Nos. 44 and 45 broke the mold. What does that mean for the future of the presidency?

Obama and Trump upended two centuries of presidential selection. Voters say they’re open to new kinds of candidates this time, too.

SPECIAL NEWS BULLETIN: -As millions of Americans strive to deal with the economic downturn,loss of jobs,foreclosures,high cost of gas,and the rising cost of prescription drug cost. Charles Myrick ,the President of American Consultants Rx, announced the re-release of the American Consultants Rx community service project which consist of millions of free discount prescription cards being donated to thousands of not for profits,hospitals,schools,churches,etc. in an effort to assist the uninsured,under insured,and seniors deal with the high cost of prescription drugs.-American Consultants Rx -Pharmacy Discount Network News


Click today to request your free ACRX discount prescription card and save up to 80% off of your medicine!


Please help American Consultants Rx achieve it’s biggest goal yet of donating over 30 million discount prescription cards to over 50k organizations in an effort to assist millions of Americans in need. Please click here to donate today!

Abortion Bans Are a Health Crisis. For Black Women, They Mean Devastation

As President Trump promised during the 2016 campaign, he would make overturning Roe v. Wade—the landmark court case giving women the constitutional right to have an abortion—part of his mission. Six states thus far, have passed or are trying to pass draconian laws banning abortions. Abortion ban is bad for all women and a crisis for black women.

It’s well-established that there is inequity in healthcare. “The sexual and reproductive health of African American women has been compromised due to multiple experiences of racism, including discriminatory healthcare practices from slavery through the post-Civil Rights era,” writes researchers in the report Racism, African American Women, and Their Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Review of Historical and Contemporary Evidence and Implications for Health Equity.

Those discriminatory practices exist today. Black women, many with limited resources, often have unequal access to quality healthcare. For example, the above study found that black women often are subjected to unnecessary hysterectomies. Infant mortality, pregnancy complications, and access to vital prenatal care are all issues affecting black women’s reproductive health.

And it doesn’t matter if you are a rich and famous black woman as we discovered when Serena Williams opened up about her life-threatening pregnancy complications. In fact, black woman’s reproductive health status is at such a red alert that Sen. Kamala Harris introduced legislation to address the black maternal mortality crisis.

What the anti-choice advocates conveniently leave out of their hateful, misogynistic narrative is that the same facilities that provide abortions are also safe havens for women to receive prenatal care, sexual education, and pregnancy care. These facilities are particularly crucial to low-income black women and those in rural areas.

Yet, the states with high populations of black women—and some with the worst records on black women’s healthcare—are the ones pushing hardest for abortion bans: Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, and Georgia. As a result, many of these states are closing facilities that not only provide abortions but other critical women’s health services. Currently, only one abortion clinic remains in Missouri; three in Alabama; and one in Mississippi.

Missouri, Alabama, Ohio are ranked among the worst states for black infant mortality rates in the aforementioned study. From that report, “Mississippi has the largest proportion of babies born with low birth weight among Black women as well as all women (16.1% and 11.5%,  respectively). The states with the next largest proportions of babies born with low birth weight to Black women are Louisiana, West Virginia, Colorado, and Alabama.”

What is the impetus to place women’s reproductive freedom back 50 years? Anti-choicers cite their religious beliefs as justification—bestowing personhood onto fetuses.

But perhaps the underlying reasons are even more sinister. America is becoming browner. With the influx of immigrants from Latin America, and more people open to the idea of interracial relationships, millennials and Gen Z are the most diverse generations ever.

It stands to reason that the powers that be, the network of old white boys, are panicking over the darkened hue of the American populace; and over the demands for economic and political diversity and equity. And there is power in numbers. Force more white women to have white babies and make America white again…perhaps?

Of course, that is speculation. What isn’t: Abortion bans do not stop women from having abortions. These bans only make it more dangerous and expensive for women to terminate pregnancies. These bans shut down healthcare facilities that provide reproductive services and support that extends far beyond abortions. These bans, while detrimental to all women, will be devastating to the well-being of black women, as we still struggle to gain equal footing in a world that is so quick to hate us.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author’s and not necessarily the opinion of Black Enterprise.

The post Abortion Bans Are a Health Crisis. For Black Women, They Mean Devastation appeared first on Black Enterprise.

