Moms are fired up. A pandemic without childcare support, followed by the demise of the paid leave plan, more than 193 incidents of gunfire on school grounds during the 2021-2022 school year, and, of course, the fall of Roe v. Wade has given women plenty to be upset about—and put them at the forefront of this year's midterm elections. 

After the “Great Resignation” many women have still not returned to the workforce. And no wonder. Women have held a disproportionate amount of the responsibilities in the home while still expected to break through that glass ceiling. According to a McKinsey Women in the Workplace study, women feel far more exhausted, burned out, and under pressure than men. 

“We still have over a million women in the country that have not gone back to work yet,” New York Governor Hochul noted during my interview with her last month. 

The loss of women in the workforce is no accident. It was the culmination of a lack of paid leave, a lack of upward mobility, and a lack of help in the home. In 2021, when the country was poised to finally offer a comprehensive paid leave policy that would provide both women and men with the resources they need to care for their children and loved ones, the bill died in the Senate because Democrats could not achieve a simple majority. 

But even at school, where moms should be confident their children are cared for and safe, they cannot be. On May 24, 2022, 19 elementary school students were shot along with two teachers. The heartbreaking scene that played out in the halls of Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, is all too common. From Sandy Hook, to Stoneman Douglas, to Oxford High School, to Santa Fe High School, it is no wonder parents are afraid to send their children to school. 

And when, after the death of 19 children, nearly 200 congressional reps voted against gun control legislation, it became clear that if things were going to meaningfully change, we, the moms, had to change them. Local mom and organizer Bryony Freij is doing just that in New York’s 1st Congressional district, deemed the second most competitive district in the country. Freij has mobilized other moms to vote on initiatives like affordable housing, a key issue in places like Long Island. 

The power of moms is already on display. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican legislators and governors across the country immediately moved to make abortion illegal in their jurisdictions. In Kansas, the right to an abortion was on the ballot during the primaries in August. Leading up to the vote, women made up more than 70 percent of newly registered voters, according to an analysis of the state’s registered voter list by the New York Times. (It’s a nationwide trend; since the Dobbs decision, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania have also seen surges in women registering to vote.) Thanks to those who went to the polls, the initiative was overwhelmingly rejected, meaning essential health care for hundreds of thousands of women both in Kansas and in surrounding states was maintained. 

I had the opportunity to sit down with Vice President Harris to talk about reproductive rights, or the lack thereof, recently, and during my conversation, she noted the implications of the Dobbs decision, “So much about the progress of our nation has been measured by the expansion of rights. And now we are seeing an intentional restriction of rights. What is that saying about the trajectory and the direction of our country? 

Families have been completely left out of the conversation surrounding access to abortion. More than 60 percent of those who seek an abortion already have children. Without my access to essential women’s health care like birth control (which is also being threatened), millions of women would be unable to properly plan for their family. 

Moms across the country are mobilizing around candidates who address these key issues. Take Wisconsin, where Moms for Mandela has emerged in support of Mandela Barnes, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. This group is just one example of the organic organizing that will be influential to the outcome of this year's midterm elections. 

To think that in the face of no paid leave, rampant gun violence, the loss of our bodily rights, and more, women would not show up to the polls this November is simply ignorance. Come November, I have no doubt that women will be the largest force for change. They will be the deciders, holding the ability to tip the scales toward a safer future for our children, our bodies, and our country. 

Are you registered to vote? Check your registration at vote.org and register TODAY to vote on November 8th. 

Correction: A previous version of this article mistakenly listed Moms for Mandela as Moms of Mandela. We regret the error. 

Update 5/3/22: Last night, Politico reported on a leaked draft majority opinion that revealed the Supreme Court has voted to overrule the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito writes in the leaked document. 

If the leaked draft is adopted, it will rule in favor of Mississippi in its 15-week abortion ban. The court's decision won't be final until the decision is published, likely this summer. 

Original story 5/17/21: On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a major abortion case from Mississippi. In short, the state of Mississippi is trying to enforce a 15-week ban on abortion— a direct challenge to a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, thanks to Roe v. Wade. 

