濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术权威濮阳东方妇科医院做人流价格不高,濮阳东方医院男科收费很低,濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿价格不高,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术口碑好吗,濮阳东方妇科医院价格标准,濮阳东方看男科技术先进,濮阳东方医院治阳痿口碑很好

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) - A California Assemblymember wants to make horse racing safer and prevent deaths on the track.Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-27) says it's the only way to ensure the sport's survival in the state."I think whether you're a race fan or not, everything we can do to protect the horses, while protecting the sanctity of the sport as well, is important," says Kalra.His proposal, Assembly Bill 2177, would create sweeping changes to the way horses are cared for at the tracks. Among the most notable changes, all large tracks would be required to have CT Scans on site. Kalra says this will help get more accurate diagnoses of injuries.The bill would also require tracks to have on-site pharmacies, and trainers could only give medicine from those pharmacies to the horses. Veterinarians would also be prohibited from carrying medicine to the tracks."If you mask injuries, you risk greater injury," he says. "So we want to make sure that medications are being prescribed that actually deal with specific injuries, they're not performance enhancing and they're not being used to mask an injury just to get a horse out on a track when it's not ready."The bill requires the immediate suspension of any trainer who has a horse die on the track, pending an investigation. It also gives the California Horse Racing Board the authority to suspend or revoke a trainer's license for repeat violations of medication regulations.The bill is sponsored by PETA and the animal rights group Social Compassion in Legislation. In a statement, PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo says "Horse racing shouldn't come with a death toll, and this legislation can help to make sure it doesn't."Judie Mancuso, the President of Social Compassion in Legislation told 10News that this bill can be a good compromise between the industry and people who want to see the sport eliminated."A lot of it is just common sense," says Mancuso. "If horse racing is to exist in California, there has to be zero tolerance for fatalities."Horse deaths were a major problem in California in 2019. Santa Anita saw 44 horses die at the track since December of 2018. The Del Mar race track had a handful of deaths during its Bing Crosby fall season.Kalra says Del Mar has been a leader in horse safety and the rest of the state should look to them for best practices."Del Mar is actually one of the safer tracks and that's something we want to look at," he says. "Why is it safer? We can learn a lot by what's happening at your local track and hopefully these rules and regulations will be able to encapsulate some of the good things happening in the industry as well."Officials from Del Mar declined to go on camera, but released a statement to 10News about Assembly Bill 2177. In it, they say:"The Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (DMTC) is committed to working with the legislature and equine experts to ensure the safest possible environment for California's horses and riders. In 2017, DMTC began a series of industry-leading reforms which resulted in Del Mar being ranked as the safest racetrack in North American in both 2018 and 2019. As a founding member of the national Thoroughbred Safety Coalition, DMTC continues to work with industry stakeholders to advocate for and implement the highest standards of safety and welfare for our equine and human athletes."Critics of the bill say it will ruin the industry in California, as trainers and owners who don't want to abide by the new rules will choose to race in other states instead. Kalra believes that if California adopts the new rules, the rest of the country will follow."California needs to do what's in the best interest of Californians," he says. "I think once we do that and other states see how we're doing it, they'll want to work with us and really create a standard that can be used nationally."The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the House Government Oversight Committee on March 13th. 3943

