喀什男科哪家强(喀什下面不硬了) (今日更新中)

San Diego County welcomed its first baby of 2019 at 12:04 a.m. Ainhara Abegail Banos was born at Scripps Mercy Hospital in Chula Vista at 7 pounds and 14 ounces. The bundle of joy is 20 inches tall. Her mother, Elizabeth Morales, said Ainhara's three older sisters can't wait to meet her. "They're waiting for her!" Morales said. She joked that her other daughters, however, "wanted a boy."Morales thought she would have a quiet New Year's Eve because the baby wasn't due until the middle of January. While at home, Morales' water broke and her sister brought her to the hospital. Even though Morales has three other children, she said she was still nervous. Even for seasoned veterans of the hospital, the first baby of the year is always exciting."I've been doing this for over 30 years. I still get goosebumps every time a baby is born," said Elizabeth Retts, Director of Maternal Health.Morales and the baby will be discharged tomorrow. 949

San Diego (KGTV)- Parents at several San Diego County high schools have been notified that students could have been exposed to Pertussis, also known as whooping cough. Carlsbad High School confirmed two cases last week. Monday, parents at Mt. Carmel High School were notified that students at that school may have been exposed to the infection, though it wasn't clear how many confirmed cases there have been at the school. “This is probably the most contagious bacterial disease,” says Eric McDonald, with the county’s Health and Human Services Department. “For every one person who has it, when they expose people who have not had or been immunized, they can infect up to 16 or 17 other people.”McDonald says symptoms of a typical cold are a runny nose, low-grade fever, and a cough. For someone who may have pertussis “its the persistence of the cough that should be the number one clue.”So far this year, in San Diego County, there have been over 70 confirmed cases of pertussis. “The number of cases in San Diego are higher than most of California, particularly for infants under the age of four months.”If your child has a cough that lasts almost two weeks, they should be treated by a doctor. McDonald recommends everyone get the DTaP shot to lower the risk of getting pertussis, especially pregnant women in their third trimester. 1347

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (KGTV) - As Governor Gavin Newsom orders seven California counties to close bars to stop the spread of coronavirus, San Diego County made that same decision on their own and now, some San Diego bars are trying to figure out how to stay open to save their future.Related: San Diego County to close bars that don't serve food ahead of July 4 to slow COVID-19 spreadThe directive from the county states that bars, wineries and breweries have to close by July 1 if they don’t serve food. There is an exception for businesses like rural wineries that have dominantly outdoor, spread out seating. For the food rule, a bag of chips does not count. An outline of the rules states businesses have to offer a sit down, dine-in meal and any alcohol purchased has to be on the same transaction of the meal.The co-owners of Carriage House Lounge said they don’t meet this requirement, but they’re brainstorming ways to add food so they can stay open.“Now we gotta close again? At least if we can open a little bit with some food, maybe we can make enough to pay the rent anyway so we don’t get deeper behind,” said Andrew Haines.Haines said he and his business partner Rachel Dymond been back open for less than three weeks before this second closure. During that span when they were open between closures, they barely hit 50% for sales, which has been enough to pay rent and paychecks, but not bring in a profit. They said they can’t consider a second closure, so they’re talking about bringing in catering or partnering with a local restaurant to have food and be able to stay open.They’re not alone in this plan.Chad Cline has ownership in multiple San Diego bars and restaurants, which he says have also been hurting financially through the last three months. He said his businesses that don’t serve food are also going to now have a food option so they can meet new regulations and be able to stay open. Cline said he doesn’t agree with the thought process behind the new law.“I don’t think any rational person is going to be able to wrap their head around the difference between going to a table and having a drink and then going to that same table and having a drink and a hamburger and the second trip is okay but the first trip is not okay,” said Cline.When asked why the food distinction was made, Supervisor Nathan Fletcher said bars lead to impaired judgement which can impact carefulness, people spend more time in bars, the loud setting requires people to yell which can spread droplets and the congregating makes contact tracing more difficult.Cline said they’ll follow the rules but he isn’t happy with the leaders who made this decision.“We just play the game and go okay we have to serve food so we’ll serve food, but if I’m being completely clear it is kind of a game at this point because we’re just trying to exist and we just have to figure out how to follow the guidelines,” said Cline. 2922