What is at stake?

Here's some history: In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed in 1982. The Roe v. Wade decision means that the court ruled that states could not ban abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb—this basically means that states are blocked from enacting abortion restrictions before a fetus could survive on its own. Doctors generally view this marker to be around 23 or 24 weeks. That means that under Roe v. Wade, states could not ban abortion prior to 23 or 24 weeks.

What's happening in Mississippi?

In 2018, then-Gov. Republican Phil Bryant signed a 15-week ban into law. The ban only had exceptions for medical emergencies or cases in which there is a "severe fetal abnormality," but not for instances of rape or incest. The law was a conscious, direct challenge to Roe v. Wade (as are many restrictive state abortion laws).

After the law was enacted in 2018, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, Jackson Women's Health Organization, sued to try to block the law. Then, a Jackson, Mississippi federal judge blocked the law, saying the state had chosen to pass something unconstitutional. The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the judge's decision, which is why the state appealed to the Supreme Court (leading us to this moment).

What happens now?

This news means that the Supreme Court will now consider whether to agree with the lower courts—that the 15 week ban is unconstitutional—or agree with the state and allow them to enforce the ban of abortion after 15 weeks. At large, the Supreme Court will be deciding if all state laws that ban pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional.

Could it lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned?

Reminder: The Supreme Court currently has a 6-to-3 conservative majority. Recently, they ruled to reinstate the mailing of abortion pills during the pandemic, creating additional burden for those seeking care. The outcome of case has the power to drastically limit a woman's right to an abortion— it even could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

When will the case be heard?

It will be a while before we know what the court will decide. The courts will start hearing arguments during their next term, in October, and a decision is not expected until Summer 2022. Until then, people across the country will wait to hear if they will still have their (constitutionally protected) right to choose.

This week, Texas enacted a bill banning nearly all abortions and allowing private citizens to become vigilantes by suing people who help others seek an abortion, including health care providers, clinics, even friends or family members who might have driven someone to an appointment.

The Texas state government is majority Republican and only 27 percent of seats in the legislature are held by women. This week in the state, 666 new laws went into effect, including this cruel abortion ban, as well as attacks on voting rights designed to make it harder to register to vote and vote by mail; even harsher restrictions are expected to be signed by Governor Greg Abbott soon.

Texas is not alone in its attack on reproductive freedom and our democracy—the assault on reproductive freedoms, as well as other rights, is happening in states across the country. For example, earlier this year in Pennsylvania, we saw the Republican majority attempt to restrict reproductive health care by forcing families to have ritual burials or cremations at any stage of pregnancy loss, including when embryos fail to implant.

The good news is there are still many reasons to keep hope alive. At EMILY’s List, a political action committee working to elect and support pro-choice women candidates into office, we have seen what can happen when we put in the work and elect those who support abortion rights to office up and down the ballot.

For example, in Nevada, where women make up the majority of the State Assembly and Democrats have control of the State Assembly, State Senate, and governorship, the government expanded access to health care and family planning, fortified abortion rights, and strengthened penalties for domestic violence. In Virginia—where Democrats also hold a trifecta and made history this session with the highest number of women ever in the state legislature—politicians made health care more affordable and accessible, increased teacher pay, codified LGBTQ+ rights, ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, and expanded reproductive rights and access to contraception.

Fifteen states currently have a Democratic trifecta, and EMILY’s List is working to protect the one in Virginia this November. It is critical that we work together to elect officials to our state governments who will protect reproductive rights, ensure health care accessibility, value voting rights, and champion the issues that impact our communities most. We’ve seen what happens when we don’t.

State governments must protect our rights, and we must use the power of the vote to ensure that those who attack our reproductive freedom are voted out of office. There are several things you can do to get involved:

First, if you are eligible to vote, do so in every election. This is especially critical in years when there is no presidential election and no midterms. Turnout is usually lowest at these times. State governments are the last line of defense when it comes to the issues we care about, yet state and local elections are often held in off years, making these elections the ones Americans are least likely to vote in, with only 15 to 27 percent of eligible voters casting a ballot in local elections. Regardless of who controls the White House, state officials make decisions that impact us every single day. Remember, each vote makes an even bigger difference.

