a member would be required to pay for settlements -- and when they would not -- and the reporting of settlements.California Republican Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the chief negotiators of the House's bill said that there is "disappointment" in Senate's bill among some members on both sides of the aisle in the House."We will go to conference and hopefully we can iron out some of those differences," Speier said Thursday on CNN's "New Day."There also is criticism of the Senate's bill among some outside advocacy groups, which have written to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Chuck Schumer expressing concern that the House bill became essentially too watered down in the Senate's negotiations."This bill contains numerous provisions that are contrary to key principles we've previously articulated, falls short of an acceptable compromise, and may have unintended negative consequences," says a letter sent to Senate leaders signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Equal Pay Today, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights National Women's Law Center and Public Citizen.Additionally, these groups say they see "significant differences" between the House and Senate bills and are "deeply concerned" that "neither senators nor key stakeholders have been given adequate time to fully vet the bill."Congressional sources tell CNN there are numerous areas that the discussion will center on when the two sides meet to work out a compromise.Among the chief areas of concern: The provision for members being held personally responsible in the Senate bill states that they have to pay out of pocket only for sexual harassment, not for any awards that may be ordered for sex discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. Some fear that could provide a loophole for members who are accused of harassment to settle with a victim for sex discrimination, knowing that they won't be required to pay the settlement and it will instead come out of a US Treasury fund.Additionally, there is concern that in the Senate's legislation would empower and involve the Ethics Committee more so than the House's. The Senate version would give the chair and ranking member of the committee the authority to overrule settlement repayments. The House bill would create a third-party investigatory process instead. 3183

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 risk of homelessness looms large for many across the country as people deal with job loss and economic uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates, right now, there are 567,000 people who call the streets their home, a number that has only risen since March.There are shelters, soup kitchens, and myriad charities to help, but the group Foundations for Social Change, a charitable organization based in Vancouver, Canada, suggests one source of help trumps the rest: money.“Sometimes a little bit of a hand up can mean all the difference in whether or not someone is going to stabilize and get into housing or not,” said chief public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Cathy Alderman.It might seem like an obvious solution, but it is challenged by the preconceived notion that people battling homelessness might squander the money or spend it on harmful habits like alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes.“I think it’s not surprising at all that people who are struggling with the cost of living and forced to sleep outside would use dollars given to them to get inside into a home,” said Alderman.In September, Foundations for Social Change wrapped up nearly two years of research that suggests those in less fortunate circumstances would use money to help secure food and housing, rather than illicit substances.Back in 2018, the group gave 50 people battling homelessness in Vancouver a lump sum of ,700, without restriction, to see what they would spend it on, and they compared the findings to a group of 60 homeless individuals who were not given any lump sum.Foundations for Social Change found that in the first month, the group that received the payment, 70 percent of them were able to access a sustainable food source that they maintained for the rest of the year. They also found stable housing at a rate that outpaced those who had not received the payments by 12 months.The researchers also found that spending on items like drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes decreased by 39 percent.“The key findings were phenomenal and were even well beyond my expectations,” said one of the head researchers, Dr. Jiaying Zhao. “This actually is counter to our common assumptions of how these folks will spend their money and cash, so that was very good to see.”“I would save a third, spend a third on things I know I needed, and then give a third away,” said Benjamin Dunning, who was homeless for nearly five years following the Great Recession in 2008. “There just wasn’t any work available and I was like, 'well, better dig in for the long haul.'"Dunning says following an injury that prevented him from working he was no longer able to afford rent in the Denver suburb where he lived. He says he moved from shelter to shelter, trying to weather the storm before he was able to find a community of other people in a similar situation that offered a little more stability and a consistent roof over his head.“One thing I found out is [the homeless people I was around] were just like my neighbors in the suburbs,” said Dunning. “Most of them were people who had gotten stuck on hard times and trying to figure out how to deal with it.”The study by Foundations for Social Change focused on people who had been homeless for a year or less and who had been screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse. So, Dr. Zhao says this is not a silver bullet, but an encouraging sign to help solve an issue that has several layers of complexity. 3546