Lifestyle | Black Enterprise


Tell Me More | Episode 26: Krystina Alabado on Joining “Mean Girls” Family, Keeping Gas Pedal Down on her Career

On this episode of BroadwayRadio’s “Tell Me More,” Matt Tamanini talks to actress Krystina Alabado currently starring as Gretchen Weiners in “Mean Girls” on Broadway. In the episode, Krystina discussed the process of joining the extremely tight “Mean Girls” family; what the opportunity to play a strong, but vulnerable woman read more


LOIT logo banner

How ‘Medicare for All’ Could Mean Change for Everyone

Through Medicare, the government health-insurance program created in 1965 to help older Americans afford their medical bills, the U.S. helps one in five of its citizens pay for doctor visits, blood tests, prescription drugs, stays in hospitals or nursing facilities, and hospice care. Why not offer those benefits to everybody? “Medicare for All” has emerged as a rallying cry among Democrats in the early stages of the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, though it means different things to different people.

1. Who can get Medicare now?

About 85 percent of Medicare’s 59.7 million members are eligible because of their age — 65 or older. The rest are eligible because they have permanent disabilities. Beneficiaries are responsible for paying premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, and most purchase some type of additional coverage to help with services that aren’t covered, such as long-term care, dental and vision treatment, and hearing aids.

2. What would Medicare for All mean?

That depends on who’s talking. Generally speaking, it suggests an end to the dominance of private health insurance in the U.S., in favor of either a government-run “single-payer” system, such as Canada’s, or a government-provided alternative to private insurance plans that Americans could buy into, an idea known as the “public option.” Less-drastic offshoots of the idea envision lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 50 — Medicare for more, rather than Medicare for All.

3. Which politicians support which proposals?

Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is again seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, continues to advocate for a fully government-run and government-financed system that would abolish most private insurance plans. Self-described progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives also favor a government-run single-payer system. That group includes Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who has offered specific legislation, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Other Democrats vying against Sanders for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination are split (or fuzzy) over whether they would do away with most private insurance or, rather, seek more modest steps toward government-provided health care. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s focus on more modest steps toward insuring more Americans is an attempt to keep the party from fracturing over the issue.

4. Would Medicare for All change everybody’s health care?

It might, depending on the plan. The most expansive visions of Medicare for All, like those of Sanders and Jayapal, would establish universal benefits through a government-run program and outlaw most forms of private insurance, including employer-provided coverage. That might mean little if any out-of-pocket cost to patients, but also less choice for people who want to purchase specific types of benefits and for employers who use them to attract workers. Under a public-option plan, people satisfied with their insurance and medical care would have more flexibility to keep it.

5. How much would it cost?

The Congressional Budget Office, the provider of official cost estimates, hasn’t weighed in on any of the proposed plans. A study from the libertarian Mercatus Center said Sanders’ 2017 single-payer bill would raise federal spending by $ 32.6 trillion over 10 years; an earlier report by the nonpartisan Urban Institute reached a similar figure. (To pay for that, sponsors have floated ideas like raising taxes on the wealthy.) But the current system has costs as well. The U.S. spent $ 3.5 trillion on health care in 2017, or roughly $ 11,000 for each American, and is projected to spend about $ 47 trillion on health care between 2018 and 2027 (adding up what the government, employers and households pay). Today about 18 percent of gross domestic product goes to medical spending, a far greater share than most peer countries.

6. Would Medicare for All cut health-care costs?

That’s a matter of debate. Proponents say it would allow the government to limit costs by setting prices and eliminate the administrative burden of private health insurance. Critics argue that would remove the incentives private purchasers of health care have to steer their dollars toward more efficient, innovative suppliers.

7. Do Americans want Medicare for All?

That changes with how the question is phrased. In a January poll by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 74 percent of those surveyed supported “creating a national government-administered health plan similar to Medicare open to anyone” if that meant people could choose to keep the coverage they already have. Support dropped to 56 percent if it meant “all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan” and to 37 percent if it would “eliminate private health-insurance companies.”


SPECIAL NEWS BULLETIN: -As millions of Americans strive to deal with the economic downturn,loss of jobs,foreclosures,high cost of gas,and the rising cost of prescription drug cost. Charles Myrick ,the President of American Consultants Rx, announced the re-release of the American Consultants Rx community service project which consist of millions of free discount prescription cards being donated to thousands of not for profits,hospitals,schools,churches,etc. in an effort to assist the uninsured,under insured,and seniors deal with the high cost of prescription drugs.-American Consultants Rx -Pharmacy Discount Network News


Click today to request your free ACRX discount prescription card and save up to 80% off of your medicine!


