昌吉精液检测收费(昌吉怀孕二个月了不想要能做无痛人流吗) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The first data from an experiment in a California city where needy people get 0 a month from the government shows they spend most of it on things such as food, clothing and utility bills.The 18-month, privately funded program started in February and involves 125 people in Stockton. It is one of the few experiments testing the concept of “universal basic income,” an old idea getting new attention from Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination.Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs has committed to publicly releasing data throughout the experiment to win over skeptics and, he hopes, convince state lawmakers to implement the program statewide.“In this country we have an issue with associating people who are struggling economically and people of color with vices like drug use, alcohol use, gambling,” he said. “I thought it was important to illustrate folks aren’t using this money for things like that. They are using it for literal necessities.”But critics say the experiment likely won’t provide useful information from a social science perspective given its limited size and duration.Matt Zwolinski, director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego, said people aren’t likely to change their behavior if they know the money they are getting will stop after a year and a half. That’s one reason why he says the experiment is “really more about story telling than it is about social science.”Plus, he said previous studies have shown people don’t spend the money on frivolous things.“What you get out of a program like this is some fairly compelling anecdotes from people,” he said. “That makes for good public relations if you are trying to drum up interest in a basic income program, but it doesn’t really tell you much about what a basic income program would do if implemented on a long-term and large-scale basis.”The researchers overseeing the program, Stacia Martin-West at the University of Tennessee and Amy Castro Baker at the University of Pennsylvania, said their goal is not to see if people change their behavior, but to measure how the money impacts their physical and mental health. That data will be released later.People in the program get 0 each month on a debit card, which helps researchers track their spending. But 40% of the money has been withdrawn as cash, making it harder for researchers to know how it was used. They fill in the gaps by asking people how they spent it.Since February, when the program began, people receiving the money have on average spent nearly 40% of it on food. About 24% went to sales and merchandise, which include places like Walmart and discount dollar stores that also sell groceries. Just over 11% went to utility bills, while more than 9% went to auto repairs and fuel.The rest of the money went to services, medical expenses, insurance, self-care and recreation, transportation, education and donations.Of the participants, 43% are working full or part time while 2% are unemployed and not looking for work. Another 8% are retired, while 20% are disabled and 10% stay home to care for children or an aging parent.“People are using the money in ways that give them dignity or that gives their kids dignity,” Castro-Baker said, noting participants have reported spending the money to send their children to prom, pay for dental work and buy birthday cakes.Zhona Everett, 48, and her husband are among the recipients. When the experiment started she was unemployed and her husband was making 0 a day as a truck driver. They were always late paying their bills, and the pressure caused problems with their marriage.Once she got the money, Everett set it up to automatically pay bills for her electricity, car insurance and TV. She’s also paid off her wedding ring, donates a month to her church and still has some left over for an occasional date night with her husband.She said she and her husband now both have jobs working at the Tesla plant in Fremont.“I think people should have more of an open mind about what the program is about and shouldn’t be so critical about it,” she said. 4140

