濮阳东方医院男科治疗阳痿好吗濮阳东方妇科医院很正规,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮评价好很不错,濮阳东方医院看妇科病评价好很不错,濮阳东方看男科病技术很好,濮阳东方男科好吗,濮阳东方男科评价非常好,濮阳东方医院男科治病便宜吗

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A California bill announced Wednesday would ban soda companies from offering coupons for any sugar-sweetened drinks. AB 764, introduced by Assemblymember Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland, goes as far as to ban companies from offering any promotional incentive for sugar-sweetened beverages. In a statement, Bonta blames marketing practices used by soda manufacturers for contributing to a “public health epidemic of obesity and diabetes.”“Specifically, manufacturers subsidize the cost of sugary drinks, which substantially lowers their prices and increases their consumption particularly in low-income communities. Often times these practices result in soda being cheaper than bottled water," Bonta said. In a Facebook post, Bonta said several bills introduced Wednesday would also “provide revenue to offset the costs to our health care system from the overconsumption of sugar-laden sodas like Coke and Pepsi, and other sugary drinks.”“Seriously? This is what they choose to focus on,” one Facebook commenter said out of frustration. “This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. This is America. We don't need politicians controlling what we drink or eat. Why stop there? Bread and potatoes and complex carbs are converted into simple sugar in the blood. Ban them too! Force everyone to go keto! SMH,” another comment of Facebook read. Though several people voiced concerns over the bill, many seemed supportive. “Good job Rob,” one Facebook comment read. The bill is co-sponsored by the California Medical Association and the California Dental Association. 1610

Riding in vehicles after the pandemic could look different for a while. Ridesharing company Lyft will be distributing partitions to drivers as they make changes to address the COVID-19 pandemic and CDC guidelines.In a blog post Friday, Lyft said they are establishing new health and safety standards, including riders and drivers certifying they are symptom-free, wearing masks throughout the ride, and vehicle partitions.Partitions have been available to identified frequent Lyft drivers and those in the company’s Express Drive rental program in Atlanta, Denver and Baltimore. They will be coming to other large cities next before being rolled out to 60,000 drivers in the coming months. Some drivers will receive partitions for free, others will be able to purchase one from Lyft. The blog post did not make it clear how it was deciding who got a free partition. “By prioritizing the wellbeing of our drivers, our entire community gains extra peace of mind,” Angie Westbrock, VP of Global Operations, said in the company’s blog post.Lyft’s competitor, Uber, has rolled out safety measures including providing cleaning supplies to drivers, providing a curbside/doorstep drop-off option in their Uber Eats product and recommending riders sit in the back of the vehicle and drivers keep windows open when possible. 1322

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers are negotiating a pair of proposed tax increases as the deadline approaches for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign a 4.8 billion operating budget.Lawmakers approved the budget bill last week, but lawmakers still must pass more than a dozen "trailer bills" that detail how the money must be spent.Monday, the state Senate approved a plan to raise taxes on some business income and give that money to people who earn less than ,000 a year in their annual tax refunds. The Assembly, meanwhile, approved a fee of up to 80 cents per month on phone bills — including cell phones — to pay for an upgrade to California's aging 911 system following the most devastating wildfire season in state history.The businesses taxes are a tough vote in the Assembly , where Democrats in power have concerns about voting to align the state's tax code with a portion of the 2017 federal tax law signed by Republican President Donald Trump. The 911 fee is a tough vote in the Senate, where lawmakers are wary of voting again on a cell phone fee after a similar proposal fell one vote shy of passing last year.Lawmakers in both chambers breezed through a series of trailer bills on Monday that did things like temporarily suspend taxes on diapers and tampons and extend the state's paid family leave program by two weeks. Lawmakers passed each one with little debate and with bipartisan agreement on several points.But the Legislature is poised for a pair of critical votes on Thursday on the 911 fee and business taxes, with leaders in both chambers trying to pressure the other one to vote."It is really kind of part of our strategy to make sure one house takes a vote that may feel difficult by the other house, and vice versa," said Sen. Holly Mitchell, a Los Angeles Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee. "I think those are appropriate dots to connect."The business tax changes are part of a plan to selectively adopt some of the federal tax changes Trump signed into law in 2017. Some items would lower taxes and others would increase them. Overall, the state would get an additional .6 billion in revenue during the fiscal year that begins July 1.Newsom wants to use most of that money to triple the state's earned income tax credit program, which boosts the size of annual tax refunds for low-income people. The plan would make about 1 million more people eligible for the credit. Plus, it would give ,000 to people who make less than ,000 a year and have at least one child under 6.But the plan would still not include immigrants who pay taxes but do not have Social Security numbers. Newsom would not include that in the budget because he said it was too expensive, but pledged to work toward it in future years.In an effort to win votes, lawmakers have stopped referring to the bill as "conforming" to the federal tax code, but instead call it "loophole closure." Assemblyman Adam Gray, a moderate Democrat from Merced, supports the bill. He said he has never seen "so much consternation" about a tax bill, noting lawmakers often conform to federal tax changes without controversy.The 911 fee is an effort to upgrade the state's system so it can handle text messages, photos and videos. But the fund that pays for the system is based on a fee for each phone call. The fund has been steadily declining as more people opt to send text messages.Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, argued that the state should use some of its surplus to pay for the changes rather than raise fees on consumers. But Assemblywoman Christy Smith, D-Santa Clarita, argued that the state's 911 system is essential and requires funding beyond a short-term surplus."Yes, we have a surplus. But we don't always have a surplus in California," she said. "We will always have emergencies."___Associated Press writer Andrew Oxford contributed. 3896

SACRAMENTO (KGTV) - Wildfires are more dangerous and costly than ever, according to California Governor Gavin Newsom's strike force team's report released Friday."We are in a very precarious state," he said at a press conference. He highlighted 5 main points in the report, the first pertained to preventing and fighting catastrophic wildfires, "213.6M of that was specific for fuels reduction." Millions in the budget dedicated to clearing brush and other potential fire hazards on private and public land, build the workforce to do it and invest in technology to monitor fire risk."There's the world without climate change, here's the world we're living in," Newsom said referring to a chart showing skyrocketing wildfire damage in terms of acres burned, in recent years. He said he wants to break the cycle, creating more clean energy to reverse the effect of climate change, focused on electric cars and utility companies."The soaring costs of wildfires, the good old days and now the new normal," Newsom said referring to another chart showing the jump in costs related to wildfire damage. The governor's plan outlined options to pay for wildfire damage, including helping utility companies if they're at fault, and spreading costs among everyone, including tax payers."The state has suffered from their neglect," Newsom said taking aim at utility companies. He wants the California Public Utilities Commission strengthened, to hold utility companies accountable while passing wildfire damage costs to customers. "SDGE which is in that San Diego area, which is a credit rating just above junk bond status, one fire away from going into junk bond status," he said. 1678

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228