Please help American Consultants Rx achieve it’s biggest goal yet of donating over 30 million discount prescription cards to over 50k organizations in an effort to assist millions of Americans in need. Please click here to donate today!

Captain Marvel: How Many After Credits Scenes + What They Mean

Full spoilers follow for Captain Marvel! If you’ve seen the movie already, be sure to check out our 6 biggest WTF questions, the best Easter Eggs in Captain Marvel, our breakdown of the new Endgame trailer and our explainer piece on the Avengers’ new white suits. Also be sure to check out the Avengers: Endgame trailer below, which offers a little sequel to the first of Captain Marvel’s two post-credits scenes.

Continue reading…



GameStop, Inc.

‘Chicago Med’ Sneak Peek: Robin Returns — What Does That Mean for Connor?

Remember when Robin Charles (Mekia Cox) and Dr. Rhodes (Colin Donnell) were in a super serious relationship and she just up and left town? She returns during the Wednesday, February 19, episode of Chicago Med — and it’s safe to assume it will shake things up inside the hospital.

“She comes back because Dr. Charles’ ex-wife is in need of some help at the hospital. One of the big things between Connor and Robin is that fact that she just sort of left, she disappeared,” Donnell, 36, told Us Weekly exclusively. “He had to figure out somewhat to be OK with that. I think there are a lot of feelings that are still unexplored there.”

‘Chicago Med’ Sneak Peek: Robin Returns — What Does That Mean for Connor?
Robin and Connor from ‘Chicago Med’. NBC; Elizabeth Sisson/NBC

Of course, it doesn’t help that Dr. Rhodes is currently single again following a falling out with Ava Bekker (Norma Kuhling) — did she sleep with his dad or what? Regardless, “it’s going to be complicated” with his ex back in town, the former Arrow star added.

He also noted that there may be some interactions between Ava and Robin: “It’s going to be super awkward.”

In Us Weekly’s exclusive sneak peek of her return, Robin sits down with her dad (Oliver Platt) and her mom, CeCe (Paula Newsome), who has never been introduced on the show.

“You did good there,” Dr. Charles says to his ex-wife when Robin gets up to take a call. She corrects him: “We did good.”

However, she then reveals some bad news – and why she’s back in Chicago. “My lymphoma is back and my old chemo regime isn’t working,” CeCe tells Dr. Charles. “I already got third and fourth opinions and the only thing left is clinical trials.”

Chicago Med airs on NBC Wednesdays at 8 p.m. ET.

Us Weekly


Suits For Leisu — I Mean, Nontraditional Suits

Some designers and brands are betting that men are ready for a new kind of suit. The generation of men who’ve entered the workforce in recent years may be the first where the expectation that they wear a suit to the job interview, let alone the office every day, is low. The garment that was the standard for men at (white collar) work for decades is, for most, obsolete. I’m not making an argument against suits, just stating a broad truth.

As business casual took over offices in the 1990s, suit sales broadly declined, only to be buoyed in the 2010s by renewed taste for tailoring. Guys (maybe you know one) didn’t have to wear tailored clothing, but they wanted to. Rather than wearing it out of obligation and in settings where the intent was dressing up, they were wearing suits more casually. And tailoring has moved to meet the market — softening shoulders, broadening fabric selection, and increasing custom options.

But as popular tailoring designs became more casual (patch pockets!), some designers who don’t make traditional suits have been offering quasi-suit options. Rather than deflating a traditional lounge suit of its formality, the new suits are more like casual clothing shoved suitward. They don’t necessarily have the guts of traditional tailoring–canvassing, padding, worsted and flannel wool fabrics.

The marketing for these “suits” does not acknowledge the existence of an office. There’s a word I’m tempted to use to describe them, but as Stephen Malkmus once sang, “A leisure suit is nothing to be proud of in this late century.”


The examples I’m thinking of are from brands like 18 East, Older Brother, and Ijji. This fall, Antonio Ciongoli, who made terrific casual suits when at Eidos, released what he called an “eastern suit” — a cardigan or kimono style jacket in woven fabric (corduroy or a rough-textured cotton) matched with almost pajama-like trousers in the same fabric. It’s not something I’d wear to a desk job, but it’s an interesting option for occasions that I’m not really cool enough to get invited to, like the wedding of a promising visual artist and a documentarian held after hours at a restaurant that doesn’t take reservations.

