Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which officially cemented a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, sparked a lot of questions. Namely: What will happen to abortion rights? With a new case heading to the Supreme Court, the answer may not be far off.
Earlier this week lawyers brought a case before SCOTUS that could have major consequences for the future of Roe v. Wade. Here’s the rundown: The Center for Reproductive Rights filed an emergency motion, asking the Supreme Court to block legislation that would make getting an abortion in the state more difficult. The law, passed in Louisiana, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and will go into effect on Monday unless SCOTUS steps in. If they don’t, it will mean fewer clinics will be able to provide abortions. (As it stands, Louisiana has only three abortion clinics in the entire state.)
It would be a major threat to women in Louisiana seeking abortion care, because most women would have to travel over 150 miles to get an abortion. Translation: “The right to accessing legal abortion could be virtually extinct [in Louisiana],” says TJ Tu, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who is working on the case.
But that’s just the beginning. If the Supreme Court doesn’t issue a temporary block on the law, or if they refuse to hear an official appeal later this year, it will send a powerful message to state lawmakers: SCOTUS isn’t defending Roe v. Wade.
Since Kavanaugh’s confirmation, there’s been a lot of talk over whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. But that’s not the most serious threat to a woman’s right to choose, according to legal experts. States are passing legislation that openly defies the landmark ruling, banking on the hope that a conservative Supreme Court will endorse those policies—either by declining to hear appeals on lower-court case rulings, or backing those that do make it to the court. From Alabama to Ohio, laws effectively stripping women of the right to safe, legal abortion are racking up. “Antichoice legislators have effectively declared open season on women’s constitutional right to an abortion,” Tu says.
That’s why the Louisiana law (and whether it’s struck down by SCOTUS) is so important. “It shows courts can effectively gut the right to abortion without overturning Roe,” Tu says. “This has been the fear of advocates for years—that concern is becoming a reality.”
This isn’t the first time an abortion-related case has been brought to the Supreme Court since Kavanaugh was confirmed. In December SCOTUS declined to rule on two cases involving Planned Parenthood. “They may have decided this is not the year to stick their necks out following [the controversy over] Kavanaugh,” says Carol Sanger, a professor at Columbia Law School and author of About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy in Twenty-First-Century America.
This case, which will probably end up on the docket for the next session of the Court if the justices decide to hear it, will likely be too important for SCOTUS to pass up, says Tu. And it raises serious questions, he says, about whether standing precedents on abortion matter to the judges. “Even justices that have disagreed with some recent abortion cases have said it’s important that precedents are followed and that lower courts do what the Supreme Court has ruled,” he says. In other words, the pending case gets right to the heart of the legal fight over Roe: Should previous rulings like Roe v. Wade be respected and upheld? “This case puts that question directly to the justices,” Tu says.
So what does this mean for the future of abortion rights? Tu says the Louisiana case is the canary in the coal mine. “It’s the product of a decades-long effort by antichoice legislators in that state to effectively kill the right to abortion without overturning Roe,” he says. “And if they can do it Louisiana, they can do it anywhere.”
Macaela MacKenzie is the senior health editor at Glamour. Follow her on Twitter @MacaelaMack.
Actress Ashley Judd was one of the first women to publicly speak out against former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and in May of last year she filed a lawsuit against him alleging that her career was damaged by lies he spread about her in Hollywood after she spurned his sexual advances.
On January 9, a federal judge in California dismissed a portion of her suit, stating that her sexual harassment allegations did not fall within a specific legal statute. According to the New York Times, Judge Philip Gutierrez’s order was clear in saying that he was not ruling as to whether or not Judd as sexually harassed “in the colloquial sense of the term” but that the law could not be applied because she did not have a “specific business arrangement” with Weinstein at the time, which is a legal requirement.
So basically, the judge is not saying that Judd’s claim that Weinstein appeared in a bathrobe during a business meeting and asked her to let him massage her and watch him shower didn’t happen, just that it’s not sexual harassment under the California law because recent changes to the statue mandate that sexual harassment only applies if there is a specific business relationship between the parties. (The judge also did not state that it did happen.) That sounds like a pretty messed up law to me, especially given that Judd says the meeting was indeed about business.
Weinstein has continued to deny Judd’s accusations. “We have said from the beginning that this claim was unjustified, and we are pleased that the court saw it as we did,” Phyllis Kupferstein, one of Weinstein’s lawyers, said in a statement. “We believe that we will ultimately prevail on her remaining claims.”
Despite the recent setback, Judd is continuing with the rest of her case. “Nothing about today’s ruling changes that Ms. Judd’s case is moving forward on multiple claims,” Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., her lead attorney, said in a statement to the Times.
