濮阳东方男科医院收费很低濮阳东方医院男科技术很权威,濮阳东方医院妇科做人流手术好,濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿技术权威,濮阳东方医院治阳痿口碑很不错,濮阳东方医院男科很专业,濮阳东方医院看妇科收费标准,濮阳东方医院看男科病收费合理

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Department of Motor Vehicles improperly disclosed private information to seven other government agencies on more than 3,000 people involved in some type of investigation as suspects or witnesses, officials said Tuesday.The department was sending letters Tuesday to the 3,200 people after determining that they are not currently being investigated.The department improperly gave federal, state and county agencies what were supposed to be internal notes, such as whether drivers' Social Security numbers had been checked to see if they were valid or falsified or if the individual was ineligible for a Social Security number.It sent information on more than 3,000 of the individuals to district attorneys in just two of California's 58 counties, San Diego and Santa Clara.Information on fewer than 200 people went to the federal Department of Homeland Security, including six records for immigrants who were in the country illegally but applied for or received special immigrant licenses.Officials said it was unclear if they were used to investigate the drivers' immigration status or for some other purpose.The remainder went to the Internal Revenue Service, inspector generals for the Social Security Administration and U.S. Small Business Administration, and the California Department of Health Care Services.The information could have been used in criminal, tax or child support investigations, including for witnesses in those inquiries, officials said.It's the latest in series of missteps by the DMV, which last year came under fire for long wait times and for potentially botching about 23,000 voter registrations under the state's "motor voter" law, which lets residents automatically register to vote through the DMV.Department spokeswoman Anita Gore said the DMV stopped making the improper disclosures in August after officials decided that they shouldn't have been giving other agencies the internal notes.She said it took the DMV three months to send the letters because it had to ask each of the seven agencies why they wanted the information, review four available years of records, make sure the 3,200 drivers were not being investigated to avoid tipping them off, and then draft individual letters to each driver. 2278

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Department of Motor Vehicles improperly disclosed private information to seven other government agencies on more than 3,000 people involved in some type of investigation as suspects or witnesses, officials said Tuesday.The department was sending letters Tuesday to the 3,200 people after determining that they are not currently being investigated.The department improperly gave federal, state and county agencies what were supposed to be internal notes, such as whether drivers' Social Security numbers had been checked to see if they were valid or falsified or if the individual was ineligible for a Social Security number.It sent information on more than 3,000 of the individuals to district attorneys in just two of California's 58 counties, San Diego and Santa Clara.Information on fewer than 200 people went to the federal Department of Homeland Security, including six records for immigrants who were in the country illegally but applied for or received special immigrant licenses.Officials said it was unclear if they were used to investigate the drivers' immigration status or for some other purpose.The remainder went to the Internal Revenue Service, inspector generals for the Social Security Administration and U.S. Small Business Administration, and the California Department of Health Care Services.The information could have been used in criminal, tax or child support investigations, including for witnesses in those inquiries, officials said.It's the latest in series of missteps by the DMV, which last year came under fire for long wait times and for potentially botching about 23,000 voter registrations under the state's "motor voter" law, which lets residents automatically register to vote through the DMV.Department spokeswoman Anita Gore said the DMV stopped making the improper disclosures in August after officials decided that they shouldn't have been giving other agencies the internal notes.She said it took the DMV three months to send the letters because it had to ask each of the seven agencies why they wanted the information, review four available years of records, make sure the 3,200 drivers were not being investigated to avoid tipping them off, and then draft individual letters to each driver. 2278

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly voted Thursday to cap the interest lenders may charge on loans that can carry rates spiraling into the triple digits.Backed by civil rights groups, religious organizations and some trade associations, the proposed law would cap annual rates at around 38% for loans between ,500 and ,000.The bill comes as legislators across the country seek to reign in a storefront lending industry critics accuse of preying on low-income consumers in need of cash and trapping them under mounds of debt for years.But even as the bill advanced, some California lawmakers expressed concern that it will limit choices for consumers with bad credit or little access to banks and other financial products. And the lending industry, which wields significant influence in legislatures as well as in Washington, has launched an advertising campaign in California attacking the bill as it heads to the state Senate, where observers expect a tougher fight.Proponents of capping interest rates point to an explosion in high-interest consumer loans around the state over the last decade.The state already caps interest rates on consumer loans under ,500 but not for amounts over that threshold. In 2009, 8,468 loans for amounts between ,500 and ,000 came with interest rates over 100%, according to data from state regulators. Lenders now issue more than 350,000 loans each year with interest rates in the triple digits. A legislative analysis said at least one out of three borrowers is unable to pay their loans.But proposals to cap interest rates in recent years have faltered at California's Legislature. Several lawmakers still expressed concern about the latest proposal, suggesting it could drive lenders out of the market, pushing consumers with low incomes toward unregulated lenders or cutting off their easy access to capital."Without these alternative financial service providers, those folks would have nowhere else to go," said Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles.Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon dismissed arguments the bill would ultimately harm low-income residents."Those are merely talking points of an industry that has repeatedly lied to members of this chamber," he said.Casting the bill as a moral issue, the Democrat said the legislation can be considered as important as any other lawmakers will vote on this year in the country's most populous state.The bill ended up passing with bipartisan support as one Republican legislator cited religious prohibitions on usury."I'm a free-market capitalist and I'm unashamed of it but we need to stand up and protect people who are being preyed upon," said Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo.The support of the financial industry this year, too, may also signal that the sector foresees a reckoning in the state or at least further political uncertainty if lawmakers do not approve limits for loans between ,500 and ,000.The California Supreme Court cast a legal question mark last year over the lending industry's practices, deciding in one class action lawsuit that some interest rates can be so high as to be deemed unconscionable under financial laws.Democratic Assemblywoman Monique Limon of Santa Barbara, the bill's author, also suggested that an interest rate cap could end up on the ballot if the Legislature does not act.If passed, California would join 38 states and the District of Columbia in capping interest rates for these types of loans, according to a legislative analysis. The level proposed in California would be on the higher end.Observers expect a bigger political fight when the bill heads to the state Senate, however.Opponents of the bill have launched an advertising campaign aimed at stopping it.The trade group Online Lenders Alliance has bought ads on Sacramento television stations, according to Federal Communication Commission filings.A group calling itself Don't Lock Me Out California has also bought online ads attacking the bill. 4018

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is looking to tighten the rules about children under 13 using social media.The state Senate voted 31-4 on Thursday to require social media companies to first get the consent of a parent or guardian before creating an account for a child the company knows is under 13.Federal law already requires social media companies to get parental consent before collecting or selling data of children under 13. That's why most social media companies, including Facebook, already ban children under 13 from creating accounts.Democratic Sen. Henry Stern says the bill will protect children. But Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener says the bill would harm LGBT youth who live in abusive households by isolating them from others like them.The bill now heads to the state Assembly. 803

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