天津武清龙济医院可以做包皮手术(天津龙济做包皮环切术多少钱) (今日更新中)

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to weigh in on the battle over pension reform in the city of San Diego. The decision leaves in place a California Supreme Court decision from last year that called pension reform into question and required a lower court to come up with a remedy. It could end up costing the city billions. In 2012, San Diego voters approved Proposition B with 65 percent in-favor. The measure ended pensions for nearly all new city hires, instead switching them to 401(k) type plans. Around the time, the city faced a billion pension liability, comprising 20 percent of the budget. "It is saving us, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars," Mayor Kevin Faulconer said Monday. "That's why it's important, so we can invest dollars back into neighborhoods."The city, however, is now on the legal defensive. Back in 2012, then-mayor Jerry Sanders campaigned on behalf of the measure. Labor unions argued Sanders' involvement required the city to meet and confer with unions before changing their terms of employment. The city argued that Sanders was exercising his First Amendment right to endorse the measure, which got to the ballot via a citizens initiative. The state Public Employee Retirement Board sided with the unions. So did the California Supreme Court, which last year ordered lower courts to decide a remedy. "There is not even a breath of a suggestion in this case that any public officials First Amendment rights have been violated," said Ann Smith, the attorney representing the labor unions. In a statement, Sanders, who now heads the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, called the Supreme Court's decision disappointing but not unexpected. Smith said a lower court decision could make a decision within 30 days. It could impact as many as 4,000 city employees. 1813

The Trump administration has proposed further slashing the number of refugees the United States accepts to a new record low in the coming year.In a notice sent to Congress late Wednesday, just 34 minutes before a statutory deadline to do so, the administration said it intended to admit a maximum of 15,000 refugees in fiscal year 2021. That’s 3,000 fewer than the 18,000 ceiling the administration had set for fiscal year 2020, which expired at midnight Wednesday.The proposal will now be reviewed by Congress, where there are strong objections to the cuts, but lawmakers will be largely powerless to force changes.The more than 16.5% reduction was announced shortly after President Donald Trump vilified refugees as an unwanted burden at a campaign rally in Duluth, Minnesota, where he assailed his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. He claimed Biden wants to flood the state with foreigners.“Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp, and he said that — overwhelming public resources, overcrowding schools and inundating hospitals. You know that. It’s already there. It’s a disgrace what they’ve done to your state,” Trump told supporters.Trump froze refugee admissions in March amid the coronavirus pandemic, citing a need to protect American jobs as fallout from the coronavirus crashed the economy.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration is committed to the country’s history of leading the world in providing a safe place for refugees.“We continue to be the single greatest contributor to the relief of humanitarian crisis all around the world, and we will continue to do so,” Pompeo told reporters in Rome on the sidelines of a conference on religious freedom organized by the U.S. Embassy. “Certainly so long as President Trump is in office, I can promise you this administration is deeply committed to that.”But advocates say the government’s actions do not show that. Since taking office, Trump has slashed the number of refugees allowed into the country by more than 80%, reflecting his broader efforts to drastically reduce both legal and illegal immigration.The U.S. allowed in just over 10,800 refugees — a little more than half of the 18,000 cap set by Trump for 2020 — before the State Department suspended the program because of the coronavirus.The 18,000 cap was already the lowest in the history of the program. In addition, the State Department announced last week that it would no longer provide some statistical information on refugee resettlement, sparking more concerns.Advocates say the Trump administration is dismantling a program that has long enjoyed bipartisan support and has been considered a model for protecting the world’s most vulnerable people.Scores of resettlement offices have closed because of the drop in federal funding, which is tied to the number of refugees placed in the U.S.And the damage is reverberating beyond American borders as other countries close their doors to refugees as well.“We’re talking about tens of millions of desperate families with no place to go and having no hope for protection in the near term,” said Krish Vignarajah, president of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a federally funded agency charged with resettling refugees in the United States.Bisrat Sibhatu, an Eritrean refugee, does not want to think about the possibility of another year passing without reuniting with his wife.For the past 2 1/2 years, he has called the caseworker who helped him resettle in Milwaukee every two weeks to inquire about the status of his wife’s refugee case.The answer is always the same — nothing to report.“My wife is always asking me: ‘Is there news?’” said Sibhatu, who talks to her daily over a messaging app. “It’s very tough. How would you feel if you were separated from your husband? It’s not easy. I don’t know what to say to her.”He said the couple fled Eritrea’s authoritarian government and went to neighboring Ethiopia, which hosts more than 170,000 Eritrean refugees and asylum-seekers. Between 2017 and 2019, his wife, Ruta, was interviewed, vetted and approved to be admitted to the United States as a refugee. Then everything came to a halt.Sibhatu, who works as a machine operator at a spa factory, sends her about 0 every month to cover her living expenses in Ethiopia.“I worry about her, about her life,” Sibhatu said, noting Ethiopia’s spiraling violence and the pandemic. “But there is nothing we can do.”He hopes his wife will be among the refugees who make it to the United States in 2021.___Lee reported from Washington. 4558