Ever since the dawn of athleisure, the apparel market has been dominated by stretchy fabrics and varying levels of compression. Same goes for my closet. This isn’t just for workouts: These days, I’m wearing snazzy sports bras in lieu of underwires at any hour of the day and fancy leggings instead of denim. The allure of comfortable, forgiving clothes has been impossible to resist, to the point where it’s strained my relationship with the most tried-and-true wardrobe staples.
My jeans have taken the hardest hit. Who in their right mind would wriggle into stiff selvage denim and zero-stretch vintage 501s when leggings—which do so much more than hold me during downward dogs and spin classes—exist? I recently realized there is, in fact, a magical, happy medium between jeans and leggings. No, it’s not jeggings… but it has been right in front of my eyes this whole time, just not marketed to me. Two words: maternity jeans.
This utterly genius category of pants combines the best parts of jeans (the look, the feel) with those of leggings (spandex-packed goodness, support, stretch.) The paneling in maternity jeans—their main draw, really—is designed to support and expand for a baby bump, but it’s just as wonderful a feature if your stomach and hips shift-shape more than any other body parts, be it due to weight gain, fluctuation, or bloating.
The prospect of wearing maternity jeans—despite most certainly not being or trying to become pregnant right now—first dawned on me this fall, as the temperatures began to drop. Pants and full-length leggings became necessary, but my aversion to tights meant dresses and skirts were out of the question. I’m fortunate that my remote-working profession renders leggings acceptable for, say, 70% of occasions—but for the rest, I needed “real pants.” What I couldn’t bear the thought of, though, was the angry-looking red marks I would get along the seams and waistband of the dark-wash, skinny-ish jeans I had on rotation. Also annoying: My thighs are muscular, and I tend hold weight around the stomach and hips, so I normally have to constantly hike up my denim to ensure that my butt and stomach stay fully covered. That’s never an issue with a snug pair of leggings—or bottoms with a comfortable elastic waistband, for that matter.
Well, that’s precisely what makes maternity jeans, well, maternity jeans. So I decided I would try, because, honestly, who would be the wiser? Plus, jeans that stay comfortable and continue to fit during weight fluctuations seemed like a relief and a practical investment to my closet. If these miracle pants are designed to support and accommodate a growing belly, and, with it, the average 30-pound weight gain pregnancy tacks on, I figured they could handle my 10-ish pound weight fluctuations with aplomb.
And the chic options abound: A slew of mid-range brands, like Madewell, carry maternity jeans; mass retailers like Target’s Isabel Maternity by Ingrid & Isabel label (a more affordable offshoot of Ingrid & Isabel, the label responsible for the well-loved Bellaband) have expanded their offerings, while premium denim brands like J. Brand and Hatch have extensive styles for sale. Even the OG players in the pregnancy fashion orbit, like A Pea in the Pod, have stepped up their game, with a denim selection that now includes Frame, Good American, and Mother. In other words, it’s a damn good time to be on the hunt for maternity jeans—whether or not you’re expecting.
Beyond jeans, the maternity fashion market is quite robust: It’s currently valued at $1 billion, with more than 1,500 brands expressly devoted to maternity clothing, according to a 2018 report, growing 200 percent from 2014 to 2017. And though in the minority, there are shoppers without child that buy into this section.
According to Ariane Goldman, founder of Hatch, approximately 20 percent of the brand’s shoppers aren’t pregnant. She launched the label in in 2010 as a pre, during, and post-maternity brand “with longevity in mind, so women can invest in products that don’t have finite use,” she says: “I didn’t want to spend money on something that was disposable or made me feel ugly because my body was already changing, and I felt that’s something that should be celebrated. ” Post-baby purchases “only [reinforce] our proposition as a solution-based company for before, during and after pregnancy,” she adds.
PHOTO: Hatch
Hatch x Current/Elliott The Easy Denim Overall, $378, Hatch
Hatch’s core customer is a 30-something pregnant woman, while her non-pregnant clientele “consists of girls in their early 20’s who are diehard fans and love the Hatch aesthetic,” as well as a “50- to 70-year-old demographic of women who recognize and celebrate our silhouette and the effortlessness of the collections.” Its denim, produced in collaboration with Current/Elliott, is one of its best-selling categories.
Seraphine, the U.K.-based maternity line that counts Kate Middleton as a fan, has also found that there’s “a small proportion [of shoppers] who buy our jeans without being pregnant,” according to founder Cecile Reinaud. “Many of these are returning customers, who have had Seraphine jeans through pregnancy and love the comfort of them so much that they want to keep wearing them afterwards,” she explains.
