Categories
Health

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Are Getting a Very Scottish Wedding Present From Queen Elizabeth II


On May 19, 2018, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will be married at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. And when it comes to who is taking who’s name, the royals do things a little differently. On their wedding day, the couple will be given totally new titles. Of course, one title just won’t be enough for the royal couple: In addition to their English titles, Queen Elizabeth II will honor each of them with a second Scottish title on their wedding day.

When Prince William and Kate Middleton were married in 2011, the Queen gave them the formal English titles of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Harry and Meghan will follow suit: It’s expected that the couple will be named the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, according to Harper’s Bazaar UK.

However, it’s tradition for Queen Elizabeth to bestow the newlyweds with Scottish titles as well—and the royals are all about tradition. In addition to their Cambridge titles, William and Kate were given the titles of Earl and Countess of Strathearn. Prince Charles is known as the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, and Prince Philip is known as the Duke of Edinburgh. According to the Press and Journal, these official titles are used when the royals are in Scotland.

As for Harry and Meghan? They’ll likely become the Earl and Countess of Ross. Ross is expected to go to Harry as it has a history of being given to royal second sons.

Their official titles won’t be announced until their wedding day, so we’ll have to wait until then to know exactly which Scottish titles they receive. In the meantime, we’ll be trying to memorize all of the different royal names to keep them straight.

Related Stories:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Wedding Date Has Been Announced
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Wedding: Everything We Know So Far
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Just Shared Their Official Engagement Photos



Source link

Categories
Health

Trump Calls Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas' Again While Speaking to Native Americans


On Monday, while speaking to Native American war veterans and the press, President Donald Trump took time out to once again openly mock Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and called her by a name he’s used before: Pocahontas.

“You were here long before any of us were here,” Trump said while speaking directly to the group of Native American code talkers. “Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas.” He added, “But you know what, I like you, because you are special.”

According to USA Today, the comment was met simply with awkward silence from the president’s guests. And that silence was especially deafening in a video showing the exact moment Trump made his insensitive remark.

Though the president didn’t specifically name Warren in his statement it was clear who he was speaking about as he’s long called the esteemed senator by this name in reference to her claim that she has Native American ancestors.

In response, Warren told MSNBC that the president’s comments were both out of place and “unfortunate.”

“This was supposed to be an event to honor heroes, people who put it all on the line for our country, and people, who because of their incredible work, saved the lives of countless Americans and our allies,” Warren said. “It is deeply unfortunate that the president of the united states cannot even make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without having to throw out a racial slur.”

To add insult to injury Trump also made the remarks while standing in front of a painting of President Andrew Jackson, who was the president that signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which forced Native Americans from their lands. As Mic further explained, the act ultimately led to thousands of Native American deaths, an event which is now widely referred to as the Trail of Tears.

In a statement following the event Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she does not believe calling Warren Pocahontas is racially insensitive. Instead, she said, “I think what most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career.”

Related Content:
Elizabeth Warren Shares Her Own #MeToo Story: ‘What Had I Done to Bring This On?’
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Attacks on Birth Control Access Are Attacks on Women’s Economic Freedom
Elizabeth Warren Once Struggled to Find Child Care—and Every Working Mother Can Relate





Source link

Categories
Health

Elizabeth Warren Once Struggled to Find Child Care—and Every Working Mother Can Relate


For millions of American families, securing affordable, high-quality child care is a challenge if not an impossibility—one that Senator Elizabeth Warren is all too familiar with.

On Wednesday evening, the Massachusetts lawmaker delivered the keynote address at the National Women’s Law Center’s 45th anniversary gala and in a heartfelt speech, revealed that if it hadn’t been for the help of her 78-year-old Aunt Bee, she likely wouldn’t be a U.S. Senator today.

