濮阳东方妇科医院价格正规-【濮阳东方医院】,濮阳东方医院,濮阳东方男科治病贵不,濮阳东方医院男科治疗早泄技术专业,濮阳东方医院治疗阳痿口碑好很放心,濮阳东方男科收费便宜吗,濮阳东方技术很好,濮阳东方医院男科附近站牌
濮阳东方妇科医院价格正规濮阳东方医院男科收费目录,濮阳东方医院看早泄收费透明,濮阳东方医院男科看阳痿技术专业,濮阳东方医院男科医生怎么样,濮阳东方医院看妇科病收费正规,濮阳东方男科很好,濮阳东方公交站
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California had a near-record number of daily coronavirus deaths as pandemic cases strained hospitals and reduced normal intensive care space to a record low. Yet Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday that there are hints residents may be heeding medical officials’ increasingly desperate calls for caution during the holidays. The transmission rate has been slowing for nearly two weeks. The rate of positive cases reached a new high of 12.3% over a two-week period but was starting to trend down. Yet the state's worst surge is taking a horrendous toll that threatens to only worsen if people gather during the holidays. 650
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California moved Friday to eliminate climate-changing fossil fuels from its fleet of 12,000 transit buses, enacting a first-in-the-nation mandate that will vastly increase the number of electric buses on the road.The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to require that all new buses be carbon-free by 2029. Environmental advocates project that the last buses emitting greenhouse gases will be phased out by 2040.While clean buses cost more than the diesel and natural gas vehicles they will replace, say they have lower maintenance and fuel costs. Supporters hope creating demand for thousands of clean buses will bring down their price and eventually other heavy-duty vehicles like trucks.California has 153 zero-emission buses on the road now with hundreds more on order. Most of them are electric, though technology also exists for buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells."Every state could do a strategy like this," said Adrian Martinez, an attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental legal group that supports the rule. "This is something that California did first because we have major air quality and pollution problems, but this is something other states could pursue."Existing state and federal subsidies are available to help transit agencies absorb some of the higher costs of carbon-free buses, along with money from the state's settlement with Volkswagen over the German automaker's emission-cheating software.In approving the mandate, air board members cited both a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality along heavily trafficked transit corridors in smog-polluted cities.The transportation sector accounts for 40 percent of California's greenhouse gases, and those emissions are rising even as electrical emissions have fallen substantially.California needs to drastically reduce transportation emissions to meet its aggressive climate change goals.The California Transit Association, a lobbying group, does not oppose electrifying the fleet but is concerned that zero-emission buses can't match the performance of the existing fleet and that there isn't enough money available for the transition, said Michael Pimentel, who is leading the organization's work on the issue."We do want to work alongside the Air Resources Board and our partners at the state and federal level to address these concerns and to ultimately achieve the goal of fully electrified fleets by 2040," Pimentel said. 2471
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California sued Tuesday to block the Trump administration from cancelling nearly billion for the state's high-speed rail project, escalating the state's feud with the federal government.The Federal Railroad Administration announced last week it would not give California the money awarded by Congress nearly a decade ago, arguing that the state has not made enough progress on the project.The state must complete construction on a segment of track in the Central Valley agricultural heartland by 2022 to keep the money, and the administration has argued the state cannot meet that deadline. That line of track would be the first built on what the state hopes will eventually become a 520-mile (837-kilometer) line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.But Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says the move is retribution for California's criticism of President Donald Trump's immigration policies."The decision was precipitated by President Trump's overt hostility to California, its challenge to his border wall initiatives, and what he called the "green disaster" high-speed rail project," the state said in the lawsuit.California was not expected to tap the 9 million the Trump administration has revoked until 2021. If the lawsuit is not resolved before then, the election could put Democrats in the White House and Congress who may be friendlier to the project.The lawsuit faulted the Trump administration for halting cooperation with the state on granting environmental clearances for the project. It said terminating the funding would "wreak significant economic damage on the Central Valley and the state."Newsom told reporters the administration is "after us in every way, shape or form." But he expressed confidence the state will win in court."Principles and values tend to win out over short-term tweets," Newsom said.The lawsuit highlighted a series of tweets Trump sent about the project, including one that said California's rail project would be far more expensive than Trump's proposed border wall.That tweet came a day after California led 15 states in suing over Trump's plans to fund the border wall, and hours before the administration first threatened to revoke the rail funding.The Federal Railroad Administration did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment about California's lawsuit.California has worked for more than a decade on the project to bring high-speed rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. It's now projected to cost around billion and be finished by 2033.The state has already spent .5 billion in federal funding, and the Trump administration is exploring whether it can try to get that money back.The lawsuit also asks the court to block the administration from awarding the money to any other project.The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California.The dispute over the funding was partly driven by Newsom's remarks in February that the project faced challenges and needed to shift focus. Rail officials had been planning to connect the line under construction in the Central Valley to Silicon Valley, but Newsom has proposed extending the line further north and south into the valley before heading west.The California High-Speed Rail Authority presented a plan in early May that showed it would cost .3 billion to get trains up and running between Bakersfield and Merced by 2028.The board overseeing the project voted Tuesday to further study whether it makes sense financially and otherwise to run early train service on that line. Tom Richards, the vice chairman, noted the board has not yet formally approved the new approach."The board has not been asked for, nor has the board given, any interim service direction to (the project's) management," he said. 3851
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) - A bill working its way through the California State Legislature could require bike lanes and other "active transportation" amenities to be built on state-owned roads.Senate Bill 127 states that "any capital improvement project located in an active transportation place type on a state highway or a local street crossing a state highway that is funded through the program, shall include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improve existing facilities, as part of the project."It means any time Caltrans wants to repave or resurface a part of a State Highway or a highway overpass or underpass, they must add some kind of bike/walking lane or safety measures.San Diego Legislator Tasha Boerner Horvath co-wrote the bill. She sent the following statement to 10News:“My district is a hub for all things that involve outdoor recreation — biking, walking, jogging, skateboarding — you name it and my constituents enjoy doing it throughout our beautiful district. SB 127 is a major move forward in identifying and funding important bike and pedestrian paths to connect people with the places they want to go. In addition, it will bring us an important step further on ensuring highway overpasses in my district have the bike and walking facilities they need to connect inland communities to the coast. This is important for safe routes to schools for our kids as well as folks accessing our stunning beaches.”Members of the San Diego Bicycle Coalition support the bill, saying it will make it easier for people to commute to and from work. They also say it will help fund more "active transportation" projects."The funding is always an issue," says SDBC Advocacy Coordinator Jennifer Hunt. "This is a great way to get that extra, additional funding and just to get more people out safely using biking and walking."The bill has passed the State Senate and is now in the Assembly. The California Legislature is on recess until August, but the bill will be in committee soon after they reconvene. 2028
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