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, the week of Oct. 12. That’s according to three people familiar with the schedule.The panel plans to start the hearing with opening statements on Monday, Oct. 12, and continue with two days of questioning. The hearings are scheduled to end on Thursday, Oct. 15 with statements from outside groups.The people were granted anonymity to discuss the schedule before it is officially announced.The hearings will come less than a month from the Nov. 3 presidential election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not yet said whether the Senate will vote to confirm Barrett before the election, but Republicans are privately aiming for a late October confirmation vote.Barrett would replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18.Here's what's next for Supreme Court Justice Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. 948

The US House of Representatives passed a federal "right-to-try" bill Wednesday night, leaving many Americans wondering what the move could mean for their health and that of their loved ones.The bill, backed by President Donald Trump, would give terminally ill patients the right to seek drug treatments that remain in clinical trials and have passed phase one of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process, but they have not been fully approved by the FDA.The bill passed the House 267 to 149, after failing to pass last week. Now the legislation needs approval from the Senate.Right-to-try laws exist in 38 states -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington and Wyoming -- but this federal bill would introduce legislation across state lines.The central question, however, remains: Would a federal right-to-try bill help or hurt some of the country's most fragile patients? Here's what you need to know, according to experts on both sides of the legislation. 1320

The recommended amount of sleep for adults is six to eight hours a night. Sleeping more than those hours is associated with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular diseases, says a global study published Wednesday in the European Heart Journal.Looking at data from 21 countries, across seven regions, the research team found that people sleeping more than the recommended upper limit of eight hours increased their risk of risk of major cardiovascular events, like stroke or heart failure, as well as death by up to 41%.But a possible reason for this could be that people have underlying conditions causing them to sleep longer, which in turn could raise the risk of cardiovascular disease or mortality, explain the authors of the study.The team, led by Chuangshi Wang, a Ph.D. student at McMaster and Peking Union Medical College in China, also identified a rising risk among daytime nappers."Daytime napping was associated with increased risks of major cardiovascular events and deaths in those with [more than] six hours of nighttime sleep but not in those sleeping [less than] 6 hours a night," Wang said.In those who underslept, "a daytime nap seemed to compensate for the lack of sleep at night and to mitigate the risks," Wang explained.Previous studies into this topic were mainly carried out in North America, Europe and Japan. The new study brings a global picture.But the findings are observational, meaning the cause of this association remains unknown."Even though the findings were very interesting they don't prove cause and effect," said Julie Ward, a senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, who was not involved in the study.Having less sleep -- under six hours -- was also shown to increase these risks by 9%, compared with people who slept for the recommended six to eight hours, but this finding was not considered to be statistically significant by the team.In 2014, 35.2% of American adults reported not getting enough sleep with less than seven hours per night, according to the CDC. 2049

来源：资阳报