Categories
Health

11 Waterproof Mascaras That Won't Smudge in 90-Degree Heat


Ask any woman the three products she’d grab if her house were on fire, and mascara would most likely top the list. There are few things that deliver such instant satisfaction as longer, darker lashes. Finding the best mascara is easier said than done, though, especially where waterproof formulas are concerned. By nature, tough-acting, melt-proof options tend to be drier, clump faster, and leave your lashes feeling brittle and hard. Or they’re just a real PITA to take off at the end of the day.

Truth be told, even after years in the beauty industry I still haven’t landed on the one that I can’t live without—and with a looming vacation to Hawaii approaching, I needed to some opinions to chose from stat. Thankfully, I work with women who have some real feelings about waterproof mascara and they were willing to share. Here are the formulas that withstand 90-degree heat, Nicholas Sparks movies, Queer Eye marathons, and—yes—even breakups.

Real beauty goes beyond the surface—and so do we. Sign up for our newsletter to get honest reviews, personal essays, and more every day.



Source link

Categories
Health

If Those in Power Won't Give Us Our Rights, We Must Fight to Get Them


From the moment then-candidate Donald Trump said that women would deserve “some form of punishment” if abortion were to become illegal, we have been preparing for dire threats to the constitutional right to abortion.

On Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy—the deciding vote on the Supreme Court when it came to protecting the core of the constitutional right to abortion—announced his retirement, creating a vacant seat that President Trump has promised to fill with an anti-abortion justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that established the right to abortion.

Because he has attacked access to reproductive health care at every opportunity, we believe he’ll make good on that threat.

The right of women to make their own decisions about their bodies and their futures will be determined by who fills Justice Kennedy’s seat. So now the balance of the most powerful court is a tug of war between Trump and the 70 percent of Americans who support safe legal abortion.

Of course, this isn’t the first time we have had to fight to save our access to reproductive health.

When Trump promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act and block patients from coming to Planned Parenthood, people from across the country flooded Twitter, the U.S. Capitol, town halls, and congressional inboxes. And we stopped him.

Any justice Trump nominates must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, so Planned Parenthood and our 11 million supporters will do everything we can to make sure that the Senate only confirms justices who explicitly state they will uphold Roe v. Wade and women’s rights to safe, legal abortion.

Because what happens on the Supreme Court could alter the course of women’s lives for generations.

The stakes are high. At least 20 states would be at high risk of banning abortion outright if Roe is overturned, either because of laws already in place or because they have legislatures and governors so hostile to women’s health that they will jump at the chance to take away our rights. Four of those states already have laws in place that would ban abortion as soon as the court allows.

One of them is my home state of Louisiana, where in 1983, as a freshman at LSU, I became pregnant. I didn’t want to be. Like so many people who find themselves in the same predicament, I was near broke and only beginning to figure out who I was and what I wanted to do with my life. But I knew, without a doubt, that I was not ready to be a mother. I borrowed money and had an abortion at the health center in town.

If it had been illegal in Louisiana, I’m certain I would have found a way to get an abortion in another state. Many women don’t have that option. They have children to feed, bills to pay and jobs that don’t give paid time off. Others don’t have insurance or a car or the savings to pay for their travel and care. Even now, when Roe is the law of the land, too many women must contend with extreme barriers to care, because Louisiana state politicians have spent years chipping away at the constitutional right to abortion and made it as difficult and as burdensome as possible.

Today, I am the proud mother of triplet teenage daughters, daughters I am sure I would not have without that abortion in 1983. When I feel worn out by the news and the work ahead, I think of them. And I think of the 1 in 5 women who come to Planned Parenthood, and how we have changed their lives by helping them to own their own bodies through access to birth control, education, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and abortion.

So much has changed since 1973. Half of American families today have a female breadwinner. We work at every level in every industry. We are CEOs and computer scientists and increasingly members of Congress. Women are more than half of college students. More women are running for office this year than ever before.

When my daughters were growing up, I told them they could be anything they wanted to be. And I believed that. I still believe it.

But I also know, from decades of fighting for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights and racial justice, that the world doesn’t become more fair and just on its own.

Those in power don’t simply give us our rights. We have to demand them, and protect them. And sometimes, fight to get them back.

Dawn Laguens is the Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Related Stories:

How Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement From the Supreme Court Could Erode Women’s Rights

A Reminder That We Won’t Need a Full Repeal of Roe v. Wade for Abortion to Be Restricted



Source link

Categories
Health

A Reminder That We Won't Need a Full Repeal of Roe v. Wade for Abortion to Be Restricted


On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the bench. The 81-year-old has served since his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Now, the world must sit and wait for President Donald Trump to nominate his second Supreme Court judge in less than two years.

Though conservative, Justice Kennedy was known for his more centrist viewpoints and rulings. As CBS reported, he was a pivotal swing vote for marriage equality, corporate spending on elections, affirmative action, and the protection of abortion rights in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That case, CBS explained, would have prohibitively restricted abortion access for women across the nation.

And now, women fear they may soon face a similar battle. After all, Trump himself stated during the final presidential debate that he would work to see the end of Roe V. Wade.

