濮阳市东方医院价格不高濮阳东方医院做人流多少钱,濮阳东方妇科医院电话咨询,濮阳东方妇科非常便宜,濮阳市东方医院治病贵不贵,濮阳东方医院妇科咨询中心,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮安全,濮阳东方男科治病好不好

SACRAMENTO (KGTV) -- Miss the October 22 deadline to vote in California but still want to head to the polls? Conditional Voter Registration is a new safety net for residents who missed the deadline to register.Under conditional voter registration, eligible citizens who missed the deadline can go to their county elections office to register.While you may not be able to vote at your regular polling place or vote by mail, there is still an opportunity to cast a ballot.Your Voice Your Vote: 10News?Election CoverageTheir ballots will then be processed once the county elections office has completed the voter registration verification process.Voters can complete the conditional registration from October 23 through Election Day. To find out where you can complete the process, click here.RELATED: Judicial officer to be on hand Election Day 855

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general said Tuesday that he won't charge two Sacramento police officers who fatally shot an unarmed black man last year, a killing that set off intense protests.Attorney General Xavier Becerra's announcement follows the Sacramento district attorney's finding this weekend that the two officers broke no laws when they shot 22-year-old Stephon Clark.Officers Terrance Mercadal and Jared Robinet say they mistakenly thought Clark was approaching them with a gun after he ran from them into his grandparents' backyard as police investigated vandalism.Becerra said his review found officers believed Clark was armed and their lives were in danger when they opened fire. Investigators found only a cellphone.RELATED: No charges for Sacramento officers who fatally shot Stephon Clark"Based on our review of the facts and evidence in relation to the law, I'm here to announce today that our investigation has concluded that no criminal charges against the officers involved in the shooting can be sustained," Becerra said.The attorney general emphasized the need for changes and called Clark's killing a "devastating loss." He met with Clark's mother, SeQuette Clark, before announcing his decision. Jamilia Land, a family spokesperson, said SeQuette Clark would speak to reporters later Tuesday.Clark was shot seven times on March 18, 2018, and his killing prompted protests in California's capital city and across the U.S. Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert's decision not to charge the officers has sparked new demonstrations, with more than 80 people arrested Monday in a wealthy Sacramento neighborhood.Clark's family and black community leaders urged Becerra to reach a different conclusion."I would like for the attorney general to prosecute the officers," brother Stevante Clark said Sunday. "I want justice and accountability."Both Becerra and Schubert concluded that the officers feared for their lives when they shot Clark, who they thought was holding a gun. They were pursuing him after receiving calls about someone breaking car windows.The attorney general and district attorney said the evidence showed Clark was advancing toward the officers when they shot him.The decision has increased support from top state officials to change California's legal standard for when police can use deadly force.Lawmakers have revived a measure introduced after Clark's slaying that would make California the first state to allow police to use deadly force only when it's necessary to prevent imminent and serious injury or death and if there's no reasonable alternative, such as warnings or other methods.Strong opposition from law enforcement agencies stalled it last year. 2747

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers are preparing to return to work after an extended summer recess because of the coronavirus. Lawmakers return to Sacramento on Monday and have about five weeks to pass bills. Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said many lawmakers want Gov. Gavin Newsom to call them back for a special session to give them more time to pass tough bills. Lawmakers are considering proposals that would prevent landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay their rent during the pandemic and making COVID-19 infections eligible for workers' compensation claims. They are also weighing bills about police brutality and health care. 662

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California affiliate of the National Rifle Association has asked a U.S. judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.The California Rifle & Pistol Association asked San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez to halt the checks and related restrictions on ammunition sales.Voters approved tightening California's already strict firearms laws in 2016. The restrictions took effect July 1.The gun owners' association challenged the ammunition background checks in a lawsuit filed last year and on Monday asked for an injunction, alleging it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.RELATED: New ammunition law requires background checksThe lawsuit has been joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals and is trying to become the only person to win seven medals at seven consecutive Games."The scheme purports to funnel everyone seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to acquire ammunition into a single, controlled source, an in-state licensed vendor, for the purpose of confirming purchasers' legal eligibility to possess ammunition and to keep track of all purchases," lawyer Sean Brady wrote. "While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California's scheme goes too far and must be enjoined."The motion raised concerns about identification requirements and high rates of denials among ammunition buyers undergoing the new background checks. Moreover, the system blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors from the California market, the motion argues.RELATED: Study: Tougher gun laws lead to fewer firearm-related deaths among childrenThe judge is expected to decide in early August whether to order a halt, though any such decision is almost certain to be appealed.Benitez in October rejected the state's attempt to throw out the lawsuit. He allowed opponents to proceed on arguments that the ammunition restrictions impede interstate commerce and are pre-empted by federal law.The measure "criminalizes all of those (ammunition) transactions with merchants conducting business in other states," he wrote in a preliminary ruling that the restriction "significantly burdens interstate commerce."He also preliminarily supported the argument that the new state law conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.RELATED: Southern California town of Needles wants to be a sanctuary -- for gun ownersThe California law "criminalizes bringing ammunition into the state that was purchased or obtained outside the state," he wrote.Benitez earlier this year struck down California's nearly two-decade-old ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. That triggered a week-long buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.The impending ammunition background checks sparked a surge in sales as firearm owners sought to beat new requirements, including that dealers report the brand, type and amount of ammunition to the state Department of Justice.Gun owners who already are in the state's background check database would pay a fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Benitez's lifting of the state's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, saying he is confident it will be reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys with San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence anticipated that Benitez is likely to block the ammunition restrictions, but the law would eventually be upheld on appeal."Unfortunately this may be the one judge in the country" willing to rule that "people should be able to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition without background checks," staff attorney Ari Freilich, who directs the organization's California legislative affairs, said prior to the filing.Gun owner groups have been pinning their hopes on a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. But the center's litigation director, Hannah Shearer, said there are unlikely to be the kind of conflicting lower court opinions that would prompt the justices to weigh in.She said courts have upheld ammunition licensing laws in other states and she expects the 9th Circuit would do likewise. 4465