18East “eastern suit” in corduroy.

Ijji Clothing

Ijji and Older Brother make unisex clothing (OB calls it “universal clothing”) that calls to mind 1970s California — the spiritual home of the original leisure suit. Ijji, the name of which draws on the Japanese word meaning “easy pants,” makes drawstring pants and simple, patch pocket work jackets in the same fabrics, which together can be worn as a suit. There is admittedly a slight cult-y vibe to wearing dyed to match cotton clothing, but there’s some appeal in the idealistic simplicity of a tonal palette. Their pants have a drawstring and high rise. A lot of these clothes remind me of the costumes for the 2013 film Her, which costume designer Casey Storm has said were intentionally done in simple cuts and natural fabrics:

All the costumes in the film are things someone could be wearing now, but we don’t have any denim or belt buckles or ties or baseball hats. We barely have a collar or lapel. The waist lines are all higher.

The workwear roots of the brand bridge the conceptual gap a bit between “suits” and “uniforms.”

Ijji clothing.

Older Brother and Others

Older Brother’s sustainability-focused, slightly hippie pitch is almost utopian (if slightly cornball) — they tout a “farm to body” philosophy and the healing power of the mushrooms they use in their dye. But the clothes themselves look pretty great. They have made a suit jacket with actual lapels, but have also made cardigans and pants in the same fabrics for another version of this “suit.”

Older Brother. They like mushrooms.

None of these brands officially sell their clothes as a suit, and for me part of the appeal is actually in the value of the items as separates. First of all, these are generally cheaper than traditional tailoring, which makes sense as the construction is simpler. Secondly, while I might not wear the pieces as a suit often, they’re interesting enough on their own that if you bought, for example,  18east pants, it might be worth buying a jacket as well; then you have the suit option.

Other lines that come to mind that have for a while made same-fabric tops and bottoms that could conceivably be a suit are Engineered Garments (technically I own a ripstop “suit” from EG–they make some traditionally shaped jackets but with un-businesslike silhouettes) and Craig Green, whose quilted jackets and pants are pretty striking in his runway shows, and who also draws a lot on the concept of uniformity.

Craig Green designs.

Engineered Garments has for a decade or more made tops and bottoms in the same fabrics.

The post Suits For Leisu — I Mean, Nontraditional Suits appeared first on Put This On.

Put This On


Democrats’ new ‘woke’ standards mean hell for 2020 contenders

All statewide officials in Virginia should resign if Democrats are held to their own standards. Even if Gov. Ralph Northam didn’t appear in blackface in an image on his medical-school yearbook, he confessed to once darkening his face as part of a Michael Jackson costume. Attorney General Mark Herring, who called Northam’s conduct indefensible, also…
Opinion | New York Post


Everyday Savings: Up to 40% Off on over 2,000 Styles at DSW! Shop Now!

What does a national emergency mean? Here’s what happens if Donald Trump declares one

What does a national emergency mean? Here’s what happens if Donald Trump declares one

What does a national emergency mean? Here’s what happens if Donald Trump declares one

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on January 8th. On Friday, January 25th, President Donald Trump said he would agree to temporarily reopen the government but, if Congress continued to reject his plans for a border wall, he may declare a “national emergency.”

President Donald Trump is caught between a wall and a hard place. With a $ 5.7 billion price tag, his proposed southern border wall has divided Congress and sent the nation into its 18th day of a government shutdown—stranding some 800,000 federal employees without pay. On Tuesday night Trump is scheduled to address the nation, interrupting prime-time on broadcast networks for the first time in his presidency.

While a senior White House official told The Washington Post that the president plans to use the airtime to garner support for the wall, it remains unclear whether he might make a more drastic proclamation instead—declaring a “national emergency” and freeing himself to implement more than 100 powers. By invoking such an emergency Trump could potentially begin building his wall and, in a rhetorical dodge, then announce his demands had been met and that he would agree to end the shutdown. But he may also enrage Democrats and provoke a legal battle. Here is what a national emergency really means.

donald trump
Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images

What qualifies as a “national emergency”?

