梅州除眼袋(梅州少女意外怀孕援助) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California and 16 other states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its plans to scrap gas mileage standards and how much greenhouse gases vehicles can emit, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced Tuesday.The suit takes aim at a plan by the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate standards for vehicles manufactured between 2022 and 2025. The standards would have required vehicles to get 36 miles per gallon (58 kilometers per gallon) by 2025, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) over the existing standard.EPA administrator Scott Pruitt says the standards are not appropriate and need revision. They were set in 2012 when California and the Obama administration agreed to single nationwide fuel economy standard.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issuesCalifornia officials say the standards are achievable and the EPA's effort to roll them back is not based on any new research. They argue the plan violates the Clean Air Act and didn't follow the agency's own regulations.California has a unique waiver that allows it to set its own tailpipe emissions standards for vehicles, which it has used to combat smog and more recently global warming. Twelve other states have adopted the California standards as their own.Automakers have argued that the current requirements would have cost the industry billions of dollars and raised vehicle prices due to the cost of developing the necessary technology.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalThe lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Joining California are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. 1905

Roughly 40 million people are estimated to wear a fitness tracker of some kind. Now one of those brands, Fitbit, has teamed up with researchers to try and predict COVID-19 symptoms before they start."About seven years ago when these Fitbits and things were coming out as fitness trackers, we said, Well they're probably pretty good physiological markers, not just fitness markers," said Dr. Michael Snyder with Stanford University's School of Medicine.Dr. Snyder says they were first able to use the technology to help them catch early signs of Lyme disease. The current pandemic has prompted them to take their research a step further."They're mostly built around heart rate which we think is better than skin temperature because not everyone gets a fever with COVID," said Dr. Snyder.Stanford's study is taking place in two phases. In the first, researchers evaluated six months of data in a majority of patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Their research showed COVID-19 patients had an elevated resting heart rate up to nine days before showing any symptoms of the virus."I view these as health monitors in the current pandemic. If we start flagging people as early as possible we’re going to be way [ahead in reducing] the number of cases, probably help people in saying no you shouldn’t go to work today. So, it has broad implications for the economy, pandemic spread and personal health period," said Dr. Snyder.Senior Vice President and General Manager of Fitbit Health Solutions, Amy McDonough, agrees."In particular, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, breathing rate all might change as your body is fighting off illness. So the study is really to look at what are the expressed changes that might happen," said McDonough."I think your immune system engages pretty quickly when you get ill and the cells are probably consuming a lot of energy and your heart needs to pound away to create some of them," said Dr. Snyder.Stanford's second phase of the study starts soon. People who have a fitness tracker can sign up and anonymously share their fitness data. Then, they can get alerted when researchers detect an elevated resting heart rate and possible early signs of contracting a virus."To be able to do that earlier detection can help keep people safe and help understand their body and when they might be fighting off illness," said McDonough.Dr. Snyder is confident in the technology, which he says helped him detect his own case of Lyme disease. "In one case which was on me, it was pretty clear I was ill because of the bio marker but I didn’t feel symptoms and my watch even picked that up. So what that tells you is it can detect disease when you’re presymptomatic as well as in asymptomatic cases which is pretty powerful," said Dr. Snyder.People can sign up for Stanford's study by logging into their Fitbit app or heading to innovations.stanford.edu.As for what Dr. Snyder hopes to take away from this study, he said "I hope to plant a wearable device on every person on the planet. Sixty percent of people have a smartphone so it's totally scalable. These are not expensive devices. They could be a lot cheaper than they are and obviously the ones in the future will be much more health-oriented."Eventually they hope to be able to detect the severity of an illness, as well. 3320

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP and KGTV) — A bill that would end California's bail system and replace it with a risk assessment system is headed to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk. State Senate approved the bill with a vote of 26-12 Tuesday afternoon. If signed into law, it would make California the first state to completely end bail for suspects waiting for trial. Senators who support the bill say it would end a system that discriminates against low income people. Those in opposition argue that the measure would make communities less safe. If signed into law, the plan calls for the release of most suspects arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors within 12 hours. Those accused of serious, violent felonies wouldn't be released before their trials. Courts and California's Judicial Council would have discretion to determine whether or not to release other suspects based on the likelihood they will return to court and the danger they pose to the public.   999

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

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

来源：资阳报