梅州做安全打胎的费用(梅州药物流产价格) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Election Day is less than 50 days away, but results from the election could take a lot longer.That's because a record number of voters are voting by mail this election and different states have different rules regarding when those ballots can be opened and processed. Absentee ballots or mail-in ballots generally take a lot longer to count compared to in-person voting machines, because ballots need to be opened and scanned. For instance, in the crucial swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, ballots can't be opened until Election Day. That differs from other states, like Colorado, which can open ballots as they come into election offices. That means it will take election officials in those swing states a herculean effort to process and scan ballots to get accurate results by the end of election night. Each state is facing either pending legislation at their State Capitol or various lawsuits asking the rules be changed. Those aren't the only reasons results may be delayed. In many states, like North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada and Minnesota, ballots are allowed to be postmarked on Election Day. That means it may take a few days to arrive to an election office. "I think we are looking at five to seven days to roughly a week," said Ted Trimpa, a political consultant. "The challenge is you are going to have so many states doing mail-in ballots that have never done mail ballots," Trimpa said. And it may not just be swing states that are the issue.In New York, a state that will almost certainty vote Democrat, primary results from earlier this year took four weeks in some cases. Henry Rosoff, a political reporter with WPIX in New York City, explained New York law requires 48 hours to pass after the election before absentee ballots can be counted. "We are not going to even begin to count half of our votes until 48 hours after Election Day," Rosoff said. "If we were a swing state, it would seem absolutely outrageous," Rosoff said. 1994

WASHINGTON, D.C.—A Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan, officials tell multiple news outlets.The intelligence on bounties was reported initially by The New York Times and was confirmed by The Associated Press.Intelligence officials said Islamist militants, or armed criminal elements closely associated with them, are believed to have collected some bounty money. It’s not clear which of the 20 American killings in Afghanistan from 2019 is under suspicion.The officials tell the Times and AP that Trump was briefed on the matter earlier this year and took no action. However, the president denies being briefed on the matter and says he was told Sunday night the intelligence wasn't considered credible.The Kremlin calls the report “a lie.”House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC’s “This Week” that she hadn’t been informed about the reported bounties. She says, “this is as bad as it gets” and yet Trump won’t confront Russia. Pelosi say she’s asking for a report to Congress regarding the news.A senior administration official says the White House plans to brief select members of Congress on Monday.Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is sharply criticizing Trump over the reports that he says, if true, contain a “truly shocking revelation” about the commander in chief and his failure to protect U.S. troops and stand up to Russia. 1455

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department says Purdue Pharma, the company that makes OxyContin, will plead guilty to three federal criminal charges as part of a settlement of more than billion. OxyContin is the powerful prescription painkiller that experts say helped touch off an opioid epidemic. The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States and violating federal anti-kickback laws. The deal doesn't release any of the company’s executives or owners from criminal liability, and a criminal investigation is ongoing. One state attorney general says the deal fails to hold accountable members of the wealthy Sackler family who own the company. Family members say they had “ethically and lawfully,” while also expressing “deep compassion” for those addicted to opioids. 793

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has laid down rules aimed at preventing residents in high-tax states from avoiding a new cap on widely popular state and local tax deductions. The action over the new Republican tax law pits the government against high-tax, heavily Democratic states in an election-year showdown.The Treasury Department's rules released Thursday target moves by states like New York, New Jersey and California — where residents could see substantial increases in their federal tax bills next spring because of the ,000 cap on state and local deductions. Experts say the issue likely will have to be resolved by the federal courts.Four states — Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New York — already have sued the federal government over the deduction cap, asserting it's aimed at hurting a group of Democratic states and tramples on their constitutional budget-making authority.A dozen states have taken or are considering measures to get around the cap. Most of the workarounds take advantage of federal deductions for charitable contributions — which aren't capped — in place of the old deductions for paying state and local income taxes. So people's state and local taxes exceeding ,000, which can't be deducted, are turned into deductible charitable donations.The new rules' "dollar-for-dollar" limit also applies to many other states that already have charitable funds offering tax breaks, senior Treasury officials said. Those states include solidly Republican ones and others with relatively low taxes. In those programs, donors to schools, hospitals or land conservation programs can get their state taxes reduced in return — plus a charitable deduction on their federal tax returns.The limit means taxpayers only can deduct as a charitable contribution the portion of their donation for which they don't also get a state tax credit.But some experts said the Treasury rules seem to be designed to protect those existing charitable programs in some states. An exception to the "dollar-for-dollar" requirement "plainly appears to be designed to protect certain ... pre-existing state regimes," said Daniel Rosen, a tax lawyer at Baker McKenzie who is a former IRS official.Treasury said it expects that only about 1 percent of all U.S. taxpayers would see a reduction of their tax credits for donations to private-school voucher fund. Several states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana and South Carolina — allow taxpayers who donate to private-school funds to get a 100 percent credit against their state taxes, according to data compiled by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.___HOW DO THE LIMITS WORK UNDER THE NEW RULES?Dollar-for-dollar: When a taxpayer receives a benefit in return for donating to charity, the taxpayer should only be able to deduct the net value of the donation as a charitable contribution, Treasury says.An example: You donate ,000 to a charity in a state that offers a 70 percent tax credit, so 0 in this case. You would only be able to claim a 0 charitable deduction on your federal return.There is an exception. If the state tax credits don't exceed 15 percent of the amount donated, so up to a 0 state tax credit on a ,000 donation, the taxpayer could claim the full amount as a charitable deduction.___WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?Taxpayers could have less incentive to donate without getting a deduction or having the deduction reduced.All states rely on property and income taxes to fund an array of services such as education, health care and public safety. Advocates for restoring the full state and local deductions say that the reduced property tax deduction brings a decrease in the value of taxpayers' homes, possibly spurring residents of high-tax states to move elsewhere and crimping funding for local programs.___WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE HIGH-TAX STATES?Measures designed to work around the ,000 cap have been adopted in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Oregon, and introduced or explored publicly by officials in California, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, has called the state-local deduction cap an "assault" on New York by Trump and Republican lawmakers in Washington.In some key "blue" states:—Connecticut has a new law establishing a state charitable fund; donors can get tax credits in exchange for giving.—In New Jersey, where high local property taxes are the major issue, the state is allowing local schools and governments to use the charitable workaround. But so far, no towns have notified authorities that they've set up funds to receive contributions — because state regulators haven't issued the necessary rules, experts say.—New York is offering three options: One like Connecticut's, one like New Jersey's and another to let employers pay payroll taxes for employees, who would receive credits to cancel out the income taxes they would have paid otherwise.—In Maryland, about 500,000 residents — over 18 percent of state taxpayers — will together lose .5 billion in state and local deductions, according to state estimates.___Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Associated Press writer Michael Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed to this report. 5305

来源：资阳报