梅州做双眼皮多少梅州哪个医院看妇科病好,梅州怎样检查妇科病,梅州怎样防治急性附件炎,梅州20周做打胎所需费用,梅州白带异常有味,梅州请问清宫要多少钱,梅州炎症会推迟月经吗

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Nineteen states sued on Monday over the Trump administration's effort to alter a federal agreement that limits how long immigrant children can be kept in detention."We wish to protect children from irreparable harm," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said as he announced the lawsuit he is co-leading with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Both are Democrats.A 1997 agreement known as the Flores settlement says immigrant children must be kept in the least restrictive setting and generally shouldn't spend more than 20 days in detention.The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said last week it would create new regulations on how migrant children are treated. The administration wants to remove court oversight and allow families in detention longer than 20 days. About 475,000 families have crossed the border so far this budget year, nearly three times the previous full-year record for families.A judge must OK the Trump administration's proposed changes in order to end the agreement, and a legal battle is expected from the case's original lawyers.It's not likely that U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee would approve the changes; it was her ruling in 2015 that extended the application of the Flores agreement to include children who came with families. She ordered the Obama administration to release children as quickly as possible.Still, Becerra argued California has a role to play in the case because the state is home to so many immigrants."The federal government doesn't have a right to tell us how we provide for the well-being of people in our state," he said.California does not have any detention centers that house migrant families. The Trump administration argued that because no states license federal detention centers, they wanted to create their own set of standards in order to satisfy the judge's requirements that the facilities are licensed.They said they will be audited, and the audits made public. But the Flores attorneys are concerned that they will no longer be able to inspect the facilities, and that careful state licensing requirements will be eschewed.Becerra echoed that argument, saying that removing state authority over licensing centers could allow the federal government to place centers in California or other states that don't meet basic standards of care.Attorney General Bob Ferguson of Washington, also a Democrat, said prolonged detention will have long-term impacts on the mental and physical health of immigrant children and families."When we welcome those children into our communities, state-run programs and services bear the burden of the long-term impact of the trauma those children endured in detention," he said.California on Monday also sought to halt a Trump administration effort that could deny green cards to immigrants using public benefits.Other states joining the lawsuit are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.__Associated Press journalists Colleen Long in Washington, D.C., and Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Washington, contributed to this report. 3247

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Democratic governor signed a law Tuesday requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot, a move aimed squarely at Republican President Donald Trump.But even if the law withstands a likely legal challenge, Trump could avoid the requirements by choosing not to compete in California's primary. With no credible GOP challenger at this point, he likely won't need California's delegates to win the Republican nomination.While aimed at Trump, the law also applies to candidates for governor. Newsom said California's status as one of the world's largest economies gives it "a special responsibility" to require tax returns from its prospective elected officials."These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence," Newsom wrote in his signing statement.The Trump campaign called the bill "unconstitutional," saying there were good reasons why California's former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar proposal last year."What's next, five years of health records?" said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump's campaign.The courts will likely have the final say. The bill's author, Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire, said lawmakers made sure the law only applies to the state's primary ballot because the state Constitution says the state Legislature does not control access to the general election ballot.Newsom's message to state lawmakers on Tuesday said the law is constitutional because "the United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen."But Murtaugh said the law violates First Amendment right of association "since California can't tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election."While states have authority over how candidates can access the ballot, the U.S. Constitution lays out a limited set of qualifications someone needs to meet to run for president, said Rick Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California-Irvine School of Law. Those qualifications include the requirement that presidential candidates be over age 35.The U.S. Supreme court has previously stopped state efforts to add requirements on congressional candidates through ballot access rules.New York has passed a law giving congressional committees access to Trump's state tax returns. But efforts to pry loose his tax returns have floundered in other states. California's first attempt to do so failed in 2017 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed the law, raising questions about its constitutionality and where it would lead next.The major Democratic 2020 contenders have already released tax returns for roughly the past decade. Trump has bucked decades of precedent by refusing to release his. Tax returns show income, charitable giving and business dealings, all of which Democratic state lawmakers say voters are entitled to know about.California's new law will require candidates to submit tax returns for the most recent five years to California's Secretary of State at least 98 days before the primary. They will then be posed online for the public to view, with certain personal information redacted.California is holding next year's primary on March 3, known as Super Tuesday because the high number of state's with nominating contests that day.Democratic Sen. Mike McGuire of Healdsburg said it would be "inconsistent" with past practice for Trump to forego the primary ballot and "ignore the most popular and vote-rich state in the nation."Republican Party of California chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said Newsom signing the law shows Democratic leaders in the state continue "to put partisan politics first," urging Democrats to instead join Republicans "in seeking ways to reduce the cost of living, help our schools and make our streets safer." 4061

