玉溪市人流收费标准玉溪做人流医院在哪,玉溪市正规的人流医院妇产科,玉溪哪家医院做人流比较,玉溪女子无痛人流价格,玉溪去做人流费用,玉溪人流总的要多少钱,玉溪人流手术去哪家正规医院

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday the Trump administration acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner when it sought to end an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation.A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that the Trump administration violated federal law when it tried to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program without adequately explaining why. The ruling overturns a lower court ruling a judge in Maryland made last year, which Trump had previously praised via Twitter.Friday's ruling will not have any immediate effect as other federal courts have already ordered that DACA be kept in place.The 4th Circuit ruling said the Department of Homeland Security did not "adequately account" for how ending DACA program would affect the hundreds of thousands of young people who "structured their lives" around the program."We recognize the struggle is not over and there are more battles to fight in the Supreme Court on this road to justice, but our families are emboldened by knowing that they are on the right side of history," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of Casa de Maryland, the lead plaintiff in the case.Trump and his Justice Department have argued that the Obama administration acted unlawfully when it implemented DACA. The Justice Department declined to comment.Preserving DACA is a top Democratic priority, but discussions between Trump and Democrats on the issue have gone nowhere.Trump's latest immigration plan, unveiled Thursday, does not address what to do about the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters that "every single time that we have put forward or anyone else has put forward any type of immigration plan that has included DACA it's failed."DACA's fate could be decided by the Supreme Court, which is weighing the Trump administration's appeals of other federal court rulings.The justices have set no date to take action.If the high court decides it wants to hear the appeals, arguments would not take place before the fall. That means a decision is not expected until 2020, which could come in the thick of next year's presidential contest.___Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report. 2362

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A judge preliminarily ordered California Gov. Gavin Newsom to stop issuing directives related to the coronavirus that might interfere with state law.Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman tentatively ruled Monday that one of the dozens of executive orders Newsom has issued overstepped his authority. She more broadly barred him from infringing on the state Legislature.The judge said Newsom overstepped his authority with an executive order that directed counties to send all registered California voters mail-in ballots and regulated the number of polling stations.The lawsuit stems from an executive order that was issued before the state's Legislature passed a similar law related to mail-in ballots.It's the second time a judge in the same county has reached the conclusion, which runs counter to other state and federal court decisions backing the governor's emergency powers.Heckman's decision will become final in 10 days.Newsom's administration says it disagrees and is evaluating its next steps. 1050

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have authorized California to give low-income immigrants 0 to buy groceries.It's unclear how much the bill would have cost; estimates range from the tens of millions of dollars to the hundreds of millions of dollars.Newsom said he could not sign the bill because it would put too much pressure on the state's budget.Lawmakers had to cover an estimated .3 billion budget deficit this year caused by the economic downturn brought by the coronavirus.Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, a Democrat from Los Angeles, authored the bill. 607

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will reconsider life sentences for up to 4,000 nonviolent third-strike criminals by allowing them to seek parole under a ballot measure approved by voters two years ago, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday.The state will craft new regulations by January to include the repeat offenders in early release provisions. Gov. Jerry Brown also will not appeal a court ruling that the state is illegally excluding the nonviolent career criminals from parole under the 2016 ballot measure he championed to reduce the prison population and encourage rehabilitation.The state parole board estimates between 3,000 and 4,000 nonviolent third-strikers could be affected, said corrections department spokeswoman Vicky Waters, "but they would have to go through rigorous public safety screenings and a parole board hearing before any decision is made."RELATED: Ex-con, called poster?child for three-strikes law, sentenced to life in prisonIt's the second such loss for the Democratic governor, who leaves office days after the new rules are due. Another judge ruled in February that the state must consider earlier parole for potentially thousands of sex offenders. The administration is fighting that ruling, which undercuts repeated promises that Brown made to voters to exclude sex offenders from earlier release.Prosecutors are not surprised and warned throughout the Prop. 57 campaign that nonviolent third-strikers would unintentionally fall under the measure's constitutional amendment, said California District Attorneys Association spokeswoman Jennifer Jacobs."We expect the same exact thing to happen with regard to sex offenders," she said. "To fix this they're going to have to go back to the people for a vote, which can't even happen for another two years."RELATED: How some states are reducing the prison populationBrown will not appeal last month's ruling by a three-judge appellate panel in the Second Appellate District in a Los Angeles County case that third-strikers must be included under Proposition 57's constitutional amendment. It requires parole consideration for "any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense" regardless of enhancements under California's three strikes law."There is no question that the voters who approved Proposition 57 intended (inmates) serving Three Strikes indeterminate sentences to be eligible for early parole consideration," the appeals court ruled, adding that, "There is strong evidence the voters who approved Proposition 57 sought to provide relief to nonviolent offenders."Administration lawyers said in a filing in a separate related case that the state "is not seeking review" of the appeals court decision and "is in the process of drafting new emergency regulations in compliance" with the decision by Jan. 5.RELATED: Kim Kardashian makes trip to the White House in the name of criminal justice reformMichael Romano, director of the Stanford Three Strikes Project, called the administration's decision to comply "a big deal, a huge deal."Clients potentially affected by the new decision include inmates serving life terms for stealing a bicycle, possessing less than half a gram of methamphetamine, stealing two bottles of liquor or shoplifting shampoo, he said."It's a monumental decision. It's one of the biggest decisions on sentencing policy in the Brown administration," said Romano, whose project represented third-strike inmates in several appeals.The ruling doesn't guarantee any of the offenders will get out of jail. But it allows them to go before the parole board. Romano estimates 4,000 people will be eligible for parole.Nonviolent third-strikers are disproportionately black, disproportionately mentally ill and statistically among the least likely to commit additional crimes, said Romano, who has studied the issue.He cited corrections department data on more than 2,200 nonviolent, non-serious third strikers who were paroled under a 2012 ballot measure that allowed most inmates serving life terms for relatively minor third strikes to ask courts for shorter terms. Less than 11 percent returned to prison by October 2016, the latest data available, he said, compared to nearly 45 percent for other prisoners. 4266