Secondly, just as your vote can make a bigger difference at the state level, so can your donations. Find local candidates you are passionate about—or consider running yourself! Donate or volunteer for their campaigns. At the state level, where budgets are smaller, your time and contributions make the largest impact.

Finally, speak out about injustice when you see it. Call your elected officials, email their offices, sign petitions, and make your voice heard. As we watch abortion bans go into effect in states like Texas, reach out to your local abortion providers, start conversations around abortion with your family and friends, and encourage everyone around you to get involved.

Let the millions who were stripped of their reproductive rights this week spark a fire in all of us to engage more directly and vote so that our state governments truly represent the people they serve.

Emily Cain is the Executive Director of EMILY's List and former Minority Leader in Maine.

For many Republican leaders, this moment in history—a devastating pandemic, an economy on life support, a violent insurrection at the Capitol, and a second presidential impeachment—has called into question the values, ideals, and alliances of their party. Some can’t admit political defeat, others can’t stop spewing QAnon conspiracies, and then there are those holding tight to traditional party ideals, like small government and fiscal and social conservatism. With nearly 140,000 Republicans having quit the party this past January alone (in the 25 states with readily available data), it’s clear something must be done.

We asked leading conservative women what to make of the past four years and how to approach the next. One point stood out: It’s time for the good old boys’ club to go. As Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21), founder of E-PAC, which helped fuel a record-breaking pink wave in November, told us, “Women are very effective legislators and decision makers, and they’re good listeners, which ultimately makes you the most effective public servant. Frankly, that’s how some of our women Republicans won.”

Young Kim, U.S. Representative for California’s 39th District

Freshman Kim, one of the first Korean American women in Congress, spoke out against Trump’s anti-Asian “kung flu” comments during her campaign. She serves on three committees, including Small Business.

On dealing with backlash:

As long as I know in my heart that I did the right thing, I have to get past backlash from the base or other Republicans. I know I am not going to make everybody happy 100 percent of the time. If I can go to sleep after taking a tough position, then I know that I’ve done something right.

On unity:

I was encouraged to hear [President] Biden asking for unity. That’s why I was one of the 17 in the [GOP] freshman class to send a letter to the Biden administration offering our sincere desire to work in a bipartisan way to move our country forward. I came to Congress to bring that independent voice, independent leadership, and to find bipartisan solutions to get us out of this very difficult time.

On moving the party away from extremism:

[Removing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee appointments] was a tough vote. I respect her fighting spirit, and I recognize she was elected by her constituents. But words have consequences. This was not a vote against Republican leadership. This was about sending a message that such hateful rhetoric and anti-Semitism have no place in our country.

On paving the way:

While it’s exciting to be one of the first, I’m very excited to know that I’m not the last. I really hope that my story can inspire immigrants, especially young girls, that they too can achieve their dreams, just like I did. I really feel that in this Congress, I have the moral responsibility to encourage other women and immigrants to speak up and get involved.

Jaime Herrera Beutler, U.S. Representative for Washington’s 3rd District

Herrera Beutler has been re-elected five times and is the first Hispanic person to represent Washington State on a federal level.

On addressing the current crises:

Many of the problems that existed before have been exacerbated by COVID: housing affordability, childcare access, college costs, government regulation that gives [the] advantage to big corporations while stifling small businesses, and on and on. I’m going to redouble my efforts to tackle these challenges, working with Republicans and Democrats to bring solutions like increasing access to childcare, keeping Main Street afloat, and getting students back into the classroom.

On the future of women in the GOP:

A better question is, “What is the future of Republican women in history?” I’d answer it by saying, “Whatever we want it to be.” It’s a simple guiding principle: We want Americans to continue enjoying those ideals the Declaration of Independence so clearly states: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I think more and more Americans want a refocus on those ideals, which is why, despite the top of the Republican ticket losing, the 2020 election saw a record-breaking number of Republican women elected to the U.S. House—the most in history! To me, that shows Republican women are more motivated than ever to step up and serve their communities, and their communities are responding. I predict that number continues to rise.

