梅州妇科医院哪个便宜梅州治疗医院哪好,梅州宫颈糜烂1度的表现,梅州白带褐色有血丝,梅州治疗月经性阴道炎的方法,梅州看妇科病的医院,梅州白带太多是什么原因,梅州哪家医院做双眼皮好

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 six percent of the male population - and less than one percent of the female population - suffer from colorblindness.It isn’t a deficiency that is debilitating, but it can be frustrating.For 11-year-old Andreas Koerber, reds and greens are mixed up, blues and purples are difficult to differentiate. The world, as he sees it, is generally more drab.The North Olmsted, Ohio sixth-grader and his family didn’t know there was a fix, until recently.Now, his eyes are open to an entirely new world after the discovery of specialized glasses.“Everything is more colorful, it’s brighter, it’s not as dark,” Andreas said.He realized he was colorblind at age five. It’s one of the biggest differences between him and his twin brother Luke. Luke is the one who had the idea to surprise Andreas with the glasses after learning about them online.“He’s my brother and really, it doesn’t feel fair that I get to see all the colors and he doesn’t,” Luke said. “I didn’t really realize how bad it was and what he wasn’t seeing.”For mom Rita Koerber, watching Andreas see colors for the first time was eye-opening.“It was just this totally special, emotional moment,” Rita said. "Kind of like Christmas when you have little kids and you’re seeing that through their eyes and they’re so excited, it was like that."The glasses run upwards of 0 and are not covered by insurance. After trying them on at Eyetique in Eton Center, Rita immediately had them special-ordered.“It’s like, how do you put a price tag on that? His face was just smiling nonstop for two days,” she said. 1595

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

Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi said Monday he expects to be indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for "giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury."Corsi made the comment during his streaming show on YouTube."And now I fully anticipate that the next few days, I will be indicted by Mueller for some form or other of giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury or however they want to do the indictment. But I'm going to be criminally charged," Corsi said Monday.Corsi's lawyer declined to comment.Corsi could face any number of charges -- spanning from perjury to making false claims to obstruction of justice. The potential charges are related to false statements he made about his relationship with WikiLeaks and Stone.Corsi has been involved in Mueller's investigation for roughly two months and had already been subpoenaed for documents and testimony before the grand jury, and he complied with both.Corsi's role in the investigation largely revolves around the possibility that he was an intermediary between Stone and WikiLeaks.During the 2016 campaign, Stone publicly bragged about having "backchannel communications" with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and on several occasions appeared to predict the WikiLeaks releases that roiled the race in the final stretch of the campaign. But in the two years since Trump's victory, Stone has walked back those claims and said his "backchannel" was merely New York radio host Randy Credico sharing information about his interviews with Assange. Credico denies serving as an intermediary between the two.Investigators have been skeptical of Stone's explanation. CNN has reported that?Mueller's team is examining the possibility that Stone had another intermediary beyond Credico, and that Corsi might have been involved.Corsi injected himself into Stone's situation last year when he claimed that one of his own articles for InfoWars inspired Stone to predict in October 2016 that there would be trouble coming for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Not long after that, WikiLeaks started releasing thousands of Podesta's hacked emails.Stone denies that he ever told Trump about WikiLeaks' dumps before they became public. He also denies colluding with Russia.The-CNN-Wire 2331

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The California Supreme Court overturned the 2005 death sentence for Scott Peterson in the slaying of his pregnant wife.The court says prosecutors may try again for the same sentence if they wish in the high-profile case. It upheld Peterson's 2004 conviction of murdering his wife Laci Peterson.Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant with their unborn son, and investigators said that on Christmas Eve in 2002, Scott Peterson dumped the bodies from his fishing boat into San Francisco Bay.The court on Monday said the trial judge made several significant errors in jury selection that undermined Peterson's right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.The court ruled potential jurors for the death penalty phase were improperly dismissed after saying they disagreed with the death penalty but would be willing to impose it."The trial judge made a mistake by kicking those people off the jury, so the only people that sat on the jury were in the death penalty camp," said criminal defense attorney Gretchen von Helms.Prosecutors will now decide whether to retry the sentencing phase.While the sentence was overturned, the court affirmed the murder convictions. "The sentencing was a positive step. The other decision (convictions affirmed) was about what we expected. Now we go to the habeas appeal," said Lee Peterson, Peterson's father.The court will examine the case again when it decides a separate habeas corpus challenge, based on evidence. not presented at the original trial. Peterson's father declined to talk about the arguments in the appeal, but says he's expecting a development within the next four months.Peterson's family issued this full statement in response to the court's decision:Our family is sincerely grateful that the California Supreme Court recognized the injustice of Scott’s death penalty. For a long and difficult 18 years, we have believed unwaveringly in Scott’s innocence, so today’s decision by the court is a big step toward justice for Laci, Conner and Scott.Now our family will do two things: First, we wait for Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager to decide whether to pursue a new penalty phase trial. If the DA elects to do so, a new jury would be seated, and they would hear all the evidence. They would then decide only Scott’s sentence: life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. While we hope for the opportunity to present the new evidence to a jury, it is not likely that this penalty phase trial will happen. The case against Scott has weakened to the point where no jury would ever sentence him to death again and the District Attorney is aware of these facts.Second, we wait for the court to address the new forensic and eyewitness evidence we have submitted that shows Laci was alive the morning of December 24th and demonstrates Scott’s innocence. When the court reviews this in the coming months, we are confident they will grant Scott a new guilt phase trial.Our family has been deeply moved by the outpouring of support not only from family and friends but also from the hundreds of people from all walks of life who have shared their faith in Scott’s innocence. For more information on the case, please visit our website at ScottPetersonAppeal.org. 3275