梅州快速人流医院梅州产后宫颈糜烂怎么办,梅州假体隆鼻子价格多少,梅州月经推迟2个月没来怎么办,梅州怎么治慢性尿道炎,梅州哪家医院做无痛人流专业,梅州女性附件炎怎么办,梅州做人流用作何项检查

A long-running dispute between scouts has now ended up in a Manhattan court.The Girl Scouts of the USA has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America after it announced that it would drop "boy" from the name of a program in 2019. The boys' group has already begun to welcome older girls.The Girl Scouts said in the complaint filed in Manhattan federal court Tuesday that the Boy Scouts do not have the right to use "scouts" or "scouting."It also alleged that the Girl Scouts brand and activities will be marginalized by the Boy Scouts rebranded program, Scouts BSA. 603

A judge in Georgia has dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit that raised concerns about a handful of absentee ballots in Chatham County.The Associated Press reports that Chatham County Superior Court Judge James Bass dismissed the lawsuit and did not provide an explanation for his decision at the close of a one-hour hearing.The lawsuit concerned 53 absentee ballots that were not part of an original batch of ballots. At the hearing, county officials testified that the ballots in question had been received on time.The decision comes as Joe Biden continues to narrow the razor-thin lead that President Donald Trump currently has in the state.Donald Trump held a 1.2% advantage in the state with 96% of the expected vote counted on Wednesday evening.As of Thursday afternoon at 3 p.m. ET, Georgia Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger's says that about 47,000 votes remained uncounted. Echoing comments made at a morning press conference, officials said they hope they will be able to finish the count by the end of the day.Trump won the state by 5% in 2016. The last time a Democrat won Georgia was in 1992 when Bill Clinton narrowly defeated George H.W. Bush by .5%. 1170

A final analysis of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer and BioNTech shows that the drug is 95% effective in preventing the coronavirus, and the companies say they hope to apply for Emergency Use Authorization within "days," the company reported Wednesday.The announcement is an improvement from an initial analysis released by the company just over a week ago that showed the drug to be 90% effective. Those results were released when it had been confirmed that 94 participants in the trial who received a shot had contracted COVID-19, and only 10% of those participants who contracted the virus had actually received the vaccine. Updated information now shows that 170 people who participated in the trial have contracted COVID-19, which crosses the threshold for final analysis. Of those participants, 162 received a placebo shot. Of the 20,000 participants who received the vaccine, just one has developed a severe case of COVID-19. The other seven people who received the vaccine and caught the virus are only experiencing mild symptoms.Pfizer also added that the vaccine has proven to be 94% efficient in older people — a welcome sign, given that the virus tends to present more severe symptoms in elderly patients.Pfizer's trial included about 40,000 participants, half of which received the vaccine, and the other half which received the placebo. The vaccine requires two shots, which need to be taken 28 days apart.The company added that there have been no safety concerns with the vaccine. In a randomized survey of 8,000 participants, only 2% reported suffering severe fatigue, and only 4% reported suffering severe headaches. Those who say they suffered side effects only experienced them briefly after vaccination.Wednesday's announcement means Pfizer is on track to shatter records for vaccine development, a process that typically takes several years.Pfizer and BioNTech already have their vaccine candidate in production, meaning it will be ready for distribution as soon as the Food and Drug Administration grants Emergency Use Authorization.Pfizer's announcement comes days after an initial analysis of a Moderna-produced vaccine was also shown to be 95% effective. Several other companies also have a COVID-19 vaccine in the works, something that health officials say is important for logistics and safety. 2347

A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall."The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid."The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to A commercial asking for information about Carole Baskin's late husband's whereabouts aired Monday night during the season premiere of "Dancing with the Stars."In the "Justice for Don Lewis" ad, Lewis' daughters, their attorney, John M. Phillips, and Lewis's assistant Anne asked for any information about his disappearance sent to 646-450-6530 1-800-litigate.Lewis went missing in 1997 and was later declared dead. Lewis went missing while he was married to Baskin."Tiger King" star Baskin made her debut on the 29th season of the reality dancing competition show Monday, the same night the commercial aired.A 0,000 reward is currently being offered for information about Lewis and his disappearance. 711 as part of the 2017 tax cut bill.The Republican coalition is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. They say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress' tax power. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty.The Trump administration said in June that it would not defend several important provisions of Obamacare in court. It agreed that the zeroing out the penalty renders the individual mandate unconstitutional but argued that that invalidates only the law's protections of those with pre-existing conditions. These include banning insurers from denying people policies or charging them more based on their medical histories, as well as limiting coverage of the treatment they need.But the administration maintained those parts of the law were severable and the rest of the Affordable Care Act could remain in place.Because the administration would not defend the law, California, joined by 16 other Democratic states, stepped in. They argued that the mandate remains constitutional and that the rest of the law, in any event, can stand without it. Also, they said that eliminating Obamacare or the protections for those with pre-existing conditions would harm millions of Americans.In oral arguments in September, a lawyer for California said that the harm from striking down the law would be "devastating" and that more than 20 million Americans were able to gain health insurance under it.The lawsuit entered the spotlight during the midterm elections, helping propel many Democratic candidates to victory. Protecting those with pre-existing conditions became a central focus of the races. Some 58% of Americans said they trust Democrats more to continue the law's provisions, compared to 26% who chose Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation election tracking poll released in mid-October.The consumer protections targeted by the administration are central to Obamacare and transformed the health insurance landscape. Their popularity is one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers had such difficulty repealing Obamacare last year."Guaranteed issue" requires insurers to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurers often rejected applicants who are or had been ill or offered them only limited coverage with high rates.Under the law's community rating provision, insurers are not allowed to set premiums based on a person's health history. And the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage meant that insurers cannot refuse to pay for treatments because of a policyholder's medical background.All these provisions meant millions of people with less-than-perfect health records could get comprehensive coverage. But they also have pushed up premiums for those who are young and healthy. This group would have likely been able to get less expensive policies that offered fewer benefits prior to Obamacare. That has put the measures in the crosshairs of Republicans seeking to repeal the law and lower premiums.It's no wonder that politicians on both sides of the aisle promised to protect those with pre-existing conditions during the election. Three-quarters of Americans say that it is "very important" for the law to continue prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage because of medical histories, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's September tracking poll -- 58% of Republicans feel the same way. And about the same share of Americans say it's "very important" that insurers continue to be barred from charging sick people more. 4383

<云转化_句子>