宜宾割双眼皮术要费用计算(专业做双眼皮副作用宜宾) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Chris Cate may soon feel like the loneliest politician in San Diego.Come December, he'll likely be the only Republican on the otherwise Democratic San Diego City Council. That’s because it appears Democrats will secure an 8-1 advantage on the City Council, based on returns from Tuesday’s election.“We'll have to figure out a new path going into election two years from now and another election two years after that,” Cate said.Cate is a San Diego native who represents the city's North Central areas. The jobs are technically nonpartisan, but divides do show when it comes to key votes on housing development, city contracting, and public safety. Cate says he won't be shy.“And really try to ensure that we as a government are mindful of the fact that we rely on taxpayer dollars to provide those resources, and not try to go back to the well multiple times to increase fees or taxes,” Cate said.Cate describes himself as a fiscal conservative and social moderate. He joined the council in 2014, when Democrats had a 5-4 advantage over Republicans. Democrat registration has exploded since then, with some politicians abandoning the Republican Party.Termed out Councilman Mark Kersey is now an independent, and State Assemblyman Brian Maienschein flipped to a democrat.But Cate says he'll never leave the party.“Absolutely not… 100%, no,” he said.Being the lone Republican on the council could also raise Cate’s political profile. For instance, many times he'd be the only alternative viewpoint for journalists to ask for comment. Cate said, however, that he's not seeking higher office. He terms out in 2022.Cate said more than 90% of the issues the council takes up are nonpartisan. He added he has known leading Democratic mayoral candidate Todd Gloria for years and finds him to be a person of integrity. 1836

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Awaken Church continues to hold indoors services, despite orders from San Diego County to close all indoor religious services due to COVID-19 restrictions.According to the San Diego County website, three of the Awaken Church locations have received cease and desist orders. The location at 7620 Balboa Ave. received a cease and desist order July 17, 2020; the Carlsbad location received one Nov. 16, 2020; and the Chula Vista location received one Nov. 19, 2020.RELATED: Churches pushing back against purple tier restrictionsIn addition, San Diego County put out a notice that anyone who went to the location at 7620 Balboa Ave. between Nov. 15 and Nov. 22 needs to quarantine for two weeks because of a community outbreak. The county said a community outbreak had occurred there, which is when there are three or more reported cases from different homes in the span of two weeks.An attendee at the San Marcus location said he feels comfortable attending in person and indoors.“I think it’s really about having individual choice and trusting people to have the intelligence to do the right thing, and this church has a wonderful uplifting message that I think is so positive and hopeful for people in a time where we find ourselves somewhat down,” said Brian.Brian said that the San Marcos facility is spacious so people are able to spread out, adding that the right to worship freely is in the constitution.RELATED: County asks Kearny Mesa church attendees to quarantine after COVID-19 outbreak“Try to preserve as much of our freedoms and liberties as we can. We’re all being responsible, we all have the intelligence to be responsible and yet at the same time, not give into the fear rhetoric, but to make confident positive decisions,” said Brian.The church’s website says people are not required to wear masks during the indoor services, rather it’s up to the person’s personal comfort levels. Also, the website asks attendees to refrain from posting pictures and videos of the services on social media.A video of church leaders posted on the website describes their decision to remain open for in person and indoor services.“We’ve made this decision not out of defiance but out of obedience to God,” two people said in a video on the website, adding that they plan to continue in person services.A county spokesperson said if a cease and desist order is ignored, the next step would be a closure order. After that, law enforcement is asked to get involved by giving citations with a thousand dollar fine for each violation; then the case goes to either the San Diego District Attorney or City Attorney. 2635

