梅州女性无痛人流费用(梅州看妇科病的医院哪里好) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049

ROCKFORD, Ill. (AP) — Authorities say a U.S. Army special forces sergeant based in Florida has been charged in the deaths of three people and the wounding of three more in an apparently random shooting at an Illinois bowling alley. Winnebago County State's Attorney J. Hanley said Sunday that 37-year-old Duke Webb has been charged with three counts of murder and three counts of first-degree attempted murder in the shooting at Don Carter Lanes, in Rockford, Saturday evening. Police Chief Dan O'Shea said Sunday that the men who died were aged 73, 65, and 69. He didn't provide names. He says two teenagers were wounded and that a 62-year-old man who was shot several times is in critical condition.According to The Associated Press, the 14-year-old boy was shot in the face and airlifted to a hospital in Madison in stable condition. A 16-year-old girl was shot in the shoulder and was treated at a hospital and released. The AP reported that the 62-year-old man underwent surgery overnight after suffering multiple gunshot wounds. 1042

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday the Trump administration acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner when it sought to end an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation.A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that the Trump administration violated federal law when it tried to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program without adequately explaining why. The ruling overturns a lower court ruling a judge in Maryland made last year, which Trump had previously praised via Twitter.Friday's ruling will not have any immediate effect as other federal courts have already ordered that DACA be kept in place.The 4th Circuit ruling said the Department of Homeland Security did not "adequately account" for how ending DACA program would affect the hundreds of thousands of young people who "structured their lives" around the program."We recognize the struggle is not over and there are more battles to fight in the Supreme Court on this road to justice, but our families are emboldened by knowing that they are on the right side of history," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of Casa de Maryland, the lead plaintiff in the case.Trump and his Justice Department have argued that the Obama administration acted unlawfully when it implemented DACA. The Justice Department declined to comment.Preserving DACA is a top Democratic priority, but discussions between Trump and Democrats on the issue have gone nowhere.Trump's latest immigration plan, unveiled Thursday, does not address what to do about the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters that "every single time that we have put forward or anyone else has put forward any type of immigration plan that has included DACA it's failed."DACA's fate could be decided by the Supreme Court, which is weighing the Trump administration's appeals of other federal court rulings.The justices have set no date to take action.If the high court decides it wants to hear the appeals, arguments would not take place before the fall. That means a decision is not expected until 2020, which could come in the thick of next year's presidential contest.___Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report. 2362

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) — California utilities again are facing severe financial pressures from the possibility that their equipment sparked catastrophic wildfires, including two that are now burning at either end of the state.The pressure comes even though Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September giving utilities some relief beginning next year.The law made it easier for utilities to pass along costs from fire-related damages to consumers and also avoid possible bankruptcy from a series of major fires that occurred during the 2017 fire season that produced more than billion in losses.But there was a gap in the law: No damages specific to 2018 were included, so utilities face a higher bar to bill customers to cover those costs. And this year already supplanted 2017 as the most destructive in California's recorded history.Authorities have not determined a cause for either of two major blazes burning now, but Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison have reported irregularities with their equipment near the time and place where both ignited.A woman who owns land near the site where a deadly wildfire started in Northern California said Monday that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. sought access to her property just before the blaze started because the utility's power lines were causing sparks.PG&E shares have lost more than a third of their value since the Camp Fire broke out northeast of San Francisco, destroying thousands of homes and killing dozens of people as it leveled the town of Paradise.Moody's Investors Service said Monday that the "shortcomings" in the legislation reflect negatively on PG&E's credit rating, which is barely investment grade."Moody's negative outlook incorporates the view that additional financial stress for PG&E is likely," Moody's spokesman Joe Mielenhausen said in an email. "Going forward, we will look for signs of additional legislative and regulatory support for the utility as it works through various legal processes."Last week PG&E told state regulators that it detected a problem on an electrical transmission line near the site of the blaze minutes before the fire broke out. The utility later said it observed damage to a transmission tower on the line, and a PG&E spokeswoman said the company will cooperate with any investigations.Betsy Ann Cowley, a property owner near the site said PG&E sought access to the area before the fire started, telling her power lines were sparking.Southern California Edison told regulators there was an outage on an electrical circuit near the site where the Woolsey Fire started in Ventura County. It quickly spread into Malibu and destroyed hundreds of homes.SoCal Edison said the report was submitted out of an abundance of caution and there was no indication from fire officials that its equipment may have been involved. The report said the fire was reported around 2:24 p.m. Thursday, two minutes after the outage.Shares of parent company Edison International have tumbled more than 20 percent since the fire started.California is one of just two states that hold electric companies entirely liable for damage caused by their equipment, even if they followed all safety precautions. The new law makes it easier for them to pass some of those costs along to consumers.Utilities lobbied aggressively to eliminate that strict liability standard but lawmakers dropped the idea amid pressure from insurers, trial lawyers and fire victims.Instead, legislators passed a law making it easier for utilities to manage the costs without going bankrupt. They created two mechanisms for investor-owned utilities to shift the costs of wildfire lawsuits onto their customers— one process that begins in 2019, and another for the 2017 fires.For reasons that remain unclear, the law left the rules unchanged for 2018."The priority was on addressing 2017 victims and putting in place some fire-safety measures," said Paul Payne, a spokesman for Sen. Bill Dodd, a Napa Democrat and the bill's author. "The focus was on making 2017 victims whole."It's too soon to say whether the Legislature will take up another fight over the 2018 fires, Payne said.SoCal Edison officials say the Legislature needs to do more to shield utilities from wildfire-related liability."SCE believes the state can do more, including enacting fire-smart building codes, particularly in high fire risk areas, and ensuring the proper allocation of risk for the often-tragic consequences of wildfires," spokeswoman Justina Garcia wrote in an email.A PG&E spokesman, Paul Doherty, did not respond to questions about the legislation, saying "our entire company is focused on supporting first responders."Sen. Jerry Hill, a Redwood City Democrat and longtime critic of PG&E, called the report of troubles on PG&E's lines in the area extremely worrisome."At some point we have to say enough is enough and we have to ask: Should this company be allowed to do business in California?" Hill said. "These fires take a spark, and at least in the last few years fires have been caused by negligent behavior by PG&E. We need to see how we can hold them responsible, or look at alternative way of doing business."Hill said he was exploring legislative options to keep a closer check on PG&E, including the possibility of breaking up the utility."They are a monopoly and they act as a monopoly," Hill said. "That is a problem when the motive is profit, and that just may not be the right motive for providing utility services." 5560

来源：资阳报