濮阳东方妇科医院非常可靠(濮阳东方收费透明) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom heaped praise on legislators as he revealed his updated 3 billion budget last week.The Democrat who is five months into the job applauded Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon's focus on universal preschool. He called Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Holly Mitchell the champion of increasing grants for low-income families.He even thanked several Republicans, including Assemblyman James Gallagher, who has sought assistance for the city of Paradise that he represents and mostly was destroyed by a wildfire last year.All that goodwill is about to be tested as Newsom and the Legislature enter the final weeks of budget negotiations. Lawmakers must pass a spending plan by June 15 or lose pay, then Newsom has until June 30 to sign it.His proposal released Thursday carries many of the Democrat-dominated Legislature's priorities: more spending aimed at children and the poor, a health care expansion for young people living in the country illegally and the elimination of sales tax on diapers and tampons."It's clear that he has heard from Californians quite frankly, not just us as policy makers, who need their state government to step up and invest in them," Mitchell said.But he also gave the same warnings as his predecessor, Jerry Brown, that the state's strong economy — and the huge budget surpluses it's creating — won't last forever.Newsom has allocated billion to pad state reserves and pay down debt and put cutoff dates on key proposals that Democratic legislators want to make permanent. He also wants lawmakers to take politically painful votes such as putting a tax on water."It's a great starting point," Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego said of Newsom's plan.Her comment neatly encapsulates the situation for many progressive Democrats; they like much of what Newsom is saying but don't necessarily see his plans as an end point.Gonzalez, for example, has pushed for eliminating sales tax on diapers for at least five years. Newsom's proposal ends the cut in 2022.Newsom said he imposed a cut-off in case revenue isn't as robust in future budget years. A so-called sunset provision can make it easier to win support from lawmakers, Gonzalez noted, because the tax break can go away in future years without lawmakers having to take a painful vote to cut it.During budget talks she said she will up the ante and push for permanent revocation of the sales tax on diapers.Newsom isn't giving many clues to lawmakers about which items on his wish-list are the top priorities saying he's done enough negotiations to be cautious about showing his hand."Everything I said matters to me, or I wouldn't have said it," he said. "I'm using the budget in ways to advance things I care deeply about."Assembly Budget Chairman Phil Ting said he hasn't had a conversation with Newsom about priorities. Ting, who worked as San Francisco's assessor when Newsom was mayor, said he wasn't surprised Newsom isn't showing his hand."That sounds exactly like him," Ting said.Ting said overall he was pleased with Newsom's budget proposal, but highlighted some concerns, notably that many of Newsom's biggest spending increases are also slated to expire in two years.Beyond the diaper tax, that includes big commitments to increase rates for providers of Medi-Cal, the state's health program for poor children and adults, along with expanded preschool slots and more services for people with development disabilities.Newsom has proposed several new taxes and fees that would pay for things such as bolstering the state's 911 emergency services and clean up contaminated drinking water in the Central Valley. Those ideas require a two-thirds vote of the legislature, which Ting said will be hard even though Democrats have super-majorities in both chambers."It's not clear where the votes are for all of that," Ting said.Newsom's budget also relies on conforming California's tax law with federal changes pushed by Republican President Donald Trump. Additional revenue it generates will go toward a major expansion of a tax credit for working families. The tax change similarly requires a two-thirds vote.Asked how he'd convince lawmakers to take those votes, Newsom said: "Vote your conscience, do the right thing." Then he turned flippant, noting the tax law changes would decrease what types of expenses people can deduct."I'll remind folks it's about no longer writing off courtside seats at the Kings' game," he said, referring to Sacramento's NBA team.On the water issue, meanwhile, Newsom declared confidently that a deal would be struck. While he's proposed a tax, some lawmakers would rather the state use surplus or other general fund dollars. It likely won't be dealt with as part of the budget package due June 15."I don't want to say 'read my lips' because I don't want to see that clip," he joked. "But we're going to get a water deal." 4930

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A federal lawsuit was filed Tuesday after a state audit found the California DMV's "motor voter" program that started in 2018 was riddled with technical problems that led to discrepancies in voter registrations.Attorney Harmeet Dhillon, a member of the National Republican party, filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday against the state of California that accuses Secretary of State Alex Padilla of violating the National Voter Registration Act.Padilla responded in a statement saying the lawsuit "is a fundamental misrepresentation" of the act. He called the lawsuit an "underhanded attempt" at voter suppression.Dhillon filed the lawsuit on behalf of three California residents who are Republican voters. The lawsuit also names the director of California's Department of Motor Vehicles, Steve Gordon.Dhillon said that a recent audit that found a variety of problems with California DMV's "motor voter" program, which automatically registers people to vote, helped bring the issues in her lawsuit to light. 1039

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- As Californias head out to vote, many important propositions and measures are on the ballot this November.One of those initiatives is Proposition 16.If approved, Prop 16 would repeal Proposition 209 from the state constitution which, according to BallotPedia, banned the use of affirmative action involving sex or race-based preferences.Those in support of Proposition 16 argue that it takes a step toward “dismantling structural racism and sexism.”Meanwhile, those opposed to the proposition point to Prop 209 as to why voters should mark "no" on the ballot. “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting,” the website states in reference to a passage from Prop 209.See what a vote for or against Proposition means below, according to the state's voter guide:YES: A YES vote on this measure means: State and local entities could consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting to the extent allowed under federal and state law.NO: A NO vote on this measure means: The current ban on the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting would remain in effect. 1452

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

来源：资阳报