濮阳东方医院治疗早泄价格正规(濮阳东方医院看阳痿很靠谱) (今日更新中)

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

Reversing an earlier decision, the University of Notre Dame will continue providing students and employees with access to birth control free of charge.The Catholic institution was one of the first major employers to take advantage of the Trump administration's weakening of Obamacare's contraceptive mandate.Notre Dame, which had long battled the Obama administration over the provision, said in late October that it would end coverage for employees after Dec. 31 and for students after Aug. 14. The university said it objects to the mandate based on its religious beliefs.Students and employees quickly protested the decision, holding a demonstration and creating an online petition.Under Obamacare, insurance plans had to cover contraception for women without charging a co-pay. A fairly limited number of employers -- mainly churches and some other religious entities -- could get an exemption to the mandate.Some other employers, such as religious-based universities or hospitals, could seek accommodations so that they didn't have to provide coverage, but their workers could still obtain contraceptives paid for by the insurer or the employer's plan administrator. Notre Dame's students and workers received coverage this way.The Trump administration, however, issued new rules last month that would let a broad range of employers stop offering contraceptive coverage through their health insurance plans if they have a "sincerely held religious or moral objection."In his annual faculty address Tuesday, Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, said the university had decided to keep the accommodation for employees in place."As I have said from the start, the university's interest has never been in preventing access to those who make conscientious decisions to use contraceptives," he said. "Our interest, rather, has been to avoid being compelled by the federal government to be the agent in their provision."A university spokesman confirmed that students would continue to have access to no-cost birth control, as well.Notre Dame's initial response was based on its belief that it could no longer utilize the accommodation because the new rule would prompt insurers to discontinue providing no-cost contraceptives. It then learned that carriers would maintain the coverage anyway."We have made the decision not to interfere with the provision of contraceptives administered by insurance administrators and funded independently," said Paul Browne, Notre Dame's vice president for public affairs.Graduate students cheered the reversal."We are grateful and relieved that we were able to help push the administration to respect the Notre Dame community members' right to reproductive healthcare," said the Graduate Workers Collective, an independent group of graduate students. 2815

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters could decide in 2020 whether it should be easier for their local governments to raise taxes and issue bonds for affordable housing, road improvements and other public projects.A constitutional amendment proposed Wednesday would lower how much voter support communities need to raise money for infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55 percent.Assembly Democrats say the current threshold allows a minority of voters to derail needed projects."These two-thirds thresholds are meant to enable a boisterous minority to impede progress," said Assemblyman Todd Gloria of San Diego.But taxpayer advocates said it would make things more expensive for homeowners in particular because it could lead to more parcel taxes, a flat tax levied on property owners."If this passes it's going to be devastating for property owners," said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.Constitutional amendments need support from two-thirds of lawmakers to land on the ballot, and the backing of a simple majority of voters to become law.Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Democrat sponsoring the amendment, said she hopes to place it on the November 2020 ballot. That would coincide with the presidential election, which usually draws the highest voter turnout and millions more Democrats than Republicans.It would apply to projects including affordable housing, wastewater treatment, fire and police buildings, parks, public libraries, broadband expansion, hospitals and more.Local governments typically fund those projects through bonds or special taxes, like the parcel tax or a dedicated sales tax.The 55 percent threshold would still be higher than the simple majority communities need to raise general taxes, such as sales taxes not dedicated to special projects.Democrats highlighted projects that have narrowly missed the two-thirds threshold to make their case, such as a recreation center restoration in Millbrae and road repairs in Eureka."I have heard about deteriorating buildings, decrepit community facilities and our extreme lack of affordable housing," said Aguiar-Curry, a former mayor of a small rural California city. "This will empower communities to take action at the local level to improve the economies, neighborhoods and residents' quality of life."But Wolfe, of the taxpayers association, said the list of allowable projects is broad and could lead to a slew of new tax and bond proposals from cities and counties that could saddle taxpayers for years."These are pretty encompassing categories and there's no limit," he said. "You're talking about long-term debt that lasts for decades." 2688

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A growing number of mayors across the country support giving cash to low-income families with no restrictions on how they can spend it.It's part of a movement to establish a guaranteed minimum income to combat poverty and systemic racism.Mayors in at least 25 cities have pledged to support the effort. They are led by Michael Tubbs, the 30-year-old mayor of Stockton, California, who launched one of the country's first guaranteed income programs last year with the help of private donations.Most programs would rely on donations, but a few would mix public and private spending.RELATED STORIES:Pittsburgh becomes latest city to try guaranteed income with Twitter co-founder's moneyStimulus checks may be changing perceptions about universal basic income 790

