中山痔瘘裂医院消化内科专家(中山肛门一到晚上就痒) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) - A San Diego plan to let houses of worship build affordable housing on land they already own could expand across the entire state.Tuesday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee will debate Senate Bill 899, also known as the "YIGBY" bill. YIGBY stands for "Yes In God's Back Yard."People behind the concept in San Diego say it's one way to help solve California's housing crisis."It's a potential solution," says YIGBY Project Coordinator Mary Lydon. "We need all solutions on deck right now for this housing crisis. It's not going to solve the problem. But it is a very interesting solution."RELATED: Churches trying to build affordable housing to help with homeless problemThe San Diego City Council passed a law in 2019 to ease zoning restrictions and parking requirements on churches and other houses of worship that would allow them to build affordable housing in their parking lots.RELATED: City Council allows churches to build hosing in parking lotsChurch leaders say that land is under-utilized because they only need parking for the whole congregation once a week.Senate Bill 899 goes a little further, letting houses of worship and other private colleges build affordable housing on any land they own, as long as it is in a residentially zoned area.In San Diego, Bethel AME is the first congregation to get a housing project underway as part of the YIGBY movement. They own a duplex in Logan Heights. The church plans to demolish the duplex and replace it with a three-story, 16-unit apartment complex."This falls right into our great commission," says Senior Pastor Harvey Vaughn. "Clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and house the homeless... To provide safe, affordable affordale housing to people - that's a no brainer to me."San Diego's YIGBY group got some push-back from people who say apartment complexes, even small ones managed by churches, don't belong in neighborhoods full of single-family homes.Lydon says that's a luxury the state can no longer afford."We've had people saying, 'No,' in our city, in our region, in this state for decades. And it just put us in a place of great challenge," she says."We need housing for all incomes. And we have to work on this together. We are going to have to agree that some compromises are going to need to be made."A recent study from UC Berkeley says San Diego has nearly 4,700 acres of land that would qualify for YIGBY housing. The coalition hopes to build 3,000 units within the next five years.But first, the bill has to pass through the legislature.The State Senate approved SB 899 earlier this summer. If the Assembly Appropriations Committee approves it, the bill will need to pass a full vote of the Assembly and then get Governor Newsom's signature before it can go into effect. 2785

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California affiliate of the National Rifle Association has asked a U.S. judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.The California Rifle & Pistol Association asked San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez to halt the checks and related restrictions on ammunition sales.Voters approved tightening California's already strict firearms laws in 2016. The restrictions took effect July 1.The gun owners' association challenged the ammunition background checks in a lawsuit filed last year and on Monday asked for an injunction, alleging it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.RELATED: New ammunition law requires background checksThe lawsuit has been joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals and is trying to become the only person to win seven medals at seven consecutive Games."The scheme purports to funnel everyone seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to acquire ammunition into a single, controlled source, an in-state licensed vendor, for the purpose of confirming purchasers' legal eligibility to possess ammunition and to keep track of all purchases," lawyer Sean Brady wrote. "While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California's scheme goes too far and must be enjoined."The motion raised concerns about identification requirements and high rates of denials among ammunition buyers undergoing the new background checks. Moreover, the system blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors from the California market, the motion argues.RELATED: Study: Tougher gun laws lead to fewer firearm-related deaths among childrenThe judge is expected to decide in early August whether to order a halt, though any such decision is almost certain to be appealed.Benitez in October rejected the state's attempt to throw out the lawsuit. He allowed opponents to proceed on arguments that the ammunition restrictions impede interstate commerce and are pre-empted by federal law.The measure "criminalizes all of those (ammunition) transactions with merchants conducting business in other states," he wrote in a preliminary ruling that the restriction "significantly burdens interstate commerce."He also preliminarily supported the argument that the new state law conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.RELATED: Southern California town of Needles wants to be a sanctuary -- for gun ownersThe California law "criminalizes bringing ammunition into the state that was purchased or obtained outside the state," he wrote.Benitez earlier this year struck down California's nearly two-decade-old ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. That triggered a week-long buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.The impending ammunition background checks sparked a surge in sales as firearm owners sought to beat new requirements, including that dealers report the brand, type and amount of ammunition to the state Department of Justice.Gun owners who already are in the state's background check database would pay a fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Benitez's lifting of the state's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, saying he is confident it will be reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys with San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence anticipated that Benitez is likely to block the ammunition restrictions, but the law would eventually be upheld on appeal."Unfortunately this may be the one judge in the country" willing to rule that "people should be able to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition without background checks," staff attorney Ari Freilich, who directs the organization's California legislative affairs, said prior to the filing.Gun owner groups have been pinning their hopes on a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. But the center's litigation director, Hannah Shearer, said there are unlikely to be the kind of conflicting lower court opinions that would prompt the justices to weigh in.She said courts have upheld ammunition licensing laws in other states and she expects the 9th Circuit would do likewise. 4465