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (KGTV) - Nearly six years after it passed, Proposition B will be in front of two courts this week, with the future of San Diego pension reform on the line.Prop B was on the ballot in June of 2012 and passed with 65% of the vote. It promised to solve San Diego's pension crisis by giving new City hires a 401(k) style retirement plan instead of a pension. The change went into effect for all city hires except police officers.Since then, it's been mired in legal challenges.Shortly after it passed, union leaders sued, arguing that any changes to union employment agreements have to be negotiated first before they're placed on a ballot. They said that then-Mayor Jerry Sanders violated that rule when he openly campaigned for the Proposition in 2012.In 2015, the State Labor Board agreed with the union claims.That ruling went to the California 4th District Court of Appeals, who overturned the Labor Board's findings in 2017.In 2018, the State Supreme Court reversed the 4th District's ruling. The Supreme Court sent the issue back to the lower courts to decide what an appropriate "remedy" would be to Sanders' improper campaigning."They did not say 'Overturn Prop B.' They could have," says Reform California's Carl DeMaio, who wrote Proposition B. "They said, 'Hey, district court, find out how you punish the City of San Diego for this violation.' What’s the punishment? A slap on the wrist, a speeding ticket?"The 4th District will hold an open session on Monday, March 11 to begin that process. DeMaio says if the District Court rules to overturn Prop B, he plans to appeal that decision."Do you think they’ll actually overturn the citizens initiative? If they do, we will counter-sue on the punishment phase," says DeMaio.Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court will also look into the Proposition this week. On Friday, they'll decide whether or not to hear a case based on the First Amendment. Supporters of Prop B say the California Supreme Court's ruling violated Mayor Sanders' First Amendment rights of free speech and his ability to openly support or oppose items on a ballot."The issue is whether for not elected officials have first amendment rights," says DeMaio. "Can an elected official actually give an opinion on a ballot measure? I think yes. Even if I disagree with that opinion, it is their constitutional right. He doesn’t lose his personal free speech rights to take positions once he's elected."The US Supreme Court will announce their decision on Monday, March 18th. 2515

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s opposition to Pacific Gas & Electric’s restructuring plan just a week after it struck a .5 billion settlement with fire victims is forcing the nation’s largest utility to go back to the negotiating table and come up with a solution fairly quickly.The San Francisco-based company needs to pull a deal off to meet a June 30 deadline to emerge from bankruptcy protection and regain its financial footing.Missing the deadline would prevent PG&E from being able to draw from a special fund created by the Democratic governor and state lawmakers to help insulate California utilities from future fires that many people believe are bound to erupt as a changing climate continues to create hazardous conditions. Utilities are at risk because their aging electric transmission lines are expected to take years to upgrade.On Thursday, PG&E filed an amended reorganization plan with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court after reaching a settlement on Dec. 6 with thousands of people who lost homes, businesses and family members in a series of devastating fires.In his letter on Friday, Newsom said the plan does not comply with state law and does not achieve the goal of addressing what he considers its most important elements: providing safe and reliable power to PG&E customers.“In my judgment, the amended plan and the restructuring transactions do not result in a reorganized company positioned to provide safe, reliable, and affordable service,” he said.The governor said PG&E’s plan did not go far enough in improving safety, corporate governance and the company’s financial position. The company has until Tuesday to appease Newsom and get him to sign off on the plan.“We’ve welcomed feedback from all stakeholders throughout these proceedings and will continue to work diligently in the coming days to resolve any issues that may arise,” PG&E said in a statement.Without the added protection of the California wildfire fund, PG&E would likely find it more difficult to borrow money to pay for the necessary upgrades and perhaps even fund its ongoing operations if it remains mired in bankruptcy proceedings beyond June 30.If PG&E can’t get a revised deal with the fire victims approved, it also will face the specter of navigating through two other legal gauntlets early next year that would be used as an alternative way to estimate how much the company owes for the catastrophic wildfires in 2017 and 2018 that killed nearly 130 people and destroyed about 28,000 structures in its sprawling service territory.One, a California state trial to be held in January, will determine whether PG&E is liable for a 2017 fire in Sonoma County that the company hasn’t accepted full responsibility for. The trial would also award damages to the victims if PG&E is blamed. A subsequent proceeding, known as an estimation hearing, is scheduled in February before a federal judge to determine PG&E’s total bill for all the fires that could have been covered in the settlement that had been worked out with the victims.Attorneys for the fire victims so far have collectively lodged claims of about billion against PG&E, according to court documents. But that figure could rise even higher after the state trial and estimation hearing, and it if does would likely leave PG&E unable to meet its financial obligations — a development that could lead U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali to declare the company insolvent.If that were to happen, it would automatically void a separate billion settlement deal PG&E has reached with insurers who say they are owed billion for the fire insurance claims they expect to pay their policyholders in the wildfires blamed on the utility. The insurance settlement, though, is also being opposed by Newsom, and is still awaiting Montali’s approval.The governor “may have upset a rather delicate bankruptcy process,” said Jared Ellias, a bankruptcy expert at University of California, Hastings College of the Law.“We’re going to see how resilient the deal that comes out of this process is going to be and whether it can adjust to meet his approval,” he said. 4197

来源：资阳报