玉溪一般人流多少钱呀玉溪打胎大概要多少钱,玉溪哪家医院可以人流,玉溪那家医院做无痛人流好多少钱,玉溪人流医院治疗,玉溪无痛人流那做的好,玉溪人流到哪家医院比较好,玉溪无痛人流的价位

The Supreme Court Monday rebuffed efforts by states to block funding to Planned Parenthood.It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women.It would have taken four justices to agree to hear the issue, and only three conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- voted to hear the case.Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the court's liberals in not taking up the case -- showing an effort to avoid high-profile abortion-related issues for now.Roberts and Kavanaugh "likely have serious objections," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But such votes seem to be a signal that they would rather avoid contentious, high-profile disputes for now, at least where possible."The case concerned whether states can block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates that provide such women with annual health screens, contraceptive coverage and cancer screening.Thomas wrote a dissent for the three conservatives, saying the court isn't doing its job."What explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" Thomas wrote."I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named Planned Parenthood," he wrote."But these cases are not about abortion rights," he said. "They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood's ability to challenge the states' decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits."The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2018 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 1873

The Week 12 game between the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers has now been moved to Wednesday, the National Football League announced on Monday.The league said the game will be played at 3:40 p.m. ET Wednesday on NBC.This is the third time this game has been moved.It was originally scheduled to be played on Thanksgiving night but was moved to Sunday due to a COVID-19 outbreak within the Ravens.It was then moved from Sunday to Tuesday, and now will be played Wednesday. Last week, reports from the NFL Network said Baltimore Ravens Quarterback Lamar Jackson tested positive for COVID-19.With the rescheduling, the league said other games will be moved around: Steelers will host the Washington Football Team on Monday at 5 p.m. ET which was originally slated for Sunday, while the Ravens will host the Dallas Cowboys on Tuesday, Dec. 8 at 8:05 p.m. ET on FOX/NFL."These decisions were made out of an abundance of caution to ensure the health and safety of players, coaches and game day personnel and in consultation with medical experts," says the NFL.Ravens Coach John Harbaugh released a statement regarding the postponement.We appreciate the efforts of the NFL and Pittsburgh Steelers throughout this process, while we all work to create an environment that keeps the health and safety of everyone involved at the forefront of each decision.Our organization has a plan in place, and we will be prepared to play the Steelers. We thank everyone for their adaptability and look forward to the challenge of facing a very good football team at Heinz Field on Tuesday night.Ravens player Pat Ricard spoke out about the COVID outbreak: The word is out, I tested positive yesterday for COVID. I’ll be using this time to rest/recover along w my teammates/staff who has been affected by this virus. I appreciate all the love and support. We will come back stronger than ever! ?????????— Pat Ricard (@PRic508) November 27, 2020 This story was first reported by Kelly Broderick at WMAR in Baltimore, Maryland. 2030

The Special Counsel's Office is hoping to deny an attempt by several media organizations, including CNN, to unseal documents in the Russia probe, by arguing that the documents need to remain private because of the breadth of still-secret parts of the ongoing investigation."The Special Counsel's investigation is not a closed matter, but an ongoing criminal investigation with multiple lines of non-public inquiry. No right of public access exists to search warrant materials in an ongoing investigation," Robert Mueller's team wrote in a filing Wednesday night.The prosecutors wrote in the firmest language yet about how their yearlong investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election continues and includes several interconnected parts, some of which may link back to searches of the belongings of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort that were also used to build cases against him unrelated to his work for the campaign.Manafort faces criminal indictments in Virginia and DC federal courts related to his foreign lobbying business from before the campaign. He's pleaded not guilty in both.Prosecutors have previously revealed that the Justice Department directed Mueller to look into allegations that Manafort coordinated with Russians during the campaign, yet they have not previously hinted that others besides Manafort could be central to the Russia probe. Wednesday's court filing acknowledges multiple relationships that are part of investigative threads."The investigation consists of multiple lines of inquiry within the overall scope of the Special Counsel's authority. Many aspects of the investigation are factually and legally interconnected: they involve overlapping courses of conduct, relationships, and events, and they rely on similar sources, methods, and techniques. The investigation is not complete and its details remain non-public," prosecutors wrote.If they were to be unsealed, "warrant materials reveal investigative sources and methods, preliminary factual and legal theories, and evidence that has already been gathered -- including from grand jury processes. They show what has been searched -- including electronic facilities where the search itself is protected by a non-disclosure order -- and indicate what has not been searched. And the dates and volume of warrants reveal an investigation's direction."The Special Counsel's Office said it wouldn't oppose formally unsealing two search warrants that were made public through recent court filings in Manafort's case, though parts of them remain heavily redacted.CNN, along with The Associated Press, Politico, The Washington Post and The New York Times, initially asked the court to unseal all the search warrants used in the investigations and other sealed documents related to Manafort's two federal criminal cases. 2838

