安康安全期会不会意外怀孕安康前庭大腺脓肿,安康排卵期痛同房几个月为啥没怀孕,安康上环意外怀孕怎么办,安康怀孕怎么能测出来,安康第九天能测出怀孕吗,安康有子宫肌瘤然后腰疼,安康怀孕多久会不来月经

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A staunchly conservative political party in deep-blue California will get to keep its name after the governor vetoed a bill aimed at banning what state lawmakers say are misleading monikers.Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he had vetoed a bill that would have banned political parties from using "no party preference," ''decline to state" or "independent" in their official names.The bill would have applied to all political parties. But it was aimed at the American Independent Party, which has been an option for California voters since 1968.More California voters are registering with no party preference, now accounting for 28.3% of all registered voters. If "no party preference" were a political party, it would be the second largest in the state behind the Democrats.Critics say the American Independent Party has benefited from this trend because its name confuses voters into believing they are registering as independents. The party makes up 2.59% of California's registered voters, making it the third largest political party in the state after the Democratic Party at 43.1% and the Republican Party at 23.6%.In 2016, the Los Angeles Times surveyed the party's registered members and found most did not know they had registered to vote with the party. But Newsom said he vetoed the bill because he worried it was unconstitutional."By requiring one existing political party to change its current name, this bill could be interpreted as a violation of the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Newsom wrote in his veto message.Representatives for the American Independent Party did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment. The party's website says it nominated Donald Trump for president in 2016 and "God willing, 2020."Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, the bill's author, warned the mistaken registration could have electoral consequences. People registered with another political party would not be allowed to vote in the state's pivotal Democratic presidential primary in March.But Newsom signed another bill by Umberg that could help people rectify any registration mistakes. The law, signed Tuesday, allows voters to register to vote or update their registration at all polling places on election day.If people show up to vote in the Democratic presidential primary and are ineligible because they are registered with the American Independent Party, they can change their registration on the spot and cast a ballot. The ballot would be conditional, meaning it would not be counted until after the person's registration could be verified. 2676

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment."A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home. 722

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The billionaire behind a measure to split California in three said he's giving up on the effort to reimagine the nation's most populous state after the state Supreme Court knocked it off the November ballot."The political environment for radical change is right now," venture capitalist Tim Draper wrote in a letter to the court dated Aug. 2 and made public by his opponents Thursday. "The removal of Proposition 9 from the November ballot has effectively put an end to this movement."The court struck Draper's measure in July in response to a lawsuit but didn't rule on the merits of the case, allowing Draper the opportunity to fight to put it on future ballots. He's not moving forward with the case.RELATED: State Supreme Court blocks proposal to split California into 3 states from November ballotDraper spent more than .7 million to qualify his initiative for the ballot, which requires gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures.It's not his first effort to break up California — his plan to split the state into six didn't qualify for past ballots. He's argued California has become ungovernable due to its size and diversity, politically and geographically.The latest plan would have divided California into three pieces. One would comprise the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, Sacramento and the rest of Northern California; the second would be a strip of land from Los Angeles to Monterey; and the third would include San Diego, the Central Valley and Orange County.RELATED: Proposal to split California into three states makes November ballotThe Planning and Conservation League sued to keep Draper's initiative off the ballot, arguing that such a massive change to the state's governance couldn't be done through a ballot initiative."At the end of the day, this was a billionaire's massive and illegal use of the initiative process, and the court was correct in stopping this folly," Carlyle Hall, an attorney who worked on the suit with the environmental group.Draper, meanwhile, said he had "no idea" if his initiative would have passed or if Congress would have given the necessary approval for the split but that the ballot measure would have spurred debate over government failings.RELATED: Calexit: New plan to split California aims to create 'autonomous Native American nation'"I wanted to let the voters debate, discuss and think about a different way forward — essentially a reboot. And, I wanted the political class to hear and witness the frustration of California's voters with decades of inaction and decay," he wrote. "I believed there was significant benefit to our democracy in that." 2650

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out California's ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.The panel's majority ruled Friday that the law banning magazines holding more than 10 bullets violates the constitutional right to bear firearms. California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel calls it a huge victory.The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra did not immediately say if he would ask for a full court review or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.He also did not say if the state would seek a delay to prevent a buying spree. 705

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A California bill announced Wednesday would ban soda companies from offering coupons for any sugar-sweetened drinks. AB 764, introduced by Assemblymember Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland, goes as far as to ban companies from offering any promotional incentive for sugar-sweetened beverages. In a statement, Bonta blames marketing practices used by soda manufacturers for contributing to a “public health epidemic of obesity and diabetes.”“Specifically, manufacturers subsidize the cost of sugary drinks, which substantially lowers their prices and increases their consumption particularly in low-income communities. Often times these practices result in soda being cheaper than bottled water," Bonta said. In a Facebook post, Bonta said several bills introduced Wednesday would also “provide revenue to offset the costs to our health care system from the overconsumption of sugar-laden sodas like Coke and Pepsi, and other sugary drinks.”“Seriously? This is what they choose to focus on,” one Facebook commenter said out of frustration. “This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. This is America. We don't need politicians controlling what we drink or eat. Why stop there? Bread and potatoes and complex carbs are converted into simple sugar in the blood. Ban them too! Force everyone to go keto! SMH,” another comment of Facebook read. Though several people voiced concerns over the bill, many seemed supportive. “Good job Rob,” one Facebook comment read. The bill is co-sponsored by the California Medical Association and the California Dental Association. 1610