On the second impeachment trial:

The January 6 attack on our Capitol will live in infamy, and I was there. I didn’t invite the opportunity to testify, but if asked, I wasn’t going to suddenly reverse course to suppress the information I had about the president gloating in the attack. My faith, my moral compass, and my belief that conservatives are willing to face the truth meant I had an obligation to share the facts.

On getting back to basics:

We can either be a strong, united Republican majority delivering on consequential conservative ideals—ideals like free markets that generate economic opportunity for all, limited government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, justice, life, family, and equal opportunity for everyone in our communities—or we can be a splintered Republican minority driven by anger and fear and centered on one man. I choose the former, and my hope is that others will join me in re-establishing what our party stands for.

On Democratic vs. Republican Policy:

As a nation, we face big challenges. To name a few: racial injustice, economic oppression, government overreach (and incompetence), skyrocketing health-care costs, and decreasing employment opportunities. Leading Democrats think the answer to these challenges is more government intervention. I believe that We the People have the answers. We must empower people to limit their government, choose how to raise their families, decide which school is best for their kids, start a business or a nonprofit, and practice their faith. I believe most Americans agree with [conservatives] on these issues. That’s why in the most recent election we saw Republicans win seats in the U.S House, despite widespread prognostications that our party was doomed. When we present our priorities to citizens directly, Americans choose our ideals and solutions over the kind of socialist agenda that’s become the new bedrock of the Democratic Party.

Jennifer Carroll, National Spokesperson, Maggie’s List

Carroll, the first Black person and first woman elected to be Florida’s lieutenant governor, is the spokesperson for conservative political action committee Maggie’s List.

On changes she’s seen:

When I ran for Congress [in 2000], it was more political to not receive support from my party—the good old boys in the system—because they had their political agenda. It’s Who is going to grease the [palm] for me so that I can either stay in power or make money? which is unfortunate, and you still see some of that. Now that we have our first woman vice president and more women than ever elected to Congress, leadership cannot refute the importance of women taking over government positions. They’re going to have to make room.

On moving forward:

Unfortunately, we have come to a point where many have taken their corners. Our elected officials, at least those who have been there for over 10 or 20 years, have forgotten that they represent the people. This is a republic. The female candidates that Maggie’s List endorsed embrace that. We are hoping that they will push those who have forgotten the people to really bring it back.

Sarah Longwell, Executive Director, Republican Accountability Project (RAP)

Longwell cofounded RAP with the goal of steering the party in a less extreme direction following the deadly Capitol attack. 

On rejecting Trumpism:

Joe Biden has obviously talked a lot about unity, and I think all of us would like to live in a country that is more unified, but the fact is, Donald Trump has spent the last five years tearing the country apart and deepening divisions. It culminated with an attack on the Capitol because he was lying to voters about an election being stolen. As long as the Republican Party remains in thrall of Donald Trump, it’s going to be very difficult to move forward because [he] is the most divisive political figure of the modern era.

On the GOP’s future:

One of the things you saw during the Republican National Convention last year is that they didn’t, as is customary, put forward a platform. All they did was put out a statement about their complete support for Donald Trump. For the Republican Party to pull itself together, it’s going to need an affirmative policy agenda—something that it stands for. It cannot simply be against the Democrats.

People like me, who would otherwise be involved in the Republican Party, are leaving. You’re seeing all over the country people changing their registration. The Republican Party is headed for an identity crisis because it doesn’t know what it stands for beyond Donald Trump. People who used to traditionally be Republicans—college-educated suburban voters—those people are drifting away from the party because they don’t feel at home. I will continue to fight for a responsible center-right party, and I will continue to defend Republicans who do the right thing, like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and Mitt Romney.

On the forces dividing us:

Some of it is social media, but some of it is just the state of our politics, where we treat one another as enemies rather than opponents. Where the rhetoric that people use—Donald Trump didn’t invent it, but he made an art out of it—of calling the media the enemy of the people and using constant incendiary and divisive language, name-calling, and lying. I also think people are about 30 percent crazier right now because we’ve been cut off [for a year] from a lot of the other activities that keep people grounded. You can’t go to church or school and be out doing things that keep you from focusing on politics. Everybody’s a little angrier.

