濮阳东方医院妇科做人流手术专业吗濮阳东方医院男科免费咨询,濮阳东方妇科怎么样,濮阳东方医院治疗早泄正规吗,濮阳市东方医院几路车,濮阳东方医院男科治疗早泄评价很好,濮阳东方医院看早泄口碑好很放心,濮阳东方医院看男科病专不专业

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, 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) — California lawmakers approved a multibillion-dollar plan Thursday to shore up the state's biggest electric utilities in the face of catastrophic wildfires and claims for damage from past blazes caused by their equipment.It requires major utilities to spend at least billion combined on safety improvements and meet new safety standards, and it creates a fund of up to billion that could help pay out claims as climate change makes wildfires across the U.S. West more frequent and more destructive.Lawmakers passed the bill less than a week after its final language went into print, and Gov. Gavin Newsom was expected to sign it Friday. Republicans and Democrats said the state needed to provide financial certainty to the state's investor-owned utilities, the largest of which, Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., is in bankruptcy.But they said their work is far from over and they plan to do more on wildfire prevention and home protection when they return in August from a summer break.A broad coalition rallied around the measure, from renewable energy trade groups and labor unions representing utility workers to survivors of recent fires caused by PG&E equipment. Victims applauded provisions they say will give them more leverage to get compensation from the company as it wades through bankruptcy.But several lawmakers raised concerns that the measure would leave utility customers on the hook for fires caused by PG&E despite questions about the company's safety record."No one has ever said this bill is going to be the silver bullet or fix all but it does take us in dramatic leaps to where we can stabilize California," said Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena and one of the bill's authors.Holden and other supporters said the legislation would not raise electric rates for customers. But it would let utilities pass on the costs from wildfires to customers in certain cases, which would make costs rise.The legislation also extends an existing charge on consumers' electric bills to raise .5 billion for the fund that will cover costs from wildfires caused by the equipment of participating electric utilities.PG&E filed for bankruptcy in January, saying it could not afford billions in damages from recent deadly wildfires caused by downed power lines and other company equipment, including a November fire that killed 85 people and largely destroyed the town of Paradise.Credit ratings agencies also are eyeing the financial worthiness of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.PG&E did not take a formal position on the bill. Spokesman Lynsey Paulo said the utility is committed to resolving victims' claims and reducing wildfire risks.To use the fund, companies would have to meet new safety standards to be set by state regulators and take steps such as tying executive compensation to safety. The state's three major utilities could elect to contribute an additional .5 billion to create a larger insurance fund worth at least billion.Questions about PG&E's efforts to combat fires led to some opposition.A day before the legislation passed, a federal judge overseeing PG&E's bankruptcy ordered its lawyers to respond to a report in The Wall Street Journal that showed it knew about the risks of aging equipment but did not replace systems that could cause wildfires."It is hard not to see this bill as something of a reward for monstrous behavior. They haven't done the work. They should not be rewarded," said Assemblyman Marc Levine, a Democrat from San Rafael who voted against the legislation.David Song, a spokesman for Southern California Edison, said the utility supports the bill but wants to see "refinements." He offered no specifics."If the bills are signed into law they take initial steps to return California to a regulatory framework providing the financial stability utilities require to invest in safety and reliability," he said.___Associated Press writer Adam Beam contributed. 4026

RICHMOND, Va. -- Some parents and teachers use coloring books to educate kids. Mark Loewen created a coloring book series that celebrates LGBTQ families and educates others about them."One day I was looking for coloring books and I wanted something positive," Loewen said. "Something that was about families. And there was nothing at all that had families like ours." WTVR Mark Loewen created a coloring book series that celebrates LGBTQ families and educates others about them. According to U.S. Census data, 66% of female same-sex couples and 44% of male same-sex couples live with children.Fewer than half of kids younger than 18 are living in a home with two married heterosexual parents in their first marriage, so two moms and two dads can reference stepparents as well."The image of one mom, one dad, one son, one daughter, one cat, one dog is not at all the majority," Loewen said.He came up with the idea for the coloring book after his daughter told him kids had questions about her living with two dads. He will be the first to tell you that a coloring book like this might not be for everyone. WTVR Mark Loewen created a coloring book series that celebrates LGBTQ families and educates others about them. "I think of two kinds of families that would want a coloring book of LGBTQ families. One, the families that have LGBTQ family members, because they can see themselves. And number two, the families that want their child to be exposed to families that are different to theirs," he said."It's awesome!” mother Chrissy Moseley said. “The moment she picked it up she was excited because she saw that she was like, 'Look mommy, there are two moms in here. There are two dads.'""Parents need to make their kids aware that love is love in any form it wants to be," Chrissy’s wife Brenda said.Coloring outside the lines, in all colors of the rainbow, is Building Better Minds.This story was first reported by Rob Cardwell at WTVR in Richmond, Virginia. 2050

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Prosecutors say California’s system for paying unemployment benefits is so dysfunctional that the state approved more than 0 million for at least 20,000 prisoners.On Tuesday, they detailed a scheme resulting in payouts in the names of well-known convicted murderers like Scott Peterson, who was sentenced to death after being found guilty of killing his pregnant wife. His death sentence has since been overturned and a court is reviewing his conviction.Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said at least 158 claims were made for 133 death-row inmates, resulting in more than 0,000 in benefits paid.“It involves rapists and child molesters, human traffickers and other violent criminals in our state prisons,” said Schubert. “Hundreds of millions of dollars that may well amount to upwards to billion, having already been paid in their names.”Schubert said the scheme will be one of the biggest frauds of taxpayer dollars in California history.“And with this fraud means that victims that have been victimized by these inmates aren’t getting the restitution that they so deservedly have been owed,” said Schubert.So far, at least 22 people have been charged in San Mateo County, The Associated Press found. More charges could be forthcoming as several other investigations continue across the state.Prosecutors say the Employment Development Department has been overwhelmed by benefit claims since the pandemic began, and in its haste to approve them, didn't check unemployment claims against a list of prisoners.Gov. Gavin Newsom says he's already ordered the department to review its practices and act to prevent fraud.Watch Schubert and other prosecutors discuss the scheme below: 1745