Warren started her career as a teacher, but when she ended the school year pregnant with her first child, she wasn’t asked to return. Throwing herself into life as a mother and wife, Warren knew she wanted to do something more. After law school, she got a job teaching law, but her life was quickly thrown into chaos when her babysitter quit. Cycling through different child care options, managing the requirements of her job, and raising two young kids was an endless struggle—one Warren felt she was failing at. During a phone conversation with her 78-year-old Aunt Bee, Warren broke down crying and decided the only option she had was to quit her job.

Without hesitating, Bee told Warren that, though she couldn’t arrive until Thursday, she would be there to help. Sure enough, she arrived with seven suitcases and her Pekingese in tow—and stayed with Warren and her family for 16 years.

“I’m a United States Senator today in part because my Aunt Bee rescued me on that Thursday in 1979,” Warren said. Without child care, I was a goner. And I know how lucky I was because so many working moms don’t have an Aunt Bee who can fly in and help out.”

Though plenty has changed in the decades since Warren began teaching law, affordable, high-quality child care remains one of the most significant challenges for working parents. According to a recent report from the Democratic staff of the Congress Joint Economic Committee, American families spend an average of 15 percent of their income on child care—and in states like California, New York, Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon, it’s not uncommon for that total to hit the 20 percent mark.

For many mothers in two-parent households, leaving the workforce entirely is a more viable financial option than staying at their jobs and paying for child care. But for millions of mothers who serve as the head of household, this is not an option—and they’re spending anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of their earnings on child care. And in order to make ends meet, they may have to sacrifice the best child care options for ones that they can afford.

It goes without saying that the benefits of high-quality, affordable child care are vast—for both women and their children. Women not only have more education and professional opportunities but stand to earn significantly more money during their careers if they’re able to find top-notch child care options for their kids. This is especially true for low-income moms who, according to the JEC report, could earn up to $90,000 more over the course of their professional lives.

And for kids, enrollment in first-rate early learning programs often benefits them beyond their adolescence and well into adulthood. They’re more likely to get higher grades in school, enroll in college, earn more once they’re in the working world, and have overall better health.

Warren, of course, knows just how valuable high-quality child care can be, and she’s taking steps in the Senate to make this a reality. She’s backing legislation that would help cut child care costs for low- and middle-income families. She’s introduced the Schedules That Work Act so that low- and minimum-wage workers so can have some basic fairness in their schedules—and not have to scramble with going back to school, scheduling doctor’s visits, and, of course, handling child care because they work jobs with unpredictable hours. And just like public schools provide a space for kindergarteners to learn how to read, write, do math, and interact with other kids five days a week, she wants to create programs so that two-year-olds, three-year-olds, four-year-olds—and their families—have opportunities to access this type of early childhood education.

“It’s a big goal, but no one builds a future without investment,” Warren said. “Whether you and I have small children or not, we have an interest in the future of this country—and that means we have an interest—and a responsibility—to invest in America’s children. And that means making sure that their teachers and caregivers are adequately paid and trained…and it means making sure that when parents are working, their children are safe and loved and learning and growing.”

As she concluded her remarks, Warren drove home that access to quality child care can’t be a solo endeavor—it’s one that everyone needs to get behind.

“Until we decide, until all of us decide—men and women, married and single, black and white, old and young—that we are willing to invest more in all our children, then we cannot build a country in which women have an equal opportunity to build a future,” Warren said. “The energy to make these changes will come from people like you, people who fight for equality every day. And most importantly, the energy will come from the many people all across the country who have joined this fight and made it a part of their lives.”



Source link

Categories
Health

Senator Elizabeth Warren: Attacks on Birth Control Access Are Attacks on Women's Freedom


If anyone told a young woman today that she was expected to quit school after eighth grade or leave her job once she got married, most Americans would be outraged. Not fair! Women should have the same range of economic choices as men.

Through the years, one door after another has opened, as women have become astronauts and neurosurgeons, run Fortune 500 companies and nonprofit organizations, and started their own businesses. Sure, there’s still a lot of ground to make up, but the country has headed in the direction of greater equality for decades now.