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — As the political battle to overturn California's gas tax increase intensified, the state transportation agency coordinated frequently with the public affairs firm working to block the repeal on behalf of unions, construction companies and local government groups, emails obtained by The Associated Press show.The California State Transportation Agency and Sacramento-based Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks organized news conferences and other efforts to promote legislation to raise the tax to fund road and bridge repairs, which passed the Legislature in April 2017. After Gov. Jerry Brown signed it, the agency and firm continued planning events and coordinating social media posts as opponents gathered signatures for repeal.Three ethics experts interviewed by the AP said the emails raise concerns that the agency's relationship with the firm was too close, but none saw a clear violation of campaign laws, which prohibit the use of public resources for political campaigns.REPORT: Gas tax funds reportedly being used to campaign against Prop 6The repeal qualified for the November ballot in June. The firm, BCF, continues to work for the anti-repeal coalition, which includes the League of California Cities and the California Chamber of Commerce.Some communications between BCF and the state agency involved politics, according to more than 200 emails from 2017 and the first half of this year obtained by the AP through the California Public Records Act.Last fall, the agency and firm discussed opinion pieces "targeting" U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa and three other vulnerable Republicans in Congress. National Democratic leaders see those seats as key to winning control of the U.S. House.RELATED: Caltrans' gas tax freeway signs raise concerns with FedsIn January, a BCF partner, Kathy Fairbanks, communicated with the agency about designing a campaign logo for Proposition 69, a June ballot measure involving how gas tax proceeds are spent. And an undated memo shows the agency and firm also planned to coordinate efforts for several months through the primary.Loyola Law School Professor and government ethics expert Jessica Levinson said the relationship between the firm and agency appears too close, and the exchange about the congressmen crossed an ethical line.RELATED: California campaign watchdog investigates gas tax campaign"I mean way over the line," she said.BCF and agency officials said the communications were appropriate to educate the public about the law and that they ramped down coordination when the firm took an official campaign role."Clearly the agency was trying to coordinate with the campaign, and they shouldn't have," said Bob Stern, a government ethics expert who helped write California's campaign laws. But he added the actual amount of time government workers spent coordinating with the firm was likely minimal.Ann Ravel, who served on the Federal Election Commission and California's Fair Political Practices Commission, said the volume of emails raises questions about whether the agency aided one side.RELATED: Poll: Support strong for Proposition 6, which repeals California's gas tax"It seems like maybe it's a little too cozy, but I wouldn't say that it's clearly inappropriate," Ravel said.The legislation approved last year raised gas taxes by 12 cents per gallon and added diesel and vehicle fees to generate billion annually. Proposition 6 would repeal the increase and require voters approve gas and vehicle tax increases.The ballot measure is a centerpiece of California Republicans' efforts to boost turnout. GOP Congress members — including House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield and Orange County's Mimi Walters — are among the repeal's biggest financial backers.Leaders of the repeal campaign have asked the federal government to investigate their claims that public resources have been used against them, based on emails and other documents that show local government workers discussing the repeal effort. Those documents are different from the ones the AP obtained. Opponents also circulated a video of a Caltrans contractor passing out anti-Proposition 6 fliers to drivers.The California Department of Transportation, known as Caltrans, falls under the state transportation agency.Melissa Figueroa, the agency's deputy secretary for communications and strategic planning, said it's the agency's job to inform the public about the impact of laws, and it has done so in the past, including for California's "motor voter" registration law."We're trying to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars," Figueroa said.The agency communicated much less frequently with the firm and stopped coordinating social media posts once the official anti-Proposition 6 campaign started, Figueroa said."Prior to that point, it was more of a collaborative effort because they were not in campaign mode," Figueroa said.BCF partner Brandon Castillo said the coalition registered as a fundraising committee in December and officially became a ballot measure campaign in March to support Proposition 69.BCF and other gas tax supporters routinely asked the agency for information, but they did not coordinate on creating campaign materials, Figueroa said. The agency also fulfilled numerous public records requests filed by gas tax opponents, she said.However, an undated memo outlining agency and coalition plans from March through the primary election shows the firm and the agency coordinated the timing of announcements and events. It details plans for the state to tout new construction projects while the coalition campaigned for Proposition 69.The agency and coalition coordinated their schedules, but the agency wasn't involved in campaigning for Proposition 69, Figueroa said.Castillo sent the email about op-eds focused on GOP candidates Sept. 20, 2017."Hey Melissa — We're penning opeds (sic) targeting the following congressional republicans," he wrote. He identified Reps. Jeff Denham, Steve Knight, Walters and Issa and asked Figueroa for information about projects funded by the gas tax increase in their districts.At the time, the coalition was working to persuade California's influential Republican congressional delegates to reject the repeal.Several days after Castillo's email, Figueroa suggested she or Brian Kelly, then the agency's leader, help find an author for the piece targeting Issa, considered the most vulnerable California incumbent before he decided against seeking re-election.Castillo responded saying coalition members were working on it and asked: "Do you have anyone in mind that could influence Republicans/Issa?"The documents obtained by the AP don't include further exchanges on the issue. In interviews, Castillo and Figueroa said the agency never suggested an author. Figueroa said she offered help because the op-ed would educate people in Issa's district.The piece ultimately was written by the mayor of Encinitas, a suburb north of San Diego, and ran the following month in the San Diego Union-Tribune. It touted projects in the district funded by the gas tax increase but didn't mention Issa.Levinson found the exchange surprising because it seemed to directly reference campaign activities."I don't want to say it's a smoking gun, but that is so much more explicit than I ever would have predicted they would be," she said.Prominent gas tax repeal supporters, including gubernatorial candidate John Cox and conservative activist Carl DeMaio, criticized the agency's activity."It's against the law, and it also shows that you can't trust them with money," DeMaio said. "I think that what you're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg." 7732

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — An investigation has found many California state agencies have failed to provide sexual harassment training for all their supervisors as required by state law.Capital Public Radio reported Tuesday its investigation found nearly 60 percent of agencies surveyed by the State Personnel Board did not provide the training, up from 25 percent in 2016 and 32 percent in 2017.The public radio station reports that since 2016, the State Personnel Board has identified nearly 1,800 state government supervisors at dozens of agencies who did not receive the required training.A state law requires businesses with 50 or more workers and all state agencies to provide two hours of sexual harassment training to new supervisors within six months of being hired or promoted. 794

RICHMOND, Va. — Despite a recent extension of student loan relief, experts suggest borrowers should begin preparing now for repayments to begin."The best thing you can do right now is to set a plan forward for your repayment," said Andrew Pentis, who works with LendingTree. "It's possible that this moratorium could be extended by the Biden administration or the newly-elected Congress. But Biden takes office on Jan. 20 and the current moratorium is expected to end right now at Jan. 31. So that only leaves you know less than two weeks for a decision to be made on whether the moratorium will be extended."Pentis said that since March, millions of student loan borrowers have been given an administrative forbearance, which suspended payments and interest and stopped collections on all defaulted student loans. He said borrowers with government-held federal student loans did not incur penalties during the moratorium."If you have an eligible federal student loan and you're seeing any of those negative impacts such as your credit score being affected your credit report showing and delinquent account, it's best to contact your federal loan servicers," Pentis said.For borrowers struggling to afford payments, Pentis suggested they enroll in an income-driven repayment plan to lower monthly payments. "You could also pause your payments via a deferment for unemployment or other economic hardship reasons," he said.He said hoping the government will simply wipe away the more than trillion in student loan debt is not a wise option."There are billions of dollars worth of private student loans and student loans that are no longer in the hands of the federal government," he said. "So even if both major political parties got together and decided this is what they wanted to do, it's unlikely that we would see more than a trillion dollars actually went away."While Pentis says it is best to plan to restart payments at the end of January, reports surfaced on Thursday that Congress is close to striking a deal on more COVID-19 stimulus that could include more student loan relief.This story was originally published by Shelby Brown on WTVR in Richmond, Virginia. 2181

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