“If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that’s really what’s going to be, that’s what will happen,” he said. “And that’ll happen automatically in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.”

To find out just how concerned women should be, Glamour called Jennifer Dalven, Director of the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, to find out more. For two decades, Dalven has dedicated her work to protecting access to abortion and reproductive health care.

And due to the latest SCOTUS shakeup, she says she’s never been more worried about women’s reproductive rights.

“I can say this is the time I’ve been most concerned in my 20 years here about the future of access to abortions in our country,” she told Glamour.

That’s because she knows that it won’t take a repeal of Roe v. Wade for extreme restrictions to be put in place. Here, she explains:

What specifically is making you so concerned?

Justice Kennedy provided a key vote to uphold a woman’s right to abortion and to stop politicians from blocking women from getting abortions. And President Trump, as you know, has repeatedly pledged to appoint justices who will take away our right to legal abortion. If we allow him to follow through on that promise, the balance of the court will certainly turn against the constitutional right to abortion and access to abortion.

What’s the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned?

That’s a really good question, but I think that if President Trump gets to appoint a new justice in the mold he has said he would appoint, whether Roe gets overturned outright or not won’t really be the question. We may not know the specifics, but whether the right to legal abortion is taken away entirely or whether the court decides, ‘no, we don’t need to go quite that far, we don’t need to be that explicit about it, but we’ll simply uphold every restriction that comes this way,’ the effect will be dire for women and families in this country.

How have abortion rights been restricted already?

In the first quarter of 2018, 37 states introduced 308 new abortion restrictions. So there is no doubt that there are politicians out there in a huge number of states who are standing at the ready to restrict women’s access to abortion care.

This could really go two ways: With a new justice on the court, the right to legal abortion could just be taken away entirely. And states could ban abortion outright and we know that there are states chomping at the bit to do that. By some counts almost half of the states are ready to do that. But, as I said, the court doesn’t have to go that far. It could simply decide to uphold any restriction that a politician can dream up and that will just make it impossible for women to get the care they need.

A couple of years ago, there was a case before the Supreme Court called Whole Woman’s Health that was challenging a Texas abortion restriction that would have had the effect of making Texas a state that went from about 40 clinics to about 10 clinics. And what that would’ve meant for women is that abortion would have been as good as outlawed. Justice Kennedy provided the crucial fifth vote to strike down that law. Without Justice Kennedy on the court, if a new justice upholds a requirement like that, we could see laws like that throughout the country. We know that 10 percent of the states are down to one abortion provider already.

Of President Trump’s a current list of nominees, who would you say is the closest to a Justice Kennedy that the American public could hope for?

I can’t comment on the specifics of that list, but what I can tell you is he and Mike Pence have been unbelievably clear that they have a litmus test and that they will only nominate somebody who will overturn the right to legal abortion. Mike Pence said he wants abortion “consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.” So we need to be incredibly skeptical and need to carefully evaluate any nominee that President Trump forwards. And the Senate really needs to do its job and carefully evaluate any potential nominees.

This isn’t a drill. This is real. This will have effects for generations to come. Seven in 10 Americans believe that abortion should remain a legal right. If you are one of those people, the time is now to make your voice heard.

Speaking of making your voice heard, what would you say people should do to make that happen?

The most direct way is to let your Senators know where you stand because they are the folks that will stand between a nomination from President Trump and that person actually sitting on the Supreme Court. But I would not be surprised if there are marches and protests in the streets in the coming weeks and months ahead as this battle heats up. But I think that the most direct thing is letting your Senators know where you stand and that you take this issue very seriously.

Note: This interview has been condensed for clarity and length. You can find more information on abortion and women’s reproductive rights, here.

Related Stories:

How Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement From the Supreme Court Could Erode Women’s Rights

Democratic Voters Wanted Something Different. They Got Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.



Source link

Categories
Health

Here's Why Meghan Markle Probably Won't Be Prince Louis' Godmother


The great British tradition of taking bets on the behavior of the royal family has its eyes set on a new prize: predicting who will be named Prince Louis‘s godparents.

On Wednesday, Kensington Palace announced that Prince Louis will be christened on Monday, July 9, at the Chapel Royal at St James’s Palace in London. The godparents will be publicly announced at the christening.

Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle is barely on the shortlist, at 14/1 odds, but the distinction will also most likely not go to her husband, Prince Harry, either. Instead of naming close immediately family, Prince William and Kate have opted in the past to honor close friends and confidants for their elder two children, and the trend is likely to continue.

Jessica Bridge, a representative from British bookmakers Ladbrokes commented, “As with George and Charlotte, [William and Kate] chose close and trusted friends and aides, rather than immediate family members, and the odds suggest that will be the same with little Prince Louis.”

But the odds are in more people’s favor than you might think, since the children of the royal family take more than two godparents. Princess Charlotte has five godparents and Prince George, as the heir to the throne, has seven.

According to Ladbrokes, the favorites for the role of godparent include longtime staff members to the royal family. Tiggy Pettifer, former assistant and nanny to William and Harry, is listed at 2/1 odds, and William’s most trusted aide, former private secretary Miguel Head, comes in at 5/4.