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A group of Democratic California lawmakers called Monday for the state to invest 0 billion to drastically reduce its carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels by 2030.A resolution proposed by Democratic Sen. Henry Stern would set the non-binding goal and also declare a climate emergency, citing recent devastating wildfires and the impacts of air pollution on child asthma. It comes as Democrats in Congress advocate for the passage of the Green New Deal, a massive investment in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and workforce to fight climate change."We have to live in California, hopefully for the rest of our lives, and hopefully in a way that doesn't burn down our homes, that doesn't make our kids sick (and) allows us to get to work without losing our minds in traffic," Stern said on the steps of the state Capitol with students from eight different University of California schools behind him.The 0 billion would be spent over 12 years and come from existing pots of money, including the state's carbon emissions auction program and a gas tax increase to fund transportation projects. The resolution would say all of that money should be spent toward projects that reduce, sequester or remove greenhouse gas emissions.While Stern's resolution would not be binding, Democratic state Assemblyman Todd Gloria has introduced legislation to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The state's current goal is eliminating fossil fuel use for electricity by 2045 and to achieve carbon neutrality by that year, meaning the state takes as much carbon out of the atmosphere as it puts in.The goals are aggressive and ambitious even for California, a state viewed as a global leader on confronting climate change. The 2045 clean energy goal passed the 80-member state Assembly last year by just four votes, with some Democrats voting against it.Gloria's proposal would require an "immediate phase out of fossil fuels.""The emergency facing our state, our nation, our world is climate change, and don't let anybody tell you anything different," Gloria said.Stern's proposal, meanwhile, would call for the elimination of fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2030. He does not propose eliminating fossil fuel use in transportation, but drastically diminishing it. 2313

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is adopting nearly two dozen laws aimed at preventing and fighting the devastating wildfires that have charred large swaths of the state in recent years and killed scores of people.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that he had signed the 22 bills, saying several also will help the state meet its clean energy goals.The measures largely enact key recommendations from a June report by a governor’s task force and build on billion in the state budget devoted to preparing for wildfires and other emergencies, Newsom said.Newsom signed the legislation as the state approaches the anniversary of the wildfire that killed 85 people and largely leveled the Northern California town of Paradise last November.It’s just short of the second anniversary of the firestorms that raced through the wine country counties north and east of San Francisco, noted state Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat representing Healdsburg in the affected areas. But he said the state is learning from its mistakes.The fires changed the lives of tens of thousands of Californians, but the losses of lives and property “should not go in vain,” McGuire said in a statement. “We have a new normal in California and our state is stepping up.”Several bills encourage communities to adopt standards for making homes and their surroundings more fire resistant. One requires state officials to work with communities in high-risk areas to create a retrofit program to update homes built prior to stricter building codes in 2008.Others address the precautionary power shutoffs that utilities have begun using more frequently to ease the risk of blazes sparked by electric lines, which have ignited some of California’s deadliest wildfires in recent years. One, for instance, will help low-income people receive backup power if they rely on life support equipment.Some increase state regulation of utilities’ wildfire prevention efforts. One of those bills requires an independent third-party to verify the clearing of vegetation from utility lines.Others try to safeguard and streamline communications systems including those used to notify millions of Californians during disasters. Another bill creates the California Wildfire Warning Center, a network of automated weather and environmental monitoring stations that will help officials forecast bad fire weather and better assess the threat.“Given the realities of climate change and extreme weather events, the work is not done, but these bills represent important steps forward on prevention, community resilience and utility oversight,” Newsom said in a statement.Fire officials have blamed global warming for a longer, drier wildfire season that now stretches virtually year-round in parts of the state. Newsom called climate change “a core driver of heightened wildfire risk” and said five of the bills he signed, including one with incentives for using storage batteries, will help California keep its role as a clean energy leader.Several of those bills increase utility regulation by the California Public Utility Commission, while another sets requirements for additional utility safety reviews by the commission.Earlier this year, Newsom signed a law requiring California’s three investor-owned utilities to spend a combined billion on safety improvements and standards. That measure also sets up a billion fund that the companies and utility customers pay into that can be tapped to help pay victims of future wildfires.On Wednesday the Democratic governor vetoed a bill by Republican Assemblyman Jay Obernolte of Big Bear Lake that would have eased the state’s strict environmental laws when building fire safety routes, saying the measure is premature and could bring unintended consequences.Newsom said he would need better information on the number, location and potential impacts of future fire safety road construction projects. 3925