Knowing that I wasn’t alone, I began my quest for the perfect maternity jeans for my non-pregnant body. Step one: Understand that there’s not just one type of “maternity jean”—rather, there are a variety of options, depending on how you would want it to sit on your bump.
PHOTO: Jono/Seraphine
Seraphine Over Bump Slim Leg Maternity Jeans, $99, Seraphine
I was vaguely aware of the over-the-belly style—basically, a pair of jeans that doesn’t have a fly-and-button closure or denim waistband, instead featuring a stretchy swath of fabric that serves as a sort of low-compression girdle. Without a baby inside my belly, though, that fabric portion extended much further north, literally right below the boobs. So I sought out alternatives.
First, I tried out this Isabel Maternity pair, which doesn’t have the full-fledged fabric waist—rather, that stretch material covers all over the front, but then folds into a V shape in the small of the back. So, you get a lot more body real estate than most non-maternity jeans, but it’s still less than the more traditional styles in that category.
PHOTO: Target
Isabel Maternity by Ingrid & Isabel Maternity Crossover Panel Skinny Jeans, $29.99, Target
Then, through Seraphine, I discovered under-the-belly maternity jeans, where the soft waistband dips a bit lower in front than in back. As someone who loves the held-in, no-plumber’s-crack security of a super-high waist, I was pretty skeptical of the lower front—but this pair, in a dark grey wash, basically felt like sweatpants, which I didn’t hate. They were, however, pretty baggy on my frame, so I’d recommend sizing down if you’re trying on an under-the-belly style as a non-pregnant person.
PHOTO: Seraphine
Seraphine Under Bump Rock Chic Maternity Jeans, $95, Seraphine
I did have luck with these $33 under-belly skinnies—they’ve got a zip fly and button closure and denim waistband like non-maternity jeans, but triangular wedge-like gussets of black elastic inserted right below it that make it bump-friendly.
PHOTO: Target
Isabel Maternity by Ingrid & Isabel Maternity Plus Size Crossover Panel Skinny Jeans, $32.99, Target
Besides the very real comfort factor, maternity jeans could be seen as an unexpected “investment piece” of sorts—a hopefully-not-too-crazy-early closet addition that can be enjoyed for a couple years in advance of the target timing, but that you get to enjoy for years before it happens. You could see it as a more economical alternative to buying and holding onto jeans in various sizes that fit at different weights or shifting physiques. Plus, why would you want to wait to wear the most comfortable jeans on earth?
This will go down as the year that Meghan Markle singlehandedly re-introduced unexpected fashion pieces into the zeitgeist through her royal wardrobe. It began with the bateau neckline, and it continues with another aught-y silhouette, courtesy of her look for a formal event in London.
On Monday (November 19), Markle attended the Royal Variety performance with Prince Harry. For the black-tie occasion, royal fans may have expected another tuxedo dress or boatneck style—but the Duchess of Sussex isn’t one to shy away from a surprising sartorial choice. So, she arrived wearing a sequined halter top and skirt set eby Safiyaa London.
Check it out.
PHOTO: Chris Jackson
The full lewk was less reminiscent of the early-aughts than it sounds: The halter top featured black stripes and a white floral sequin pattern, while the skirt was unembellished.
PHOTO: Mark Cuthbert
The silhouette my recall the mid-2000s, but the set was plucked from Safiyaa’s most recent Resort collection. And it might just convince any naysayer to give the halter top another chance.
PHOTO: Mark Cuthbert
She accessorized with diamond earrings from Maison Birks and a clutch from UFO, the latter being a re-wear from her and Prince Harry’s Hamilton outing back in August.)
With a month and a half left in the year, Markle reminded us, yet again, that she’s not done serving fashion moments in 2018 just yet.
Stevie for her shawls, chiffon, fringe, and gold crescent chains; my mom for her bright bold pantsuits and overbearing clip-on earrings of yore.
Her aesthetic is more yogi-chic in 2018 (she loves a good mandala and flowy pant now, which I’m also into) but growing up, I’d marvel at her outfits in old photographs. She still has most of her clothing and accessories from the ‘80s and ‘90s—bags, shoes, jewelry, even stockings. The woman could open a damn vintage store, I swear.
I used to rummage through bins of costume jewelry, and model her accoutrements around the house. Because I didn’t get my ears pierced until I was eight, I always gravitated to her clip-ons: Wearing them made me feel grown-up and sophisticated, like her.