In short, it depends. According to a report put together by the Brennan Center for Justice, both the president and Congress can declare a national emergency whenever they see fit. Despite the severe-sounding label, no broadly agreed-upon “emergency” is actually required. That means that while the underlying data doesn’t support parts of the Trump administration’s argument about the dangers at the souther border — for example, the number of illegal immigrants has decreased over the last two decades and, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, there is “no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States”—the president nonetheless can rule it an emergency, The New York Times explains. 

Under the National Emergencies Act, passed in 1976, Congress has the power to end a state of emergency declared by a president. But it has not done so in 40 years, according to the Brennan Center’s report. It seems especially unlikely that Congress would terminate the potential border-related national emergency, given its current makeup, as doing so would require a joint resolution and a signature from the president.

What can a president do with emergency powers?

Build a wall—maybe. Generally, emergency powers can help a president act in dire situations when executive branch’s standard capabilities are too limited. The thinking is that the president is ultimately tasked with safeguarding a nation’s safety and prosperity and, in a crisis, should be empowered to move swiftly as needed.

The Brennan Center identified 136 additional statutory powers that a president may use in the case of a national emergency, two of which may apply to the border wall. The first permits the president to use funding already allocated to military construction to begin “military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law.” The second statute allows the president to take away troops and other resources from Department of Army civil works projects and apply them to “authorized civil works, military construction and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

government shutdown
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Is that legal?

While both of these statutes provide some legal cover if the president declares a state of emergency to fund the border wall, they each raise important questions. For example, does the wall qualify as “military construction”—a necessary component to the first statute? Or, as the second requires, has Congress already “authorized” a wall? Should the wall’s construction via an emergency be challenged in court, the Supreme Court would likely have to weigh in.

Do presidents regularly declare national emergencies?

Yes. Since the National Emergencies Act became law, presidents have declared at least 58 states of emergency, excluding weather-related events, USA Today reported. In 2009, President Barack Obama declared a national emergency amid the outbreak of H1N1, better known as swine flu and allowed the waiving of some rules such as privacy laws.

What now?

Wait until Trump’s speech at 9 p.m. ET, with a Democratic rebuttal to follow and the networks vowing to provide extensive fact-checking, given the president’s history of untruths and distortions.

This article originally appeared on

The post What does a national emergency mean? Here’s what happens if Donald Trump declares one appeared first on HelloGiggles.



Anatomy Of A Showtune: Inside the Horrible, Horrendous Holiday History of ‘You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch’

He really is a heel. He’s as cuddly as a cactus and as charming as an eel. He’s a bad banana with a greasy black peel. He’s a monster. His heart’s an empty hole. His brain is full of spiders. He’s got garlic in his soul… Featured Content


Single During The Holidays? It Doesn’t Mean Being Lonely Or Alone

As the holiday season starts, singles may face questions from friends and family: “When are you getting serious about dating?”

In many families, seasonal festivities draw lines between who’s coupled and who’s not. Romantic partners are invited to holiday meals, included in family photographs, and seen as potential life mates – while “mere” friends are not. These practices draw a line between relationships seen as significant – and those which aren’t.

As I’ve argued in my research on the ethics and politics of the family, these practices reflect widespread assumptions. One is that everyone is seeking a romantic relationship. The second is more value-laden: living in a long-term romantic, sexual partnership is better than living without one. This fuels beliefs that those living solo are less happy, or lonelier, than couples.

These assumptions are so prevalent that they guide many social interactions. But research shows they’re false.

Why more Americans are living single

The truth is that more Americans are living unmarried and without a romantic partner. In 2005, the census for the first time recorded a majority of women living outside of marriage Although, of course, some unmarried women have romantic partners.

By 2010, married couples became a minority in the United States. The percentage of unmarried adults is at an all-time high, with more young adults choosing to live unmarried and without a romantic partner.

Personal finances likely plays a role in such choices. Millennials are worse off than earlier generations. There is a proven connection between economic resources and marriage rates – what legal scholar Linda McClain calls “the other marriage equality problem.” Lower incomes correlate with lower rates of marriage.

But changing family patterns are not simply the result of financial instability. They reflect choices: Not everyone wants romantic partnership and many singles see solo life as more conducive to flourishing and autonomy.

Single by choice

As I show in my book “Minimizing Marriage,” people have many different political or ethical reasons for preferring singlehood.

Some women become single mothers by choice. As sociologist Arlie Hochschild has argued, marriage brings extra work for women, making it less attractive than single life for some.

