喀什男科病看什么医院好喀什性功能医院检测项目,喀什哪家医院治疗妇科病好,喀什性功能阳痿治疗的费用,喀什22天能查出来怀孕吗,喀什取环价格需要多少,喀什好的上环多少钱啊,喀什专业治疗阳痿的医院

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California may join many other states in allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections, if they will turn 18 before the following general election, under a proposed amendment to the state constitution approved Thursday by the state Assembly.If two-thirds of senators agree, the measure would to go to voters for their consideration in California's March primary election, but it would not affect next year's elections.The measure passed, 57-13, over objections from Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher of Nicolaus that it's a ploy to lure more Democratic-leaning young voters.RELATED: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bill on presidential tax returnsThe measure "is being veiled as something that helps expand the franchise" but "has mostly a more political ulterior motive in the long term," Gallagher said. "That's what is really going on here."Democratic Assemblyman Kevin Mullin of San Francisco said the practice has been adopted in other states that lean Republican, and the goal of his measure is to "empower California's youngest voters" and encourage a habit of life-long voting."The time has come for California to join in pursuing what so many other states have done," Mullin said.The National Conference of State Legislatures says the practice is permitted in at least 17 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. Some states that use caucuses also allow 17-year-olds to participate, though the rules are generally set by each political party."It's not driven by a Democratic idea in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego, listing some of the more conservative states. "To suggest that there's some political play going on I think is disingenuous. ... It's good for the process, it's good for them, and it's our way to develop lifelong voters."The measure is supported by groups including the League of Women Voters of California. It's opposed by the Election Integrity Project California Inc., which noted that 17-year-olds are still considered children, mostly in high school, who may be easily influenced by their parents and teachers.The measure is separate from another proposed amendment to the California constitution that would lower the voting age from 18 to 17 even in general elections. That measure is awaiting an Assembly vote.California is among 14 states that allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote, but they can't currently vote until they turn 18. Nine other states set different pre-registration ages.Berkeley voters in 2016 allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local school board elections, but a similar measure failed in nearby San Francisco. 2861

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will reconsider life sentences for up to 4,000 nonviolent third-strike criminals by allowing them to seek parole under a ballot measure approved by voters two years ago, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday.The state will craft new regulations by January to include the repeat offenders in early release provisions. Gov. Jerry Brown also will not appeal a court ruling that the state is illegally excluding the nonviolent career criminals from parole under the 2016 ballot measure he championed to reduce the prison population and encourage rehabilitation.The state parole board estimates between 3,000 and 4,000 nonviolent third-strikers could be affected, said corrections department spokeswoman Vicky Waters, "but they would have to go through rigorous public safety screenings and a parole board hearing before any decision is made."RELATED: Ex-con, called poster?child for three-strikes law, sentenced to life in prisonIt's the second such loss for the Democratic governor, who leaves office days after the new rules are due. Another judge ruled in February that the state must consider earlier parole for potentially thousands of sex offenders. The administration is fighting that ruling, which undercuts repeated promises that Brown made to voters to exclude sex offenders from earlier release.Prosecutors are not surprised and warned throughout the Prop. 57 campaign that nonviolent third-strikers would unintentionally fall under the measure's constitutional amendment, said California District Attorneys Association spokeswoman Jennifer Jacobs."We expect the same exact thing to happen with regard to sex offenders," she said. "To fix this they're going to have to go back to the people for a vote, which can't even happen for another two years."RELATED: How some states are reducing the prison populationBrown will not appeal last month's ruling by a three-judge appellate panel in the Second Appellate District in a Los Angeles County case that third-strikers must be included under Proposition 57's constitutional amendment. It requires parole consideration for "any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense" regardless of enhancements under California's three strikes law."There is no question that the voters who approved Proposition 57 intended (inmates) serving Three Strikes indeterminate sentences to be eligible for early parole consideration," the appeals court ruled, adding that, "There is strong evidence the voters who approved Proposition 57 sought to provide relief to nonviolent offenders."Administration lawyers said in a filing in a separate related case that the state "is not seeking review" of the appeals court decision and "is in the process of drafting new emergency regulations in compliance" with the decision by Jan. 5.RELATED: Kim Kardashian makes trip to the White House in the name of criminal justice reformMichael Romano, director of the Stanford Three Strikes Project, called the administration's decision to comply "a big deal, a huge deal."Clients potentially affected by the new decision include inmates serving life terms for stealing a bicycle, possessing less than half a gram of methamphetamine, stealing two bottles of liquor or shoplifting shampoo, he said."It's a monumental decision. It's one of the biggest decisions on sentencing policy in the Brown administration," said Romano, whose project represented third-strike inmates in several appeals.The ruling doesn't guarantee any of the offenders will get out of jail. But it allows them to go before the parole board. Romano estimates 4,000 people will be eligible for parole.Nonviolent third-strikers are disproportionately black, disproportionately mentally ill and statistically among the least likely to commit additional crimes, said Romano, who has studied the issue.He cited corrections department data on more than 2,200 nonviolent, non-serious third strikers who were paroled under a 2012 ballot measure that allowed most inmates serving life terms for relatively minor third strikes to ask courts for shorter terms. Less than 11 percent returned to prison by October 2016, the latest data available, he said, compared to nearly 45 percent for other prisoners. 4266