PHOTO: Courtesy of Jessica Militare
As a teen, I stopped playing around with her big baubles, mostly because they didn’t go with my emo bangs, band tees, and skinny jeans. I wanted gauges, which I got a big “hell no” to from mom and dad. (I thank them for that now.) I settled on rhinestone heart earrings from Forever 21 and Hot Topic, or even my mom’s small, geometric posts or circles from the ‘90s. She would try to get me to wear her flashier pieces to school dances or to go out with friends, but I was uninterested. They seemed kitschy, and at that point in my teenage angst, I was prone to disliking anything she put in front of me. But I came around by my senior prom, picking out a pair of her pearl and rhinestone drop earrings that matched my sky-blue, cupcake-shaped Betsey Johnson dress.
In college, I dabbled in wearing some larger earrings, but my love for statement jewels truly took off when I moved to New York and started working in media. I saw coworkers experiment with over-the-top earrings, and even bought a few from H&M. I loved the ease of having a single accessory that could dress up a boring outfit.
I thought of my mom’s showy clip-on collection, but hadn’t gone through it in years.
PHOTO: Photographed by Michelle Sulcov
Recently, when I visited my parents in Miami, I decided to flip through her hanging jewelry organizer, which was collecting dust in her closet. It was like I struck gold: Those same earrings that I’d previously rejected as not hip enough looked damn cute now. In fact, they look eerily similar to current offerings I’ve seen at fast-fashion stores like Zara—I often find myself wanting all of them, but when I look at the price tags I also think, Aren’t these just a souped up version of my mom’s that I can wear for free?
“Have them all,” my mom told me, as I was pulling out pair after pair from the plastic sleeves. “I saved them for you.”
Holding up a pair of gold and pearl drops, I remembered her wearing them in a photo of us, when I was a baby. She looked regal and effortlessly glam.
PHOTO: Courtesy of Jessica Militare/Photographed by Michelle Sulcov
I wore them to work paired with another find from her closet: a New York City tourist T-shirt from the ‘90s. I felt like that experimental kid who used to play dress up all over again, and was proud to say “they’re my mom’s” when a coworker asked where I bought them. (Pro-tip: Because clip-ons can feel a little pinchy after wearing them for a few hours, these cushions help.) One week, I wore a different pair every day, and thought about what my mom was doing when she wore them way back when.
As a young hair stylist in Miami in the early ‘80s, my mom’s M.O. was to wear big hair and big jewelry. Her work ethic and talent—and the fact that she took her outward appearance seriously—attracted a roster of devoted clients that she still has today. Thirty-something years later, when I wear these shiny things, I like to think I’m channeling her go-getter-ness (even if I’m just wearing them for fashion’s sake). Sure, they’re just earrings. But for someone who goes through bouts of crippling homesickness, they make her feel close when I need a bit of her spirit in my step.
PHOTO: Photographed by Michelle Sulcov/Courtesy of Jessica Militare
From that first haul of my mother’s hand-me-downs, I could probably wear a different pair of earrings every week for the next year. I know I’m lucky to have a hoarder relative who so graciously passed along her killer clip-on collection (Oscar de la Renta, you’re killing me), but if you’re looking for a solid offering, Etsy’s like my mom’s closet to the nth degree. (I’m currently eyeing these colorful geometric beauties and these rhinestone teardrops.) After doing a little research, I found that Net-a-Porter offers a nice range of styles (I love these gold-tone circles and, on the higher end, this bird-tasseled pair of my dreams.)
Every time I put on one of my mom’s classic pairs, though, I know I’ll turn heads. I’ll channel her regalness, and take a little part of her with me wherever I go.
Cher’s tweets are just like her career: unpredictable. Sometimes they’re funny. Others are more serious. Most of them are political. Her account has been a staple on the Internet for eons, and it’s beloved by people of all ages. Millennials are just as obsessed with Cher’s tweets as are her diehard fans. With Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again coming out this weekend—in which Cher stars—we thought it’d be a perfect opportunity to look back at her best tweets. With so much garbage going on in the world, we all need a little reminder that Cher’s Twitter is still the best—full stop.
So let’s get started. People first started noticing Cher’s Twitter around 2012, when she posted several…mystifying tweets. Like, her tweets made as much sense as when Christina Aguilera started talking about “air rights” in Burlesque. Even still, though, they’re true works of art:
The Goddess of Pop knows a thing or two about clap-backs, as well. For a while in 2012, they seemed pointed at one Madonna Louise Ciccone. “WTF is MDNA” truthfully belongs on a billboard in Times Square. (For the backstory behind that, click here.)
