梅州妇科病 在线诊断(梅州怀孕以后多久能做人流) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom says the state must do more to protect essential workers, many of whom are Latino, from the economic and health harms of the coronavirus. Newsom on Friday said he'll work with the Legislature to expand protections against evictions and expand workers compensation and paid sick leave. He enacted similar policies through executive order earlier this year but many expired or will soon. Latinos make up 39% of California’s population but 55% of confirmed positive coronavirus cases, according to state data. Newsom said the majority of farm workers, construction workers, cooks, food prep workers, truck drivers, cashiers and janitors are Latino. 708

Reversing an earlier decision, the University of Notre Dame will continue providing students and employees with access to birth control free of charge.The Catholic institution was one of the first major employers to take advantage of the Trump administration's weakening of Obamacare's contraceptive mandate.Notre Dame, which had long battled the Obama administration over the provision, said in late October that it would end coverage for employees after Dec. 31 and for students after Aug. 14. The university said it objects to the mandate based on its religious beliefs.Students and employees quickly protested the decision, holding a demonstration and creating an online petition.Under Obamacare, insurance plans had to cover contraception for women without charging a co-pay. A fairly limited number of employers -- mainly churches and some other religious entities -- could get an exemption to the mandate.Some other employers, such as religious-based universities or hospitals, could seek accommodations so that they didn't have to provide coverage, but their workers could still obtain contraceptives paid for by the insurer or the employer's plan administrator. Notre Dame's students and workers received coverage this way.The Trump administration, however, issued new rules last month that would let a broad range of employers stop offering contraceptive coverage through their health insurance plans if they have a "sincerely held religious or moral objection."In his annual faculty address Tuesday, Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, said the university had decided to keep the accommodation for employees in place."As I have said from the start, the university's interest has never been in preventing access to those who make conscientious decisions to use contraceptives," he said. "Our interest, rather, has been to avoid being compelled by the federal government to be the agent in their provision."A university spokesman confirmed that students would continue to have access to no-cost birth control, as well.Notre Dame's initial response was based on its belief that it could no longer utilize the accommodation because the new rule would prompt insurers to discontinue providing no-cost contraceptives. It then learned that carriers would maintain the coverage anyway."We have made the decision not to interfere with the provision of contraceptives administered by insurance administrators and funded independently," said Paul Browne, Notre Dame's vice president for public affairs.Graduate students cheered the reversal."We are grateful and relieved that we were able to help push the administration to respect the Notre Dame community members' right to reproductive healthcare," said the Graduate Workers Collective, an independent group of graduate students. 2815

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure that would have capped dialysis clinics' profits in an effort to improve patient care.Proposition 8 would have limited profits for dialysis clinics that provide vital treatment for people whose kidneys don't work properly.The measure was the most expensive initiative on the 2018 ballot in California, generating more than 0 million in campaign contributions. A health care workers union, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, funded the million supporting campaign. Dialysis companies contributed more than 1 million to kill the initiative.The union argued Proposition 8 would stop the dialysis companies from cutting corners to make money and force them to invest more of their revenue into patient care. Supporters say the profit-hungry companies don't adequately clean clinics and overwork staff.Dialysis providers say the measure was actually a tactic to pressure the dialysis companies to let workers unionize and would have forced clinics to close. They say most California clinics provide high quality care.Dialysis companies' effort to kill the measure was the most expensive campaign on one side of a ballot initiative in the U.S. since at least 2002. Most of that money came from the two largest dialysis companies operating in California: Denver-based DaVita Inc. and Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care.The measure would have barred dialysis clinics from charging patients more than 115 percent of what providers spend on patient care and quality improvement. If clinics exceeded that limit, they would have to provide rebates or pay penalties.Although the measure didn't spell out exactly which expenses counted toward the limit, dialysis companies argued critical management expenses would be classified as profits and bankrupt clinics.RELATED CONTENT 1898

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A spokesman says one of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s children may have been exposed to the coronavirus at school and is in quarantine. Nathan Click says the child began a 14-day quarantine after the family was told a classmate at the private school in Sacramento had tested positive for COVID-19. He says the family is following state protocols, and the governor, his wife and four children have all tested negative for the virus. Newsom said last month that his children had returned to their school, sparking criticism even as millions of public schoolchildren continue to study through distance learning. 643

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California sued Tuesday to block the Trump administration from cancelling nearly billion for the state's high-speed rail project, escalating the state's feud with the federal government.The Federal Railroad Administration announced last week it would not give California the money awarded by Congress nearly a decade ago, arguing that the state has not made enough progress on the project.The state must complete construction on a segment of track in the Central Valley agricultural heartland by 2022 to keep the money, and the administration has argued the state cannot meet that deadline. That line of track would be the first built on what the state hopes will eventually become a 520-mile (837-kilometer) line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.But Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says the move is retribution for California's criticism of President Donald Trump's immigration policies."The decision was precipitated by President Trump's overt hostility to California, its challenge to his border wall initiatives, and what he called the "green disaster" high-speed rail project," the state said in the lawsuit.California was not expected to tap the 9 million the Trump administration has revoked until 2021. If the lawsuit is not resolved before then, the election could put Democrats in the White House and Congress who may be friendlier to the project.The lawsuit faulted the Trump administration for halting cooperation with the state on granting environmental clearances for the project. It said terminating the funding would "wreak significant economic damage on the Central Valley and the state."Newsom told reporters the administration is "after us in every way, shape or form." But he expressed confidence the state will win in court."Principles and values tend to win out over short-term tweets," Newsom said.The lawsuit highlighted a series of tweets Trump sent about the project, including one that said California's rail project would be far more expensive than Trump's proposed border wall.That tweet came a day after California led 15 states in suing over Trump's plans to fund the border wall, and hours before the administration first threatened to revoke the rail funding.The Federal Railroad Administration did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment about California's lawsuit.California has worked for more than a decade on the project to bring high-speed rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. It's now projected to cost around billion and be finished by 2033.The state has already spent .5 billion in federal funding, and the Trump administration is exploring whether it can try to get that money back.The lawsuit also asks the court to block the administration from awarding the money to any other project.The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California.The dispute over the funding was partly driven by Newsom's remarks in February that the project faced challenges and needed to shift focus. Rail officials had been planning to connect the line under construction in the Central Valley to Silicon Valley, but Newsom has proposed extending the line further north and south into the valley before heading west.The California High-Speed Rail Authority presented a plan in early May that showed it would cost .3 billion to get trains up and running between Bakersfield and Merced by 2028.The board overseeing the project voted Tuesday to further study whether it makes sense financially and otherwise to run early train service on that line. Tom Richards, the vice chairman, noted the board has not yet formally approved the new approach."The board has not been asked for, nor has the board given, any interim service direction to (the project's) management," he said. 3851

来源：资阳报