For other people, being single is simply a relationship preference or even an orientation. For example, there are those, referred to as “asexuals” and “aromantics,” who lack interest in sexual and romantic relationships.

Who are asexuals and aromantics?

Data from a 1994 British survey of more than 18,000 people showed 1 percent of the respondents to be asexual. Because asexuality is still little-known, some asexuals might not identify as such. And so, it’s possible that the true numbers could be higher.

Asexuals are people who do not feel sexual attraction. Asexuality is not simply the behavior of abstaining from sex, but an orientation. Just as straight people feel sexual attraction to members of a different sex, and gays and lesbians feel attraction to members of the same sex, asexuals simply do not feel sexual attraction. Asexuals can have romantic feelings, wanting a life partner to share intimate moments with and even cuddle – but without sexual feelings.

But some asexuals are also aromantic, that is, not interested in romantic relationships. Like asexuality, aromanticism is an orientation. Aromantics may have sexual feelings or be asexual, but they do not have romantic feelings. Both asexuals and aromantics face a lack of understanding.

Angela Chen, a journalist writing a book about asexuality, reports that her asexual interview subjects suffered from a lack of information about asexuality. As they failed to develop sexual attractions during puberty – while their classmates did – they asked themselves, “Am I normal? Is something wrong with me?”

But while asexuality is sometimes misunderstood as a medical disorder, there are many differences between an asexual orientation and a medical disorder causing a low sex drive. When asexuals are treated as “abnormal” by doctors or therapists, it does them a disservice.

Since the early 2000s, asexuals have exchanged ideas and organized through online groups. One such group, The Asexual Visibility and Education Network, for example, promotes the understanding that lack of sexual attraction is normal for asexuals, and lack of romantic feelings is normal for aromantics.

Asexuals, like aromantics, challenge the expectation that everyone wants a romantic, sexual partnership. They don’t. Nor do they believe that they would be better off with one.

Single and alone – or lonely?

Far from the stereotype of the lonely single, lifelong singles are less lonely than other older people, according to psychologist Bella DePaulo, the author of “Singled Out.” Nor are singles alone.

Many singles have close friendships which are just as valuable as romantic partnerships. But assumptions that friendships are less significant than romantic partnerships hide their value.

Understanding the reasons people have for remaining single might help to handle family stresses. If you’re single, you could take unwanted questioning as a teachable moment. If you’re the friend or family member of someone who tells you they’re happily single – believe them.

[ione_media_gallery id=”474354″ overlay=”true”]


Life & Style – Black America Web


What Women’s Election Day Victories Mean for the Affordable Care Act

Women’s economic security and access to health care have been under threat since long before President Trump took office, but his election acted as a catalyst—accelerating attacks on our bodily autonomy, health and basic rights. Trump and his allies have undermined the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in every branch of our government—pushing policies that destabilized the insurance market, caused premiums to skyrocket and expanded short-term junk insurance policies that don’t cover basic services like maternity care.

The midterm results were a direct reproach to that agenda. More women ran for and won elected office than ever before, often building platforms around protecting the ACA and pre-existing conditions—and health care was cited time and again as the top issue for women voters, who carried them to victory.

Feminists demonstrated at the Supreme Court in support of the Affordable Care Act in 2016 during oral arguments in a case seeking to weaken its contraceptive coverage mandate. (Victoria Pickering / Creative Commons)

None of this should come as a surprise. Women, especially women of color, have benefitted exponentially from the ACA. Since its implementation, 9.5 million women have gained health insurance and 55 million women are now guaranteed essential benefits like maternity care and birth control coverage, which were often excluded from policies previously. Before the ACA, insurers also routinely charged women up to 1.5 times more than men for the same policy because of common health issues like endometriosis, depression or even pregnancy, and nearly 80 percent of women become mothers but giving birth or having been pregnant was considered a pre-existing condition. Experts estimate that over half of all women and girls—67 million people—have pre-existing conditions.Thanks to the ACA, we’re now protected against that kind of gender discrimination.

The election of more than 100 women to Congress also served as a lightning rod of resistance against the scaled-up attacks on women’s reproductive health and rights that we’ve seen over the past two years, issues that go right to the core of women’s equality and economic security, and made clear a national demand for representation in Congress that reflects the current demographics and values of our country. Polls show that support for legal abortion is at historic highs among Democratic women voters, and growing among Republicans. (More than half of Republican women want Roe v. Wade kept intact.)