Despite this progress, near-constant attacks on safe and cost-effective women’s health care have become a regular part of our political debates. The latest front in this battle? Access to contraception. The Affordable Care Act required employer-sponsored health insurance policies to cover birth control without additional costs. On October 6, in one of his series of reckless attacks on health insurance in America, President Trump ended that protection.

These fights are often framed as ideological discussions. But for millions of women, access to health care isn’t about ideology at all—it’s about economics.

Americans, at least in private, agree that using birth control is a no-brainer. The vast majority have used it, including ninety-nine percent of women (and by extension, their partners) who have had sex between the ages of 15 and 44.

Some of the reasons for this are obvious. Contraception prevents unintended pregnancy and reduces the abortion rate. Certain forms of birth control prevent sexually transmitted infections, and others help control debilitating health conditions. But contraception is not only about health; it is about economic security as well.

Americans, at least in private, agree that using birth control is a no-brainer.

As every parent knows, the decision to have children is momentous—and carries massive economic consequences. Because the United States does not ensure that parents have access to paid family leave or affordable childcare, new costs add up quickly. The totals are striking: middle-income parents with two kids will spend an estimated $230,000 to raise a child born in 2015 from birth through age 17, amounting to roughly $13,000 per year. Starting a family is a big commitment, and millions of people use contraception until they decide to do so.

But the out-of-pocket costs for baby cribs and car seats are only the tip of the iceberg. A mother experiences a measurable decline in earnings immediately after having a child—a decline that continues throughout her lifetime. And women don’t have to be mothers to benefit economically from contraception—just ask college students, or women with crippling endometriosis, how contraception helps them land and hold down jobs.

The arrival of the birth control pill in 1960, later joined by other effective contraceptives, gave Americans more control over if, when, and how they chose to grow their families. That control, in turn, helped fuel economic opportunity for American women, American families, and the American economy. After the widespread introduction of birth control, the number of women in professions once closed to them increased dramatically. And without the movement of women into the workforce since 1970—a trend partly enabled by the availability of effective birth control – our country’s GDP would only be three-quarters the size it is today.

Contraception helps level the economic playing field for women.

Contraception helps level the economic playing field for women. With birth control available, women have more chances to go to school, get jobs, create businesses, and grow our economy. They can more reliably plan their economic futures. But birth control offers these benefits only when women can access it—and when their bosses can’t dictate what types of birth control it’s appropriate for them to use.

While 99% of women have used birth control at least once, cost is a big factor restricting consistent access. Prior to the ACA, one in three women struggled to afford the out-of-pocket costs of prescription birth control. These costs put additional strain on the finances of workers already struggling to make ends meet—and also reduced contraceptive use. According to a 2010 Centers for Disease Control report, hundreds of thousands of women who tried various forms of contraception gave up because the methods were “too expensive,” “insurance did not cover it,” or because contraception was “too difficult to obtain.” The ACA’s birth control protections helped level the playing field: women in America saved an average of $255 a year on birth control pills and saw cost reductions for other contraceptive methods.

For millions of women, President Trump’s edict isn’t some abstract, ideological debate. For a working couple with modest wages and piles of student loan debt, the ability to decide when to have children is an economic issue. For a student working towards her college degree and financial independence, access to birth control is an economic issue. For a woman working two jobs with two kids in daycare, affordable contraception is an economic issue.

This isn’t the Trump Administration’s first attack on women’s health. Efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, repeal the ACA and Medicaid, and block access to safe, legal abortions have put women on the economic defensive. But those efforts require Congress—and so far, despite the best efforts of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, they have failed. Now, President Trump has turned to a decision he can make without Congress: make it harder to access birth control. With the stroke of a pen, the President shrunk the economic futures of millions of women. He should reverse this decision—and if he won’t, Congress should force him to.



Source link