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers are trying again to tamp down rising housing costs by expanding rent control and stopping rental price gouging, warning a failure to act this year could result in another costly ballot measure in 2020."Our Legislature has failed to act to address the plight of struggling tenants," Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu said. "That has to change in 2019."California lacks enough homes to shelter its nearly 40 million people, a situation that drives up the costs of homes and rental units. The federal government considers someone "rent burdened" if they spend more than a third of their income on rent. More than half of California renters meet that threshold.At the center of the debate is a 1995 law that bans rent control on apartments constructed after that year and on single-family homes and condominiums.RELATED: Making It in San Diego: Rent increases sharply in San Diego, new report showsDemocratic Assemblyman Richard Bloom wants to change the law to allow rent control on apartments built more than 10 years ago as well as single family homes, with an exception for small landlords. He said those ideas are a starting point.His proposal comes after he tried unsuccessfully to repeal the law last year, prompting tenants to take the question to the ballot. Advocates on both sides spent a combined 0 million, with the bulk coming from real estate agents in opposition.Opponents argued rent control would stifle the building of more homes. Voters ultimately rejected the ballot measure and upheld the law."It failed, but it did not end the crisis," Bloom said.RELATED: Making It in San Diego: Prevalence of fake home rental scamsAssembly Democrats argue that renters need protections now, because it will take years for the state's housing supply to increase significantly."We have got to build homes and protect tenants," Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks said.Bloom said he hopes to begin conversations with groups representing real estate agents and apartment owners to avoid another ballot fight.Sid Lakireddy, president of the California Rental Housing Association, said rent control policies do not create more affordable housing. He said his group, which represents rental housing owners, is open to discussing "real solutions.""The California Rental Housing Association supports smart and effective policies that will actually make a difference by rapidly increasing our affordable housing supply," he said in a statement.The California Apartment Association and California Realtors Association did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.A Chiu bill would ban rent gouging, relying on consumer protection laws targeting price gouging following natural disasters or other emergencies.It would set a threshold, likely somewhere between 6 and 10 percent, above the consumer price index and say rent increases can't top that percentage. Chiu argued the cap would be high enough that landlords could still take in profits.Oregon recently passed a similar law.Two other bills would create a rental registry to help the state gather data on rent increases and prevent landlords from evicting people if they can't prove a cause.Several renters joined the lawmakers to talk about their own experiences with rent spikes.Stasha Powell of Redwood City brought a letter from her landlord saying her rent would be increased from ,040 a month to ,500 a month in several increments.Newsom said he wants lawmakers to bring him a package of bills to address skyrocketing rents."We need new rules to stabilize neighborhoods and prevent evictions, without putting small landlords out of business," he said during his February State of the State. "Get me a good package on rent stability this year and I will sign it." 3776

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

REXBURG, Idaho — Officials at BYU-Idaho are warning students about intentionally contracting COVID-19 in order to sell their plasma.In a news release issued Monday, the school says it is "deeply troubled" over reports that university students may be exposing themselves to the virus in order to contract it and sell the plasma that contains COVID-19 antibodies."The university condemns this behavior and is actively seeking evidence of any such conduct among our student body," the statement read. "Students who are determined to have intentionally exposed themselves or others to the virus will be immediately suspended from the university and may be permanently dismissed."Despite the warning, there has been no confirmation that any BYU-Idaho student has intentionally exposed themselves to COVID-19."We have been made aware of this information but at this point, it is only just rumors," said Mimi Taylor of Eastern Idaho Public Health. "We obviously do not support this type of behavior as it poses a risk to public health."EastIdahoNews.com reported earlier in October that plasma centers in the Rexburg area were offering more cash for those who have the COVID-19 antibody.The school also said it is monitoring rising COVID-19 trends in Idaho and Madison County. Should cases rise, the university may move to fully-online learning."We urge all members of the campus community to act respectfully and responsibly by observing all public health and university protocols and placing the well-being of others above personal benefit or convenience," the statement continued.This story was originally published by staff at KSTU. 1637

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Trump administration cancelled nearly billion in federal money for California's high-speed rail project Thursday, further throwing into question the future of the ambitious plan to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.The Federal Railroad Administration's announcement it would not give California the money came several months after sniping between President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom over the project. The administration will still try to force California to return another .5 billion that has already been spent.Trump had seized on Newsom's remarks in February that the project as planned would cost too much and take too long. Newsom has shifted the project's immediate focus to a 171-mile line in the state's Central Valley, but he said he's still committed to building the full line.Still, federal officials said California has repeatedly failed to make "reasonable progress" and "abandoned its original vision."Newsom declared the action "illegal and a direct assault on California" and said the state would go to court to keep the money."This is California's money, appropriated by Congress, and we will vigorously defend it in court," he said in an emailed statement.Voters first approved about billion in bond funds for the project in 2008. It has faced repeated cost overruns and delays since. It's now projected to cost more than billion and be finished by 2033.The 9 million the state is losing is critical to the chronically under-funded project. 1524

来源：资阳报