[Swlugevents] New Research Uncovers Trick To Burn Fat FAST

[MetabolicNews]

How To LOSE 20-40 Lbs in 2013? (Hint: Eat this 1 TINY Fruit)...

http://www.ncediannept.us/2576/170/369/1388/2867.10tt74103107AAF11.php







Unsub- http://www.ncediannept.us/2576/170/369/1388/2867.10tt74103107AAF12.html












a year later, neither side in the contraception 
debate was happy with the FDA's surprise twist, which many perceived as 
an attempt to find a palatable middle ground between imposing an age 
limit of 17 and imposing no limit at all.Any over-the-counter access marks 
a long-awaited change, but it's not enough, said Dr. Cora Breuner of 
the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports nonprescription sale 
of the morning-after pill for all ages."We still have the major issue, 
which is our teen pregnancy rate is still too high," Breuner said.Even 
though few young girls likely would use Plan B, which costs about 
$50 for a single pill, "we know that it is safe for 
those under 15," she said.Most 17- to 19-year-olds are sexually active, 
and 30 percent of 15- and 16-year-olds have had sex, according to 
a study published last month by the journal Pediatrics. Sex is much 
rarer among younger teens. Likewise, older teens have a higher pregnancy 
rate, but that study also counted more than 110,000 pregnancies among 15- 
and 16-year-olds in 2008 alone.Contraception advocates see a double standard. 
No one is carded when buying a condom, but under the FDA's 
decision they would have to prove their age when buying a pill 
to prevent pregnancy if that condom breaks."This isn't a compromise. This 
is wrong," said Cynthia Pearson of the National Women's Health Network.Social 
conservatives were outraged by the FDA's move to lower the age limits 
for Plan B -- as w
uffer financial catastrophe upon divorce, and that 
the lower-earning spouse and stay-at-home parent will not be financially 
punished. Floridians have relied on this system post-divorce and planned 
their lives accordingly."The proposed law also would have set limits on 
the amount of alimony and how long one would receive financial support 
from an ex-spouse.The bill would have made it harder to get alimony 
in short-term marriages. And it would have prevented alimony payments from 
lasting longer than one-half of the length of the marriage.It also would 
have required judges to give divorced parents equal custody of their children 
absent extraordinary circumstances."I'm actually surprised," said Jason 
Marks, a divorce attorney in Miami, about the veto. The bill had 
passed the House 85-31, with members of both parties crossing over. The 
Senate approved it 29-11."My assumption is, you haven't heard the last of 
it," Marks said. "Most family law practitioners will agree that uniformity 
in determination of alimony is a good thing."The bill said that in 
a short-term marriage, defined as less than 11 years, the assumption is 
that alimony would not be awarded. If alimony were granted, it would 
not be more than 25 percent of the ex-spouse's gross income.For marriages 
that last between 11 and 20 years, there's no assumption either way 
in the bill, but alimony would not have amounted to more than 
35 percent of the ex-spouse's gross income.And in marria

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/swlugevents/attachments/20131017/30576bdb/attachment.html>