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is willing to throw a financial lifeline to the state's major utilities dealing with the results of disastrous wildfires — but only if they agree to concessions including tying executive compensation to safety performance.A proposal unveiled Friday by Newsom's office aims to stabilize California's investor-owned utilities and protect wildfire victims as the state faces increasingly destructive blazes. Regulators say some previous fires were caused by utility equipment.Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., the largest of the three investor-owned utilities, filed for bankruptcy in January as it faced tens of billions of dollars in potential costs from blazes, including the November fire that killed 85 people in the Paradise area.Newsom hopes to strike a deal with lawmakers in just three weeks, but leaders in the Legislature said they haven't been given a formal legislative proposal and would need to go through their normal review process.The plan comes as credit ratings agencies look wearily upon the utilities.Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric had their ratings downgraded earlier this year, and executives have pushed lawmakers to come up with a plan that stabilizes the industry.Newsom proposal would give Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric the power to decide which form of financial aid they want, based on whether they're willing to make their shareholders contribute.They could choose a liquidity fund to tap to quickly pay out wildfire claims or a larger insurance fund that would pay claims directly to people who lose their homes to fire.The ratings agency Moody's has said creating a sort of insurance or liquidity fund would have a positive impact on the credit of utilities in the state.The liquidity fund would be about .5 billion and paid for by a surcharge on ratepayers, said Ana Matosantos, Newsom's cabinet secretary. If utilities want the larger insurance fund, they'd have to pitch in another .5 billion. Both utilities have to agree on which option to choose. Officials at neither company immediately responded to requests for comment.PG&E would not get a say in which fund the state uses or be able to tap a fund until it resolves its claims from the 2017 and 2018 wildfire seasons and emerges from bankruptcy. Its exit plan could not harm ratepayers and it would have to continue the utility's contributions to California's clean energy goals.The utilities would have to implement a number of safety measures to tap into the fund, such as tying executive compensation to safety, forming a safety committee within its board of directors and complying with wildfire mitigation plans.State legislators voted last year to require California's electric companies to adopt those plans. Southern California Edison told legislative staff last year the company wants to spend 2 million to improve power lines and deploy new cameras in high-risk areas.PG&E has said it will inspect 5,500 additional miles of power lines and build 1,300 new weather stations to improve forecasting. Most of its inspections are done, officials said.The state would also require power companies to spend a combined billion on safety over three years. This would include upgrading utility infrastructure as well as developing new early warning and fire detection technologies.Companies would be able to pass on the actual costs of these measures to consumers but could not make a profit off the steps.The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utilities, would decide how that billion is split up. Newsom's plan would also create a Wildfire Safety Division and Advisory Board at the CPUC.Matosantos described the draft requirements for additional safety spending as unprecedented and argued that mandating companies meet those guidelines to tap into the fund protects electric customers from paying for the costs of a catastrophic wildfire.Still, lawmakers plan to do their own analysis of the proposal."In order for any solution to work, the Legislature and governor will have to work together," Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, a fellow Democrat, said in a statement. 4234