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The California Supreme Court overturned the 2005 death sentence for Scott Peterson in the slaying of his pregnant wife.The court says prosecutors may try again for the same sentence if they wish in the high-profile case. It upheld Peterson's 2004 conviction of murdering his wife Laci Peterson.Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant with their unborn son, and investigators said that on Christmas Eve in 2002, Scott Peterson dumped the bodies from his fishing boat into San Francisco Bay.The court on Monday said the trial judge made several significant errors in jury selection that undermined Peterson's right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.The court ruled potential jurors for the death penalty phase were improperly dismissed after saying they disagreed with the death penalty but would be willing to impose it."The trial judge made a mistake by kicking those people off the jury, so the only people that sat on the jury were in the death penalty camp," said criminal defense attorney Gretchen von Helms.Prosecutors will now decide whether to retry the sentencing phase.While the sentence was overturned, the court affirmed the murder convictions. "The sentencing was a positive step. The other decision (convictions affirmed) was about what we expected. Now we go to the habeas appeal," said Lee Peterson, Peterson's father.The court will examine the case again when it decides a separate habeas corpus challenge, based on evidence. not presented at the original trial. Peterson's father declined to talk about the arguments in the appeal, but says he's expecting a development within the next four months.Peterson's family issued this full statement in response to the court's decision:Our family is sincerely grateful that the California Supreme Court recognized the injustice of Scott’s death penalty. For a long and difficult 18 years, we have believed unwaveringly in Scott’s innocence, so today’s decision by the court is a big step toward justice for Laci, Conner and Scott.Now our family will do two things: First, we wait for Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager to decide whether to pursue a new penalty phase trial. If the DA elects to do so, a new jury would be seated, and they would hear all the evidence. They would then decide only Scott’s sentence: life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. While we hope for the opportunity to present the new evidence to a jury, it is not likely that this penalty phase trial will happen. The case against Scott has weakened to the point where no jury would ever sentence him to death again and the District Attorney is aware of these facts.Second, we wait for the court to address the new forensic and eyewitness evidence we have submitted that shows Laci was alive the morning of December 24th and demonstrates Scott’s innocence. When the court reviews this in the coming months, we are confident they will grant Scott a new guilt phase trial.Our family has been deeply moved by the outpouring of support not only from family and friends but also from the hundreds of people from all walks of life who have shared their faith in Scott’s innocence. For more information on the case, please visit our website at ScottPetersonAppeal.org. 3275

SACO, Maine – A man in Maine has been arrested after authorities say he was caught putting razor blades into pizza dough that was then sold to customers.The Saco Police Department says it was notified of the tampered food by the city’s Hannaford Supermarket last Tuesday. Officers say a customer had purchased a Portland Pie pizza dough and later discovered razor blades inside.“The review of store security surveillance footage revealed a person tampered with the packaging of several Portland Pie pizza doughs,” wrote the department in a statement.Police have identified the suspect as 38-year-old Nicholas Mitchell and said he’s a former associate of It’ll Be Pizza company, which manufactures products for Portland Pie.A warrant was issued for Mitchell’s arrest and he was later taken into custody in Dover, New Hampshire, according to police.As a result of the incident, Hannaford Supermarkets has issued a recall for all Portland Pie branded products sold at its stores.The supermarket chain says customers who purchased Portland Pie pizza dough or cheese sold in its delis between Aug. 1 and Oct. 11 should not consume the products. They may return it to the store for a full refund.Additionally, the chain says it has removed all Portland Pie products from its shelves and paused replenishment of the products indefinitely, “after what is believed to be further malicious tampering incidents involving metal objects inserted into Portland Pie products.”Law enforcement is continuing to investigate the tampering. If you have purchased Portland Pie pizza dough and have found razor blades inside the dough, call the Saco Police Department's Detective Division at (207)282-8216. 1692

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Democratic governor signed a law Tuesday requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot, a move aimed squarely at Republican President Donald Trump.But even if the law withstands a likely legal challenge, Trump could avoid the requirements by choosing not to compete in California's primary. With no credible GOP challenger at this point, he likely won't need California's delegates to win the Republican nomination.While aimed at Trump, the law also applies to candidates for governor. Newsom said California's status as one of the world's largest economies gives it "a special responsibility" to require tax returns from its prospective elected officials."These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence," Newsom wrote in his signing statement.The Trump campaign called the bill "unconstitutional," saying there were good reasons why California's former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar proposal last year."What's next, five years of health records?" said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump's campaign.The courts will likely have the final say. The bill's author, Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire, said lawmakers made sure the law only applies to the state's primary ballot because the state Constitution says the state Legislature does not control access to the general election ballot.Newsom's message to state lawmakers on Tuesday said the law is constitutional because "the United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen."But Murtaugh said the law violates First Amendment right of association "since California can't tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election."While states have authority over how candidates can access the ballot, the U.S. Constitution lays out a limited set of qualifications someone needs to meet to run for president, said Rick Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California-Irvine School of Law. Those qualifications include the requirement that presidential candidates be over age 35.The U.S. Supreme court has previously stopped state efforts to add requirements on congressional candidates through ballot access rules.New York has passed a law giving congressional committees access to Trump's state tax returns. But efforts to pry loose his tax returns have floundered in other states. California's first attempt to do so failed in 2017 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed the law, raising questions about its constitutionality and where it would lead next.The major Democratic 2020 contenders have already released tax returns for roughly the past decade. Trump has bucked decades of precedent by refusing to release his. Tax returns show income, charitable giving and business dealings, all of which Democratic state lawmakers say voters are entitled to know about.California's new law will require candidates to submit tax returns for the most recent five years to California's Secretary of State at least 98 days before the primary. They will then be posed online for the public to view, with certain personal information redacted.California is holding next year's primary on March 3, known as Super Tuesday because the high number of state's with nominating contests that day.Democratic Sen. Mike McGuire of Healdsburg said it would be "inconsistent" with past practice for Trump to forego the primary ballot and "ignore the most popular and vote-rich state in the nation."Republican Party of California chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said Newsom signing the law shows Democratic leaders in the state continue "to put partisan politics first," urging Democrats to instead join Republicans "in seeking ways to reduce the cost of living, help our schools and make our streets safer." 4061

来源：资阳报