Julie Conway, Executive Director, Value in Electing Women (VIEW)

Founded in 1997, the VIEW political action committee has helped raise more than $8.5 million to elect Republican women to Congress.

On women leading the charge:

People often say, “How can you be a Republican and be a woman?” And “The Republican Party hasn’t taken care of Republican women.” And while some of that is true, there are very serious women who have worked very hard to get to where they are, and I think they are going to start to be heard, such as Kay Granger, the ranking member and lead Republican of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the incoming Republican leader at the House Energy and Commerce Committee. These are two of the most important committees in Congress led by women—strong Republican women who do not think this is a circus and do not want to be on TV saying something outrageous.

On a third party:

I think the Trumpers are the third party. They are not Republicans. They are right-wing extremists following this idol worship of Trump. If that’s what you want to do, fine, but that doesn’t make you the Republican Party.

On the future:

There is a path for calmer minds to prevail. There definitely needs to be a pivot back to being a legislative body that’s not a circus. [Legislators] want what they were elected to do: to actually get the country back moving again; get the kids back in schools; deal with healthcare; deal with education; deal with safety.

S.E. Cupp, Political Commentator, CNN

Cupp is a TV pundit, nationally syndicated columnist, and author of Why You’re Wrong About the Right: Behind the Myths—The Surprising Truth About Conservatives (with Brett Joshpe). 

On taking stock:

I’ve been asking myself for the past four years what the future of the GOP is. All the way back in 2012, when I worked on the GOP autopsy, we identified the gaps in our voters: women, minorities, LGBTQ+, and millennials. How could we make inroads to those constituencies? I think we started to make some progress, and then, of course, Trump comes along and really demolishes all of that.

There’s a famous axiom in politics: When you get sent to the woodshed, you go there and think about what you’ve done. And that’s not really happening. When you look at the fact that Trump not only lost after one term but Republicans lost the House and the Senate during the course of his term, who in their right minds would say, “Well, let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing”?

On conservative values:

Let me just say, I think conservatism as a value set survives this. Whether the Republican Party in its current form does or not is another thing. Fiscal responsibility, for example, self-reliance—that’s for everyone. Lower taxes, being able to keep more of your own money, and antiprotectionism. All of this is good for women because it’s good for everyone. But we haven’t been able to really even engage in those kinds of political debates because Trump and Trumpism and wild, baseless conspiracy theories have taken over the party and the conversation and eaten up all the oxygen.

On the credibility gap:

Who would listen to any Republican who wants to say what’s good for women or what’s good for anyone other than white guys of a certain age? We’ve really lost any moral authority we once had, if we had it.

It’s so important to have two strong parties in this country because neither gets it right every time. And [women] can end up being pawns in a system that is fighting over politics, and that’s awful for anyone caught in that, but especially for women because our needs are so dire and so great. The world runs better when women are feeling good. And I think too many women are not feeling good right now. Women should want the Republican Party, even if they’re outside of it, to be better than this and stronger than this.

Responses edited for length and clarity.

A version of this story appears in the April 2021 issue of Marie Claire.

subscribe here

All eyes have been on Georgia during the 2020 election. Thanks to countless organizations like Fair Fight, Black Voters Matter, and The New Georgia Project, the state flipped blue for the first time in 28 years due to an incredible increase in Black voter turnout—specifically Black women and Black youth—but the work isn't done. Two high-profile U.S. Senate races, Reverend Raphael Warnock (D) vs. Senator Kelly Loeffler (R) and Jon Ossoff (D) vs. Senator David Perdue (R), are facing runoff elections since none of the candidates received a majority of votes, which is required under Georgia law. If Ossoff and Warnock defeat their opponents, the Democrats will take back control of the Senate.

Prior to the 2020 election, Republicans held a 53-47 majority in the chamber (plus two independents who historically vote with the Democrats). The Democrats' goal is to pick up four Senate seats, successfully securing two thus far: Captain Mark Kelly of Arizona and John Hickenlooper of Colorado won their races. If both Georgia races are won by the Democrats, they would draw the Senate to a 50-50 tie and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris would be the tie-breaker.