At 3/1, William’s stepsister Laura Lopes, daughter of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, is next most likely, followed by Kate’s former secretary Rebecca Priestly, at 4/1. Friends of the royal family David Jardine-Paterson and Hugh van Cutsem both come from families that have had members selected to be godparents to Prince George and rank at 5/1.

Princess Diana’s sisters Lady Jane Fellowes and Lady Sarah McCorquodale are considered 6/1 odds. Farther down the list, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are at 7/1 odds, and Kate’s siblings Pippa and James Middleton trail at 10/1 odds.

Related Stories:

Kate Middleton and Prince William Just Announced the Name of Their New Baby Boy

Here’s Every Adorable Pic of Prince George and Princess Charlotte at the Royal Wedding

You Probably Missed These Two Adorable Details in Prince Louis’ First Official Photos



Source link

Categories
Health

Trump's Executive Order Means He Won't Separate Families at the Border, but He's Still Detaining Children


After days of public outcry around the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy that allowed for the separation of immigrant children from their parents at the border, President Trump signed an executive order that ends that separation.

However, the “zero-tolerance” policy that created the recent crisis remains.

“We are keeping families together and this will solve that problem. At the same time we are keeping a very powerful border and it continues to be a zero tolerance, we have zero tolerance for people that enter our country illegally,” Trump told the White House pool reporters present in the Oval Office, per CBS News.

“I didn’t like sight or the feeling of families being separated,” Trump said.

The executive order notes that it is “the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws” and that they will initiate proceedings to enforce laws about “improper entry.” But this section also allows for families to be held together during the prosecution process: “It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.”

The order further stated, “It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.”

It is important to note, that according to experts who spoke with Glamour, the separation policy is not a law. It was also up to Trump himself to make the call on ending the family separations.

Earlier today, the New York Times reported that sources close to the president said he believes his immigration policies are “appropriate and necessary,” but that he was frustrated by the criticism he’d been receiving.

Many news outlets report that there could be legal battles ahead for this order due to a 1997 consent decree from a federal court, called the Flores settlement, that says children can be detained for only 20 days, even if they are with their parents.

It is unclear at this time what will happen to the families that are currently separated and being held in detention facilities—or how long detained families can be held.

Trump spoke earlier this morning about the possibility of an executive order. “We’re meeting right now on immigration and we are very strong at the border, we’re very strong on security. We want security for our country,” he said at the White House. “The Republicans want security and insist on security for our country, and we will have that.”

ABC News reports that First Lady Melania Trump may have played a part in the president’s decision to sign the order. She has been pressuring her husband to end the child separation policy, according to a White House official. Their source also claims that Ivanka Trump has shown the president images of children in detention centers and urged him to end the policy.

As of Wednesday afternoon, she had not made any public statements on the issue, although she did tweet after the signing of the executive order.

We will update this story as new details around the policy and executive order emerge.

Related Stories:

Here Are the Facts About Trump’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Immigration Policy

Here’s How to Help Immigrant Families Who Have Been Separated at the Border





Source link

Categories
Health

Welp, the Kardashians Won't Be Throwing Shade at Scott Disick and Sofia Richie Anymore


It seems like the Kardashians are going to have to dial down their shade levels a bit, because Scott Disick and Sofia Richie have reportedly called it quits after almost a year of traveling—and kissing in front of cameras together. A source has apparently confirmed to People that Richie has broken up with Disick, citing his “old issues” as contributing to their split.

“When Scott drinks, he is a sloppy mess and fools around,” the source told People.

There were also rumors floating around that Disick had cheated on Richie.

If you remember, the Kardashians were not happy when they heard that father and then-34-year-old Disick was in a relationship with 19-year-old Sofia Richie. There were savage Instagram comments (see: Kendall writing “Aww, Scott and his kids” on a photo of Richie and Disick) and televised interrogations (see: matriarch Kris straight-up trolling Disick by asking him to confirm both Richie’s age and his own age during an episode of KUWTK).

We’re not here to judge the relationships of consenting adults, but the 14-year age difference between Disick and Richie did raise some eyebrows, especially after Disick flipped out about ex Kourtney’s relationship with Younes Bendjima, an almost-equally younger man, earlier this year. Double standards, y’all.

This wasn’t Disick’s first relationship with someone younger than the youngest of the KarJenner sisters. Disick had a short-lived and extremely confusing fling with Bella Thorne in the summer of 2017. They were spotted making out and getting real PDA-y poolside in Cannes. When the Internet responded by freaking out, Thorne said she and Disick were “legit nothing,” and then Disick said he only dated Thorne to make Kourtney angry. So…yikes.

Although the Kardashians can’t cast their shade on this relationship any longer, it’s only a matter of time until another family-adjacent juicy relationship makes headlines. Please watch this space for more.

Related Stories:

North West Just Won the Preschool Handbag Game With This $750 Birthday Present

Bella Hadid and The Weeknd Might’ve Just Low-Key Confirmed They’re Dating

Rihanna Reportedly Broke Up With Her Billionaire Boyfriend Because She “Gets Tired of Men Sometimes”



Source link