That’s also no surprise: One in four U.S. women will have an abortion before she’s 45, and those women are Democrats and Republicans. If we lose Roe, women everywhere will suffer—and women across party lines and state lines know that the right to our autonomy is the right to our destiny. Women know that the ability to choose if, when and how to have kids is inextricably linked to their economic success, health and wellbeing. Restricting or denying abortion access does irrevocable harm to our careers, families and economic security; research shows that women who are denied abortions and forced to carry pregnancies to term are four times more likely to experience poverty. Unwanted births also result in negative outcomes for children compared with planned pregnancies.

Make no mistake: the anti-abortion movement definitely had some wins this year, including the passage of personhood measures in Alabama and West Virginia and the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. But the wave of feminists taking seats in the House come January will surely stymy some of the persistent efforts to shame, pressure and punish women for the decisions they make about their own lives that we’ve seen growing under Trump’s administration.

The majority of women voters cast their ballots for Democrats because they know women cannot be equal without reliable access to affordable health care and the ability to make choices about their bodies. In November, 41 percent of voters cited health care as the issue driving them to the polls. Women make up half of the population, the workforce and the electorate. Recognition for our voting power across party lines is long overdue, and guaranteeing women the right to plan their own families, and futures, is a fundamental part of that.

The historic wins for women on Election Day were also victories for the Affordable Care Act and the people who rely on its benefits—and that’s no coincidence. In Washington, the new feminists in Congress will have the great responsibility of echoing the message voters sent them in the midterms: respect women’s rights and protect our health care.

Margarida Jorge is the executive director of Health Care for America Now, the national grassroots coalition that ran a $ 60 million five-and-a-half year campaign from 2008-2013 to pass, protect and promote the Affordable Care Act and protect Medicare and Medicaid. HCAN has come back together to fight the Republicans’ all-out effort to take away America’s health care and put people at the mercy of the health insurance companies again.

ms. blog digest banner

The post What Women’s Election Day Victories Mean for the Affordable Care Act appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.

Ms. Magazine Blog


Your Money, Your Life: Episode 2 – “Does a Good Salary Mean You’re Financially Secure?”

Episode 2

“Does A Good Salary Mean You’re Financially Secure?”

Learn why your feelings and relationship with money are bigger determinants of your sense of financial security than the numbers on your pay check, with guest Jacquette M. Timmons, President & CEO, Sterling Investment Management.

The new personal finance podcast, Your Money, Your Life is sponsored by Prudential and hosted by Black Enterprise’s own Alfred Edmond Jr. This special series features a lineup of great guests including The Breakfast Club’s Angela Yee; DeForest B. Soaries Jr., founder of the dfree Financial Freedom Movement; Tiffany “The Budgetnista” Aliche; and Jacquette M. Timmons, president & CEO of Sterling Investment Management. The show will cover money topics ranging from how to control your debt to our psychological relationship with our finance. A can’t miss!


The post Your Money, Your Life: Episode 2 – “Does a Good Salary Mean You’re Financially Secure?” appeared first on Black Enterprise.

Money | Black Enterprise


Shop select Free People sale and clearance items at!

Nickelback are immune to your mean tweets, in fact, they relish them


Nickelback are pretty good sports when it comes to being one of the most ridiculed bands on the planet. I guess you have to be.

In the latest edition of Jimmy Kimmel’s way harsh segment “Mean Tweets,” music stars like Pink, Miley Cyrus, The Strokes, Schoolboy Q, Imagine Dragons, Tyga, Dua Lipa, and Gwen Stefani read out awful things people have written about them on Twitter.

Heck, Korn even takes a deep burn with a comparative reference to Nickelback. 

But it’s the ever-slammed, ever-noble Nickelback that takes the final blow, with lead singer Chad Kroeger offering up a quick comeback without missing a beat. Guess he’s heard it all before. Read more…

More about Jimmy Kimmel Live, Mean Tweets, Jimmy Kimmel, Nickelback, and Entertainment



Celebrate ‘Mean Girls Day’ in New York with themed goodies, freebies, drinks and screenings

Fetch is finally about to happen.

The stars have aligned this year for fans of “Mean Girls” as two important days tied to the movie happen at the same time.

To celebrate, area restaurants, bars and shops are offering themed treats, events and deals to pay homage to the 2004 hit high school comedy…

/entertainment – New York Daily News