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's increasingly deadly and destructive wildfires have become so unpredictable that government officials should consider banning home construction in vulnerable areas, the state's top firefighter says.Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Director Ken Pimlott will leave his job Friday after 30 years with the agency. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said government and citizens must act differently to protect lives and property from fires that now routinely threaten large populations.That may mean rethinking subdivisions in thickly forested mountainous areas or homes along Southern California canyons lined with tinder-dry chaparral. Los Angeles County supervisors on Tuesday were considering whether to allow a 19,000-home development in fire-prone mountains amid heavy criticism of the location's high fire danger.California residents should also train themselves to respond more quickly to warnings and make preparations to shelter in place if they can't outrun the flames, Pimlott said.Communities in fire zones need to harden key buildings with fireproof construction similar to the way cities prepare for earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and should prepare commercial or public buildings to withstand fires with the expectation hundreds may shelter there as they did in makeshift fashion when flames last month largely destroyed the Sierra Nevada foothills city of Paradise in Northern California.California already has the nation's most robust building requirement programs for new homes in fire-prone areas, but recent fire seasons underscore more is needed. Officials must consider prohibiting construction in particularly vulnerable areas, said Pimlott, who has led the agency through the last eight years under termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown.He said it's uncertain if those decisions should be made by local land managers or at the state level as legislative leaders have suggested. But Pimlott said "we owe it" to homeowners, firefighters and communities "so that they don't have to keep going through what we're going through.""We've got to continue to raise the bar on what we're doing and local land-use planning decisions have to be part of that discussion," he said.California's population has doubled since 1970 to nearly 40 million, pushing urban sprawl into mountain subdivisions, areas home to fast-burning grasslands and along scenic canyons and ridgetops that are susceptible to fires. After a crippling drought, the last two years have seen the worst fires in state history. November's fire in the northern California town of Paradise was the deadliest U.S. wildfire in a century, killing at least 85 people and destroying nearly 14,000 homes.A year earlier, a fire that ripped through the San Francisco Bay Area city of Santa Rosa killed 22 people and destroyed more than 5,000 homes and other structures.Every year since at least 2013, firefighters did not anticipate California's wildfires could get worse, Pimlott said. But each year the fires have increased in intensity — driven by dry fuels, an estimated 129 million drought- and bark beetle-killed trees, and climate change.In response, the state is doing more planned burning to eliminate brush and dead trees that serve as fuels for wildfires. The state will also add seven large firefighting aircraft, replace a dozen aging helicopters, provide firefighter counseling and ensure that firefighters have enough time off for medical checkups to help them manage the mental and physical stress from a fire season that now never ends.He said California leads the nation in clearing away dead trees and thinning forested areas that are crowded with trees that can fuel fires, contrary to criticism by President Donald Trump who has blamed forest mismanagement for the fires."No other state, or even the federal government, are putting the amount of investment into this space as California," Pimlott said.The department's philosophy for many years has been to stamp out fires quickly to protect people and property. Prescribed burns were previously used sparingly out of concern they could get out of control, but he said the department is making "a sea change" by recognizing that starting fires under optimum conditions is a good way to reduce dangerous fuels.Recent fires that have burned into cities have made clear that those protections need to be centered around vulnerable communities, he said. Paradise, for example, was built on a ridge atop steep canyons that helped channel the wind-driven fire, while wildfires have repeated blown into Northern and Southern California subdivisions from neighboring wildlands thick with tinder-dry fuel.Pimlott rose through the ranks from seasonal firefighter to deputy director of fire protection before his appointment as chief of the agency. In that role he doubles as the state's chief forester and oversees a department that includes nearly 8,000 firefighters, forest managers and support staff.He said he has seen fire conditions worsen each passing year during his three decades with the agency, taking its toll on residents and firefighters alike."Folks can say what they want to say, but firefighters are living climate change. It's staring them in the face every day," he said.To adapt, he advocates wildfire warning systems that not only use new technology like automated phone calling systems, but maybe restoring civil defense-style emergency sirens in some areas. City planners must prepare communities "unlike we ever have before" with easy evacuation routes and new evacuation centers.And he said Californians must treat "red flag" extreme fire danger warnings the way Midwesterners treat tornado warnings — as imminent threats."The reality of it is, California has a fire-prone climate and it will continue to burn," he said. "Fire is a way of life in California and we have to learn how to live with it, we have to learn how to have more resilient communities." 5973

来源：资阳报