濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术很专业(濮阳东方医院割包皮口碑很不错) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Athletes at California colleges could hire agents and sign endorsement deals under a bill the state Legislature sent to the governor on Wednesday, setting up a potential confrontation with the NCAA that could jeopardize the athletic futures of powerhouse programs like USC, UCLA and Stanford.Gov. Gavin Newsom has not said whether he will sign it. But the NCAA Board Of Governors is already urging him not to, sending him a letter Wednesday saying the bill "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics" and would have drastic consequences for California's colleges and universities."Because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, (it) would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions," the letter said. "These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions."Newsom has 30 days to either sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.The bill would allow student-athletes to hire agents and be paid for the use of their names, images or likenesses. It would stop California universities and the NCAA from banning athletes that take the money. If it becomes law, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2023."I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own likeness and image, this is about fairness," Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Los Angeles Democrat, said Monday.The Senate voted 39-0 to pass the bill, which has the endorsement of NBA superstar LeBron James, who skipped college and went directly to the NBA before the league changed its rules to require players to be at least one year removed from high school before entering the draft. But the bill could impact James' 14-year-old son, who is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles.The NCAA is the governing body for college sports. But membership is voluntary. Athletes can get valuable scholarships, but the NCAA has long banned paying athletes to preserve the academic missions of colleges and universities. But college sports have since morphed into a multibillion-dollar industry, igniting a debate over the fairness of not paying the industry's most visible labor force.Earlier this year, NCAA President Mark Emmert told lawmakers that passing the bill would be premature, noting the NCAA has a committee — led by Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman — that is exploring the issue. Their report is due in October.The NCAA committee has already said it won't endorse a plan to pay athletes as if they were employees, but they could ease limits on endorsement deals for athletes. The NCAA already lets athletes accept money in some instances. Tennis players can accept up to ,000 in prize money and Olympians can accept winnings from their competitions.The bill still puts some restrictions on athletes, such as forbidding them from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their school's existing contracts.Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, though he did not cast a vote. He said allowing athletes to make money could make universities in rural areas less competitive because there could be fewer sponsorship opportunities in the area.But other lawmakers argued banning college athletes from being paid was a violation of their freedoms."Playing college sports should not have to come at the cost of personal liberty, dignity, self-expression or any other value this legislature is charged with protecting," said Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin. "Let's send a loud and clear message to the NCAA."But in and around California, schools and conferences believe this legislation might not be the best solution.The Pac-12, which includes Southern California, UCLA, Stanford and Cal, issued a statement Wednesday reiterating its previous stance — asking the California Legislature to delay the debate until the NCAA announces formal proposals."We all want to protect and support our student-athletes, and the Pac-12 has played a leadership role in national reforms for student-athletes over the past years," the statement said. "The question is what's the best way to continue to support our student-athletes. We think having more information and informed views will be helpful."J.D. Wicker, the athletic director at San Diego State, a Mountain West Conference member, agreed, saying "California weighing in on this complicates that.""I think the frustration for me is that they probably don't truly understand the NCAA and how we work as a governing body," Wicker said. "Again, it's schools across 50 states and it's all of us working together, whereas the state of California will only harm California schools." 4858

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

Russia has condemned US, UK and French strikes against targets in Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons as the Western allies argued they were essential to deter the future use of illegal munitions.The overnight strikes hit three sites -- one in Damascus and two in Homs -- which US President Donald Trump said were "associated with the chemical weapon capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad."The action followed a week of threats of retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, outside Damascus, where Syrian forces have long been battling rebels.Trump hailed the strike as "perfectly executed" in a tweet posted Saturday, adding "Mission Accomplished!"Russian President Vladimir Putin called the missile strikes an "act of aggression against a sovereign state" and said they were against the UN charter. Russia, a key ally of the Assad government, is calling for an immediate UN Security Council meeting, he said. 971

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Vice President-elect Kamala Harris has named veteran Democratic strategist Tina Flournoy as her chief of staff. Flournoy’s appointment as Harris’ top staffer adds to a team of advisers led by Black women. Flournoy has served as chief of staff for former President Bill Clinton since 2013. That follows a career that took her to top posts at the Democratic National Committee, in the presidential campaigns of former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and with the American Federation of Teachers. Former colleagues describe Flournoy as a no-nonsense operative who has both policy and political chops. 663

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

来源：资阳报