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- As San Diegans come to grips with the violence that unfolded in a Paradise Hills home, leaving a mother and her young boys dead, District Attorney Summer Stephan tells 10News it is a problem that San Diego is becoming too familiar with.“Domestic violence remains the number one killer of women in the United States and right here in San Diego,” said Stephan.She revealed the County of San Diego had 18 murders last year related to domestic violence.RELATED: Resources available to domestic violence victimsStephan said a third of those murders involved people who had active restraining orders.“We want victims to know that a restraining order is a piece of paper and that it alone is not going to protect the victim,” she said.According to Stephan, the first 72 hours after filing a restraining order are the most vulnerable for retaliation and victims need to have a plan in place.RELATED: Document details chilling text messages sent to woman killed in Paradise Hills murder-suicide“In the first 72 hours after somebody obtains a restraining order the risk is heightened,” she said. “There is almost an escalation of risk.”One important piece of advice for victims after filing a restraining order, is to leave the home the offender knows of.“What we say is for a victim to get a restraining order, but only after there has been a safety plan and there has been a threat assessment by professionals.”Across the county, there are a number of resources available to help put a plan together.“There's a family justice center run by the City Attorney Mara Elliott, there's a center for community solutions with a 24 hour number,” she said.More resources are also listed on the DA’s website https://www.sdcda.org/helping/domestic-violence.html 1769

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Chicano history will be celebrated in San Diego this week at one of the city's most historic parks.On April 20, the Logan Heights community will celebrate the 49th annual Chicano Park Day at the famed park underneath the Coronado Bridge. The free festival brings together community members annually for art, education, entertainment, and honoring Chicano culture and the park.This year theme will be "Danzantes, Protectors of Our Traditions and Chicano Park, 500 Years of Anti-Colonial Struggle."Performances are scheduled by a lineup of traditional and cultural dance groups and one of the largest Aztec Indigenous dance performances by Danza Azteca Calpulli Mexihca. In addition to dancing, kids art workshops, speakers, and more than 325 classic lowrider cars and bikes will be on display. Attendees can also visit various arts and crafts, and informational booths throughout the colorful park.And, of course, there's the food, which will be sprinkled throughout the park at various booths.The event comes a couple days before the official establishment of Chicano Park on April 22, 1970, by activists. The site was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2013 and became a National Historic Landmark in 2016.The park is known for an array of colorful murals lining the Coronado Bay Bridge's legs that make up the Chicano Park Monumental Murals. Artists illustrate Chicano history and culture through murals and sculptures throughout the park. 1487

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs?The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego.“States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways,” he said in an interview. “They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don’t get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail.”Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic.The legal precedent dates back to 1905. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled Massachusetts had the authority to fine people who refused vaccinations for smallpox.That case formed the legal basis for vaccine requirements at schools, and has been upheld in subsequent decisions.“Courts have found that when medical necessity requires it, the public health outweighs the individual rights and liberties at stake,” Fox said.In 2019, New York City passed an ordinance that fined people who refused a measles vaccination.That said, recent protests over face coverings show there could be significant backlash to a vaccine mandate, Fox said. Just because states have the power to do it, doesn’t mean it’s the best public policy, he added.Although states would have the authority to mandate vaccinations, there’s more doubt about whether Congress could enact a federal requirement.The most likely federal vaccination requirement would come in the form of a tax penalty, but Fox said given the current composition of the Supreme Court, a federal vaccine requirement would likely be found unconstitutional.Opponents of a federal mandate would cite the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on the Affordable Care Act, Fox said. In that case, the justices ruled that Congress could not use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to require people to buy health insurance, even though the ACA’s individual mandate was ultimately upheld on separate grounds.That means the U.S. could have a patchwork of different vaccine requirements in different states.States that explore a vaccine requirement should only do so if the vaccine is widely and readily available, Fox said.“Otherwise you create an underclass of people who are less safe and without access to the basic means of society,” he said.States would need to allow exemptions for people with legitimate medical risks, like pregnancy, but not exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds, he said.“Religious exemptions are not constitutionally required by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause, provided that the vaccine mandates don’t single out religion; they’re not motivated by a desire to interfere with it,” he said.In the workplace, private employers would have a lot of flexibility to require vaccinations and fire workers who refuse them for anything but legitimate medical concerns.As long as employers show there are significant costs associated with having unvaccinated workers, they would not need to offer religious exemptions to employees, Fox said.Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers are not required to accommodate religious employees if doing so would pose more than a “de minimis,” or minimal cost. 3561

来源：资阳报