The Trump campaign has officially filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin's Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn election results in the state.The Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed Joe Biden's victory Monday in the battleground state following a partial recount. Milwaukee and Dane counties finished their recounts over the weekend and results added to Biden's 20,600 vote margin over President Donald Trump.The president's campaign has repeatedly alleged fraud in the state's election, though it has not presented any proof. The election officials for both counties who did recounts said there was no fraud uncovered in the process.The WEC confirmation of the results opened a five-day window for the president's campaign to file a lawsuit.The campaign filed a lawsuit Tuesday morning, in an attempt to overturn results by disqualifying as many as 200,000 ballots."What we had is an abuse of the absentee process, dramatically in Dane and Milwaukee County,” said Jim Troupis, attorney for the Trump Campaign.The suit is specifically seeking to dismiss absentee ballots where the clerks' offices "inserted missing information,” people cast ballots "claiming Indefinite Confinement status" even If they "no longer qualified,” and absentee ballots "improperly cast or received at ‘Democracy in the Park’ events,” which were held in Madison.The lawsuit also targets many in-person absentee voters who the Trump campaign claims did not follow Wisconsin law which requires "voters submit a written application.""We introduce evidence in the proceeding we introduced evidence that they in fact followed the law. They in fact required appropriate application in advance of the in-person voting,” said Troupis.In a filing late Tuesday evening, Gov. Evers and his legal team issued a forceful rebuttal against the lawsuit: "President Trump’s Petition seeks nothing less than to overturn the will of nearly 3.3 million Wisconsin voters. It is a shocking and outrageous assault on our democracy. The relief he seeks is wrong as a matter of law, incorrect as a matter of fact, and mistaken as a matter of procedure. Indeed, he has sought relief in the wrong court and has refused to follow the proper steps under the statute that he himself acknowledges governs the appeal of recounts. And by focusing on alleged technical violations in only two counties, he has made plain 7 that his intent is not to fairly determine who Wisconsinites voted for to lead our country. He is simply trying to seize Wisconsin’s electoral votes, even though he lost the statewide election."Mayor Tom Barrett says Milwaukee conducted in-person absentee voting exactly like all the other counties in the state. Barrett addressed the Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday to voice his opposition to the Trump campaign's attempt to throw out those votes."They are challenging the entire election system in Wisconsin claiming entire groups of absentee by mail and absentee in person were not legitimate. And I would add they are only doing it in select counties. These claims are obviously an egregious attempt to discredit this fair election,” said Barrett.Wisconsin Election Commissioner and Republican Dean Knudson spoke out Tuesday afternoon in the commission meeting that he believes this lawsuit still proves Wisconsin has safe elections.“I am in a position to look at fraud in Wisconsin and I have yet to see a credible claim of fraudulent activity in this election. The Trump campaign has not made any claims of fraud in this election. The filing in, there is some disputes over matters of law,” said Knudson.The WEC has debunked previous claims for the campaign about fraud in the election process.The president's campaign lawsuit included four instances where it claims votes were counted illegally:Lawsuit claims municipal clerks were instructed to fill in missing information on returned absentee ballots based on their "personal knowledge" or "lists or databases."Lawsuit claims municipal clerks issued absentee ballots to voters without requiring written absentee ballot applications.Lawsuit claims election officials permitted voters who claimed to be indefinitely confined to "circumvent voter ID laws" without "meeting the requirements for that status."Lawsuit claims the city of Madison created "unlawful polling locations at over 200 parks and city locations" through its Democracy in the Park voting events. The suit claims that these locations were outside of the county's approved polling locationsRead the full petition below:2020AP1971 Pet for Orig Action (12!1!20) by TODAY'S TMJ4 on ScribdRead the supporting memo below:2020AP1971 Memo in Supp Pet. Orig Action (12!1!20) by TODAY'S TMJ4 on ScribdThis story was originally published by WTMJ in Milwaukee. 4761

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to take up a case concerning the government's decision to phase out an Obama-era initiative that protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.In doing so, government lawyers sought to bypass federal appeals courts that have yet to rule definitively on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.In court papers, Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the justices to take up the case this term and argued that district judges who had issued opinions against the administration were "wrong" to do so. Francisco pointed out that back in 2012 the Obama administration allowed some "700,000 aliens to remain in the United States even though existing laws provided them no ability to do so."Francisco said that "after a change in administrations" the Department of Homeland Security ended the policy "based on serious doubts about its legality and the practical implications of maintaining it."The filing came the night before the midterm elections as President Donald Trump has repeatedly brought up immigration to rally his base in the final hours before the vote.In September 2017, the government announced plans to phase out the program, but lower court judges blocked the administration from doing so and ordered that renewals of protections for recipients continue until the appeals are resolved.The legality of the program is not at issue in the case. Instead, lower courts are examining how the government chose to wind it down.Supporters of the roughly 700,000 young immigrants who could be affected by the end of DACA say the administration's actions were arbitrary and in violation of federal law. 1736