Roughly 27 million Americans are claiming some form of unemployment according to the Department of Labor as of late August, and that means millions are without employer-provided health insurance benefits.An estimated 12 million people in this country have lost their health insurance during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on research from the Economic Policy Institute. The group looked at net employment levels between February and August 2020, and job churn levels to estimate losses of health insurance coverage.They say roughly 6.2 million workers right now have lost health insurance that they previously got through their employer. The number was closer to 9 million initially in March and April, but estimates show roughly 2.9 million workers have gotten jobs between April and July.When you consider spouses and family members covered by a person’s employer-provided health insurance benefit, the number of Americans without health insurance during the pandemic is estimated around 12 million.The study also looked at opportunities to get coverage. They found Medicaid in certain states has been increasing enrollment, with five million additional people signing up between February and June 2020.For people who find themselves in this situation, there are some options. It basically comes down to three options: through COBRA, on the Affordable Care Act subsidized marketplace or by enrolling in a public plan like Medicaid or Medicare.If a spouse has employer-provided benefits, or a parent if you are 26 or younger, look into joining their plan within 30 days of losing benefits. 1596

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom overruled a parole board's decision to free Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten on Monday, marking the third time a governor has stopped the release of the youngest member of Manson's murderous cult.Van Houten, 69, is still a threat, Newsom said, though she has spent nearly half a century behind bars and received reports of good behavior and testimonials about her rehabilitation."While I commend Ms. Van Houten for her efforts at rehabilitation and acknowledge her youth at the time of the crimes, I am concerned about her role in these killings and her potential for future violence," he wrote in his decision. "Ms. Van Houten was an eager participant in the killing of the LaBiancas and played a significant role."Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members stabbed to death wealthy Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in August 1969. She said they carved up Leno LaBianca's body and smeared the couple's blood on the walls.The slayings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in violence that spread fear throughout Los Angeles and riveted the nation.No one who took part in the Tate-LaBianca murders has been released from prison. It was the first time Newsom rejected parole for Van Houten, while former Gov. Jerry Brown denied her release twice."Nobody wants to put their name on her release, but when they're speaking honestly or off the record, everyone wants her to go home," said Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer.Newsom is "going to have more political aspirations that go well beyond the state of California, and he doesn't want this tagging behind him," he added. "Not a surprise. I would have been shocked if he would have said 'Go home.'"Earlier this year, Newsom reversed a parole recommendation to free Manson follower Robert Beausoleil for an unrelated murder. Beausoleil was convicted of killing musician Gary Hinman.Newsom's decision on Van Houten outlined her participation in graphic detail, noting that after the killings, she "drank chocolate milk from the LaBiancas' refrigerator" before fleeing."The gruesome crimes perpetuated by Ms. Van Houten and other Manson Family members in an attempt to incite social chaos continue to inspire fear to this day," Newsom wrote.Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility and Manson's "violent and controlling actions," he said, and she continues to lack insight into her reasons for participating.Van Houten's lawyer said in January after her latest release recommendation that the parole board found she had taken full responsibility for her role in the killings."She chose to go with Manson," Pfeiffer said. "She chose to listen to him. And she acknowledges that."Van Houten has described a troubled childhood that led her to use drugs and hang around with outcasts. When she was 17, she and a boyfriend ran away to San Francisco during the so-called Summer of Love in 1967.She later encountered Manson while traveling the coast. Manson had holed up with his "family" at an abandoned movie ranch on the outskirts of Los Angeles when he launched a plan to spark a race war by committing a series of random, terrifying murders.Brown rejected parole for Van Houten in 2017 because he said she still blamed the cult leader too much for the murders. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge upheld Brown's decision last year, finding that Van Houten posed "an unreasonable risk of danger to society."An appeals court will decide whether to uphold or reject that ruling by the end of July."No governor's ever going to let her out," said Pfeiffer, Van Houten's attorney who's pinning his hopes on the appeals court. "They are bound by law to enforce the law independently. They have to do it whether or not it's popular with the public ... and the law is that she should be released."Manson and his followers were sentenced to death in 1971, though those punishments were commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. Van Houten's case was overturned on appeal and she was later convicted and sentenced to seven years to life in prison.Tate's sister, Debra Tate, has routinely shown up to parole and court hearings to oppose the release of any Manson follower. Even though Van Houten didn't take part in her sister's murder, Tate said she didn't deserve release under any circumstances.Supporters of Van Houten said she had been a model prisoner who mentored dozens of inmates and helped them come to terms with their crimes.Manson died in 2017 of natural causes at a California hospital while serving a life sentence. 4729

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- As of Monday afternoon, the state of California has an official sport, surfing.Governor Jerry Brown Monday signed the legislation, known assembly bill 1782, making surfing California’s officials sport.The news was tweeted out by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi , who is one of the sponsors of the bill.RELATED: Top surfing spots?in San Diego CountyAccording to Muratsuchi, surfing generated more than billion in annual retail and sales for the state. 492