If you're hoping the Senate flips blue to align with the Democratic president- and vice president-elect along with the U.S. House of Representatives, we've outlined key dates to pay attention to, ways to help even if you live outside of Georgia, and organizations to donate to, below.

Important Deadlines

Georgia residents can start requesting their absentee/mail-in ballot today if they don't want to vote in person at the polls. If you're a Georgia resident, make sure you're registered to vote here, then fill out an absentee/mail-in ballot request here.

• November 18, 2020: Absentee ballots will begin to be mailed out to those who requested one
• December 7, 2020: Voter registration deadline
• December 14, 2020: Early voting begins
• January 5, 2021: Election Day

Candidate Priorities

You can learn about the issues Jon Ossoff prioritizes here and the issues Rev. Raphael Warnock prioritizes here.

How to Help—Even If You Don't Live in GA

• Phone Bank
  • Sign up for Fair Fight Action's GOTV Weekend of Action Phone and Text Bank
    • Dates: Saturday, November 14, 2020 and Sunday, November 15, 2020
  • Sign up for Flip the West's phone banking sessions
• Volunteer
  • Both Ossoff and Warnock's campaigns have volunteer opportunities outside of phone banking, including hosting a grassroots fundraiser and attending virtual events
    • VOLUNTEER FOR OSSOFF CAMPAIGN
    • VOLUNTEER FOR WARNOCK CAMPAIGN
• Donate
  • If you have the means, choose from the running list of organizations, below, to donate to.

Where to Donate To

These organizations, which are all nonpartisan with the exception of Ossoff and Warnock's campaigns, are people-powered and can use all of the funds they can get. Any amount helps!

Rev. Raphael Warnock's Campaign

DONATE

Jon Ossoff's Campaign 

DONATE

Fair Fight is a national voting rights organization in Georgia founded by Stacey Abrams that fights voter suppression, engages in voter education programs, and helps register voters across the state.

DONATE

The New Georgia Project is a nonpartisan organization that helps Georgians get registered to vote.

DONATE

Black Voters Matter advocates for policies to expand voting rights/access, helps increase voter registration through its partnership with organizations across the country, and more.

DONATE

The Asian Americans Advancing Justice protects the civil and human rights of Asian Americans in Georgia and the Southeast.

DONATE

GALEO increases civic engagement and leadership of the Latinx community across Georgia.

DONATE

The ACLU of Georgia protects civil liberties in Georgia.

DONATE

Common Cause Georgia ensures free and fair elections by protecting voting rights in Georgia.

DONATE

ProGeorgia State Table supports the nonprofit organizations that have been leading the work on the ground in the state.

DONATE

With the general election quickly approaching on November 3, it's important to understand where to focus our efforts. If we want to save our democracy and create a progressive America, not only will we need to remove Donald Trump from office, but we'll also need to keep the House of Representatives blue and flip the Senate blue. The former currently holds the most diverse class of representatives our country has seen in the legislative body's 230-year history. The latter, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is preventing us from passing bi-partisan laws, like H.R.8 requiring universal background checks, that will save American lives.

With the help of Swing Left—a national grassroots organization founded after the 2016 election—we can make a difference by paying attention to the 12 Super States, a.k.a. the swing states, that are comprised of mixed populations (urban, suburban, rural, etc.) and tend to flip between red and blue each election cycle. This includes Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.

"Swing states are the most critical states in the upcoming election. They're essentially the tipping point of who's going to win the electoral college, then win the presidency," explains Swing Left National Field Director Marisa Kanof. "You look at the 50 states and you have the 15 to 20 that Democrats are going to win and the 15 to 20 that Republicans are going to win. These states in the middle...you win enough of them and you win the presidency."

With the increase in voting by mail this election season, we likely won't know the results of the election on November 4, which is why record voter turnout is key. (You can register to vote here.) The first step, though, is being aware of the states that will determine the fate of our country, then (virtually) engaging with voters, volunteering, and fundraising for campaigns in these areas. Here, Marie Claire and Swing Left outline the swing states that we should be targeting in November and beyond with specific goals for each of them.

