濮阳市东方医院评价好吗(濮阳东方妇科医院做人流手术收费标准) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California appeals court says it's legal to have small amounts of marijuana in prison — so long as inmates don't inhale.The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that California voters legalized recreational possession of less than an ounce (28 grams) of cannabis in 2016, with no exception even for those behind bars.But the court says state law does prohibit smoking weed in prison. Prison officials can also still punish pot possession as a rules violation."According to the plain language of ... Proposition 64, possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony," the court ruled Tuesday. "Smoking or ingesting cannabis in prison remains a felony."RELATED: City votes in favor of marijuana production site in Kearny MesaThe court overturned the Sacramento County convictions of five inmates who had been found with marijuana in their prison cells."The voters made quite clear their intention to avoid spending state and county funds prosecuting possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, and quite clear that they did not want to see adults suffer criminal convictions for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana," Sacramento County Assistant Public Defender Leonard Tauman said in an email. The appeals court "quite properly honored what the electorate passed."Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office said it is reviewing the ruling and did not say if he will appeal.RELATED: Nevada becomes first state to ban pre-employment marijuana tests"We want to be clear that drug use and sales within state prisons remains prohibited," said corrections department spokeswoman Vicky Waters. She said the department "is committed to providing a safe, accountable environment for prisoners and staff alike and we plan to evaluate this decision with an eye toward maintaining health and security within our institutions."The three-judge panel rejected the state's argument that guards will lose control over prisons if inmates are free to possess small quantities of marijuana, noting that possession can still be punished as a rules violation with longer prison terms or a reduction in privileges.While prison officials can still punish inmates for violating the rules, "this ruling will prevent inmates from having years added to their sentences for simple possession, reducing overcrowding and saving ,000-75,000 a year in unnecessary costs," said Assistant Public Defender David Lynch.RELATED: More than 100 illegal pot farms busted in Anza, tons of weed seizedThe judges scolded the attorney general's office for a counter-argument it said "uses arcane rules" and "twists the meaning of the words of the statute."Becerra's office argued that the court's reading of the law was absurd because it in effect allows controlled substances into prisons. But the court noted that it previously ruled that it's not illegal for inmates to have properly prescribed medications or medical marijuana behind bars — though it may be against the rules."The Attorney General raises the same hackneyed and losing arguments in each case involving contraband in jails or prisons," the judges wrote.Lawmakers held "an over abiding consensus" in the 1940s that drug use by inmates was "the ultimate evil," they wrote. But those old laws belie "a gradual change in attitude" first toward medical and eventually toward recreational marijuana."As a matter of public policy, his position may be sound," the judges wrote. "The fact that the Attorney General may not agree with the voters does not empower us to rewrite the initiative."They ultimately concluded that "a result is not absurd because the outcome may be unwise." 3667

RICHMOND, Va. -- The governor of Virginia is calling on the state's school districts to change school names and mascots that honor Confederate leaders.In a July 6 letter addressed to Virginia School Board Chairs, Gov. Ralph Northam compared the Confederate school names to Confederate statues, saying they have a traumatizing impact on students, families, teachers and staff of all backgrounds."When our public schools are named after individuals who advanced slavery and systemic racism, and we allow those names to remain on school property, we tacitly endorse their values as our own. This is no longer acceptable," Northam wrote.The governor said the names also perpetuate the hurt woven into a past of slavery and racism and sends students a clear message on "what we value the most.""Recognizing the harmful impact these school names have on our children, I am calling on school boards to evaluate the history behind your school names," Northam wrote."The financial costs of changing school names are minimal compared to the generations that suffered through American slavery, the Confederacy, the Jim-Crow era, massive resistance, and contemporary manifestation of systemic racism, like the school to prison pipeline," he added.Northam says he is looking forward to working with the school leaders to create a Commonwealth reflective of the values Virginians hold most true today."Now is the time to change them to reflect the inclusive, diverse, and welcoming school community every child deserves, and that we as leaders of the Commonwealth, have a civic duty to foster."State Superintendent James Lane echoed the governor's sentiment in a statement Tuesday.“Our schools should be welcoming to all students, and the names and mascots of our schools should not promote a history of racism,” Lane said. “I believe that the governor’s letter will prompt overdue conversations about inclusiveness in the few divisions that still have buildings with Confederate names.”There is currently a lawsuit, filed by the Hanover County NAACP chapter, challenging the use of Confederate names and imagery at Lee-Davis High School and Stonewall Jackson Middle School.The lawsuit argues the nicknames violates students' first amendment rights.A hearing in that lawsuit is scheduled for March of 2021.In Henrico County, Douglas freeman High School is asking for input from students, families, and alumni on potentially changing their nickname, the Rebels.This story was originally published by Vernon Freeman Jr. at WTVR. 2520