The Transportation Security Administration is considering eliminating passenger screening at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports across the US, according to senior agency officials and internal documents obtained by CNN.The proposal, if implemented, would mark a major change for air travel in the US, following nearly two decades of TSA presence since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and comes as the Trump administration has stepped up screening measures for items such as laptops and tablets.Internal documents from a TSA working group say the proposal to cut screening at small and some medium-sized airports serving aircraft with 60 seats or fewer could bring a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."The internal documents from June and July suggest the move could save 5 million annually, money that could be used to bolster security at larger airports.According to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major airports for connecting flights instead of the current practice of joining the already screened population at the larger airport. The high-volume airports have greater capacities and more advanced security measures than smaller locations, the documents say.CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said it was "stunning that this is even seriously being considered.""Al Qaeda and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target -- that includes aircraft where you have fewer than 60 people on board," he said. "They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States. If you have an aircraft of 50 or so people being blown out of the sky there is going to be a great amount of panic and there will indeed be significant economic reverberations, and of course significant loss of life.""This is so dangerous," a TSA field leader at a large airport said. The individual is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.Two senior TSA officials, who asked not to be identified, expressed serious national security concerns over the proposal. They said the idea was explored as far back as 2011 and has been resurrected. The documents referred to some 150 small airports in addition to some midsize ones. TSA currently screens passengers at 440 airports, according to its website.The working group determined that the policy change would affect about 10,000 passengers who are screened by 1,299 TSA employees daily, which amounts to about 0.5% of the people who fly out of US airports on any given day. The report does not list specific airports that could be affected by the policy change.TSA spokesman Michael Bilello said the study reflects a recurring debate within the agency about its legal requirements."This is not a new issue," he said via email. "The regulations which established TSA does not require screening below a certain level, so every year is 'the year' that TSA will reconsider screening." Bilello did not respond to a request for the text of the regulations.The two TSA senior officials said the level of activity around the proposal this year -- the formation of a working group to conduct a risk and cost analysis -- mean this is more than an annual exercise.The documents said a TSA working group of 20 people, including a representative of the agency's administrator's office, met on June 21 to examine the potential risks of the policy change. An internal TSA memo dated July 17 from TSA Director of Enterprise Performance and Risk Strategy Jerry Booker to the TSA administrator's chief of staff, Ha Nguyen McNeill, outlines the group's findings. It contains no formal recommendation. 3761

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded a warning about several hand sanitizer products that have been found to contain wood alcohol, which can potentially be deadly to ingest or absorb through the skin.The agency says there has been a sharp increase in products that claim to contain ethanol (also known as ethyl alcohol) but have tested positive for methanol, or wood alcohol.Methanol can be toxic when absorbed through the skin or ingested and can be life-threatening, according to the FDA.Substantial methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death, the FDA says."Methanol is not an acceptable ingredient for hand sanitizers and should not be used due to its toxic effects," the FDA wrote in their statement.While anyone who puts methanol on their hands is at risk, officials say young children who accidentally ingest these products and adolescents and adults who drink these products as an alcohol (ethanol) substitute, are most at risk for methanol poisoning.The FDA says consumers who have been exposed to hand sanitizers with methanol who are experiencing symptoms should seek treatment immediately.The FDA says it is especially concerned with:The dangers of drinking any hand sanitizer under any conditions. While hand sanitizers with possible methanol contamination are more life-threatening than those that are not contaminated, FDA urges consumers not to drink any of these products.Certain hand sanitizers that may not contain a sufficient amount of ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol.Hand sanitizers that are sold or offered for sale with false and misleading, unproven claims that they can prevent the spread of viruses such as COVID-19, including claims that they can provide prolonged protection (e.g., for up to 24-hours).Products that are fraudulently marketed as “FDA-approved” since there are no hand sanitizers approved by FDA.Products packaged to appear as drinks, candy or liquor bottles, as well as products marketed as drinks or cocktails because their appearance could result in accidental ingestion or encourage ingestion. Children are particularly at risk with these products since ingesting only a small amount of hand sanitizer may be lethal in a young child.Below is a list of the products in the warning:CompanyProduct(s)NDCProduct statusGrupo Insoma, S.A.P.I de CV (Mexico)Hand sanitizer Gel Unscented 70% Alcohol75744-0200-375744-0200-475744-0201-575744-0202-175744-0250-175744-0250-275744-0500-175744-1000-175744-1000-375744-1001-1FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Transliquid Technologies (Mexico)Mystic Shield Protection hand sanitizer75477-435-0275477-435-1075477-435-1275477-435-2575477-435-5075477-534-10Contains methanolSoluciones Cosmeticas SA de CV (Mexico)Bersih Hand Sanitizer Gel Fragrance Free75165-003-0275165-004-0175165-005-0175165-006-0175165-008-0175165-250-0175165-600-01FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Soluciones Cosmeticas SA de CV (Mexico)Antiseptic Alcohol 70% Topical Solution hand sanitizerNot listedFDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Tropicosmeticos SA de CV (Mexico)Britz Hand Sanitizer Ethyl Alcohol 70%76676-402-0177676-402-0277676-402-0377676-402-0477676-402-0577676-402-0677676-402-0777676-402-0877676-402-0977676-402-1077676-402-1177676-402-1277676-402-1377676-402-1477676-402-1677676-402-1777676-402-1877676-402-1977676-402-20FDA tested product; contains methanol; FDA recommended a recall on 07/01/2020Eskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)All-Clean Hand Sanitizer74589-002-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer74589-007-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer74589-006-01FDA tested product; contains methanolEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer74589-010-10Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol74589-005-03Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75% Alcohol74589-009-01FDA tested product; contains methanolEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80% Alcohol74589-003-01Product purported to be made at the same facilityEskbiochem SA de CV (Mexico)Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer74589-001-01Product purported to be made at the same facility; product recalled by Saniderm Products and UVT Inc.Click here for more information.This story was originally published by staff at WFTS, with contributions from WTXL. 4799