Arizona

Goals:

1) Flip the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Martha McSally. She's running against Captain Mark Kelly, who's the husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

2) Win the state’s 11 Electoral College votes

3) Break unified Republican control of the state government by flipping one or both state legislative chambers

LEARN MORE

Colorado

Goals:

1) Flip the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Cory Gardner. He's running against former governor John Hickenlooper.

2) Win the state’s nine Electoral College votes

LEARN MORE

Florida

Goals:

1) Win the state’s 29 Electoral College votes

2) Break unified Republican control of the state government by flipping the Florida State House

LEARN MORE

Georgia

Goals:

1) Flip both U.S. Senate seats up for election

2) Compete for the state’s 16 Electoral College votes

3) Break unified Republican control of the state government by flipping the Georgia State House

LEARN MORE

Iowa

Goals:

1) Flip the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Joni Ernst. She's running against Theresa Greenfield.

2) Compete for the state’s six Electoral College votes

3) Break unified GOP control of the state government by flipping the Iowa State House

LEARN MORE

Maine

Goals:

1) Flip the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Susan Collins. She's running against Sara Gideon.

2) Win the state’s four Electoral College votes

LEARN MORE

Michigan

Goals:

1) Win the state’s 16 Electoral College votes

2) Flip control of the Republican-led Michigan State House

LEARN MORE

North Carolina

Goals:

1) Flip the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Thom Tillis. He's running against Cal Cunningham.

2) Win the state’s 15 Electoral College votes

3) Break Republican control of the state legislature by flipping one or both chambers

LEARN MORE

Ohio

Goals:

1) Compete for the state’s 18 Electoral College votes

2) Curb Republican control of the state government by breaking the GOP’s legislative supermajority in the Ohio State House

LEARN MORE

Pennsylvania

Goals:

1) Win the state’s 20 Electoral College votes

2) Break Republican control of the state legislature by flipping one or both chambers

LEARN MORE

Texas

Goals:

1) Flip the U.S. Senate seat currently held by John Cornyn. He's running against MJ Hegar.

2) Compete for the state’s 38 Electoral College votes

3) Break unified GOP control of the state government by flipping the Texas State House

LEARN MORE

Wisconsin

Goals:

1) Win the state’s 10 Electoral College votes

2) Protect Democratic Governor Tony Evers’ veto power by preventing GOP supermajorities in the Wisconsin State Senate and State Assembly

3) Lay the groundwork to flip the state legislature in 2022

LEARN MORE

If you want to help make a difference, whether you live in a swing state or not, find out how to volunteer for Swing Left and invest in a progressive future here.

Election Day is still a couple weeks away, but the 2020 election is already happening right now. More than 27 million ballots have been cast so far, and in five states the voter turnout is already more than 20 percent of the entire 2016 turnout. But even though Americans are voting at an unprecedented pace, many still feel like their votes don't matter. Honestly, I can sympathize. I’ve covered every element of presidential campaigns in my 15+ years as a political strategist—many of which I discuss on my podcast Your Presidential Playlist—and know how easy it can be to feel discouraged.

But without strong voter turnout, the balance of power in your state could literally be decided by drawing a name out of a hat (looking at you, Virginia). Voters under 30 aren’t requesting or returning ballots as much as other key groups. If you’re feeling drained by 2020 and can’t see how your one vote matters in all this, I’m here to tell you that it does. This election will lead to policies and decisions that affect thousands—if not millions—of people.

Still not convinced? Here are five key issues that are seriously at risk if you don’t vote.

COVID-19 relief could be stalled indefinitely.

We’ve all been personally affected by the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to see an end in sight. President Trump has continually ignored the advice of the nation’s top health experts and even contracted COVID himself after continuing to hit the campaign trail, often without a mask. It is still unsafe for most of the country to re-open, and mistrust around a potential vaccine continues to grow.