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California would bar forced arbitration and nondisclosure agreements under a bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday that enjoys celebrity backing from some in the #MeToo movement.It would prohibit employers from requiring nondisclosure agreements related to sexual misconduct as a condition of getting or keeping a job. It also would ban employers from requiring arbitration agreements, which can force employees to settle workplace complaints instead of going to court, as a condition of employment.The bill has the backing of actress and activist Jane Fonda and former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson.Current law "allows companies to force employee complaints in to secret proceedings" and can be used to protect "serial offenders" in the workplace, said Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara.Companies can still require arbitration under the bill, but not as a as a condition of employment, she said."To force someone to enter into these agreements is not acceptable, and that's what this bill addresses," she said. The bill "gives people access to justice in a fair and impartial way."The bill would not prevent existing arbitration or nondisclosure agreements from being enforced.Republican Sen. Jeff Stone of Temecula, the only senator who spoke in opposition, called the bill "another job killer" that can drive companies out of California and mainly benefits trial lawyers by forcing more disputes into already overwhelmed courts.Most workers can often get a better and quicker resolution through arbitration than by filing a lawsuit, he said.That may be true for unionized employees whose unions can help choose arbitrators, said Democratic Sen. Connie Leyva of Chino, but she said companies have an unfair advantage over non-union employees because the employer then controls the arbitration process.The measure was approved by the state Senate, 25-12. It was one of a number of bills introduced after dozens of women went public with stories of sexual misconduct.Carlson, who spoke in favor of the bill in May, sued Fox News Channel CEO Roger Ailes in 2016, alleging she was fired for rejecting his sexual advances. Ailes, who died last year, said Carlson's contract prohibited her from going public until both sides first tried closed-door arbitration. Ailes was ultimately forced out of the network because of her allegations. 2393

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown helped his party become dominant in California politics during his eight years leading the nation's most populous state, and less than a month before leaving office, he is predicting it will be difficult for his successor to control Democrats' hunger for more spending and rules.The leader of California Democrats has kept lawmakers in check by limiting spending on social programs in favor of saving it to protect against a future economic downtown. He sometimes butted heads with legislative leaders, warning spending too much now could hurt taxpayers or require budget cuts later.Democrats hold all statewide offices and expanded their supermajority in the Legislature last month, allowing them to approve tax hikes and virtually any law without Republican support."I'd say we're in for contentious times and for too many rules, too many constricting mandates and probably too much spending," Brown told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday.He said Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom may have a hard time keeping fellow Democrats in check because "he's got to please some of these groups enough of the time to still be viable as a political leader."In the interview, Brown, 80, called for more blunt discussions about the danger of wildfires to force officials and residents to act, pushed back against critics who say he's too friendly to oil companies, and chided world leaders for failing to tackle climate change with urgency.He leaves office Jan. 7 after wrapping up a record four terms, first from 1975 to 1983 and again since 2011.The governor's comments on Democratic priorities reflect the more frugal attitude he brought to Sacramento. He entered office with a billion deficit and leaves a nearly billion rainy day fund and a surplus.Brown, however, has backed his own expensive plans. He used Democratic majorities to pass a controversial gas tax increase for road maintenance and has steadfastly defended a billion project to build a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco that's seen repeated delays and cost overruns.While he warned against overspending, he said he expected dissonant voices among the Democratic majority — a result of what he called the party's greater diversity of people and ideas. Republicans, he said, hold a "slavish adherence" to a limited agenda and President Donald Trump.Brown is leaving office on the heels of the deadliest U.S. wildfire in a century. Flames tore through the town of Paradise last month, killing at least 86 people and destroying 14,000 homes. He's blamed climate change for more destructive blazes in recent years and warned things will worsen.The governor called the need to limit building in areas at high risk for wildfires "obvious" but said it's "politically painful" to implement when people want to rebuild their homes and developers see opportunities.People who choose to live in high-risk areas need to plan escape routes, build cellars and manage vegetation, he said. And the state must provide more information about the true danger of wildfires, he said."I don't think governments lay out for people the stark warning: You may die in this particular environment," Brown said.Wildfires offer Brown an opportunity to call for swifter action against climate change, which is making California drier and more prone to flames. He's urged action beyond California, working with the U.N., creating a global coalition to reduce climate emissions and holding meetings in China and Russia.He's working on a climate-focused partnership between the University of California system and Tsinghau University in Beijing he can dive in to when he leaves office, he said. His spokesman Evan Westrup declined to provide more details.Critics say Brown has a blind spot when it comes to oil because he keeps allowing drilling permits and new wells. Brown scoffs at the claims, saying the state's overall oil production has dropped steadily since the 1980s. He says simply stopping it won't halt demand. He's pushed to make electric vehicles more accessible and worked to improve public transit."The problem is burning oil, consuming it," he said. "The only way you stop that is electric cars, land use so you don't have to travel so far and other forms of reducing carbon emissions."He said climate change advocates still must be careful to not overplay their hand. He pointed to a planned fuel tax in France that led to violent protests. French President Emmanuel Macron early this month backed down on the tax, which critics said would hurt the working class.Brown said Macron didn't add enough rebates or tax credits to cushion the blow for low-income people."You have to get the right idea, you have to be careful and nuanced and then you have to be very skillful in the execution, and you can fail in many different ways," Brown said.In a common theme, he ended the interview with a global wake-up call."The threat of nuclear annihilation and climate change on a permanent basis looms, and therefore it is time for new leaders to rise up and make the case and mobilize the people for what needs to be done," he said. "What needs to be done is unprecedented, and therein lies the dilemma." 5238

来源：资阳报