Despite the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act in 2011, the Trump administration continues to try to repeal the law, which would leave millions of Americans without health insurance—in the middle of a pandemic. They have a lawsuit against it working its way through the courts right now, while the Republican party is rushing the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, who would end up ruling on the case.

Joe Biden has a different path forward. Biden plans to build a national contact-tracing force and Pandemic Testing Board to ensure free and reliable testing, coordinate a global approach to develop and distribute a safe vaccine (whereas Trump has said the U.S. won’t join the international effort), and restore the pandemic response team that Trump eliminated in 2018. Biden has also proposed a public option for health insurance, building on the available health care coverage that the Affordable Care Act expanded. Biden will also urge Congress to pass more coronavirus stimulus packages to help those economically impacted by the pandemic. The latest package—which passed in the House of Representatives and was set to provide millions of Americans with additional stimulus checks, new unemployment benefits, and more small-business aid—is now stalled in the Senate.

Working women could lose a generation’s worth of progress.

It’s no secret that women are disproportionately affected by America’s lack of universal parental leave, which—coupled with the difficulty in finding affordable child care—often leads them to drop out of the workforce. COVID-19 has only worsened those inequities. This pandemic-related economic downturn is being called the “She-session,” as women account for 54 percent of overall net job loss since February. And according to LeanIn.Org and McKinsey’s 2020 Women in the Workplace report, one in four women are considering downsizing their careers or leaving the workforce due to the pandemic. That means in a single year, all the gains made in the representation of women in management since the study began could be erased.

Remote schooling and lack of child care have been major influences on women leaving the workforce. And it’s unlikely to get better soon with only 60 percent of child care programs expected to stay open longer than a year without public support. As Representative Katie Porter explained on my podcast, “The reality is no part of our economy is going to be strong and stable if we don’t have adequate child care where kids can be safe.” A Biden administration would enact many aspects of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s child care plan to ease the burden on working mothers: free preschool to all 3- and 4-year-olds, expanding the child tax credit and making it available for all parents, and increasing pay and benefits for child care workers. While Trump had proposed a plan to make child care more affordable, he’s failed to follow through on that promise. Biden’s plan would also champion women’s equality at work by reissuing Executive Order 13583 to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce, something Trump has ignored. Additionally, Biden’s coronavirus recovery plan implements a national standard for school safety guidelines and earmarks emergency funding for public schools.

Reproductive rights could be in serious jeopardy.

In the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Trump and the Republican-led Senate are working to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before Election Day. Barrett is known for her consertative, anti-choice stance on reproductive rights. She has refused to answer how she would rule in cases on abortion and the Affordable Care Act during her hearings, but did say Roe v. Wade should not be considered a super-precedent. If Barrett’s nomination goes through, the 6-3 conservative to liberal Supreme Court could hear a case on a woman’s right to choose and decide to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Trump administration has also prevented health care providers from telling patients about safe, legal abortion options by implementing a gag rule in 2019 dismantling Title X. This also blocked four million patients from getting affordable birth control, STD testing, cancer screenings, and other care at Planned Parenthood.

Biden has pledged to codify Roe v. Wade into law and nominate judges who would “support the right of privacy, on which the entire notion of a woman's right to choose is based.” He would repeal the Title X gag rule and ensure everyone has access to all health care options. As his runningmate, VP nominee Kamala Harris supports pro-choice plans as well. When running in the presidential primary, she proposed adding a requirement of preclearance for states that have a history of enacting laws that restrict abotion, similar to the way that the Voting Rights Act protects against restrictive voting laws.

The environment could be damaged beyond repair.

Recent news reports and experts say we have only seven years until the climate crisis irreversibly alters the planet. President Trump has not only refused to acknowledge climate scientists, he has removed climate change information from official government websites. He’s also rolled back more than 70 environmental regulations and is repealing at least 20 more. Recently Trump refused to call climate change an “existential threat.”

Eighty scientists have endorsed Biden, whose climate change plan would invest $1.7 trillion to fight climate change, including investment grants in high-risk communities and money for climate research. Biden would recommit to the Paris Agreement, the international climate accord supported by more than 190 countries, which Trump backed out of in 2017. Biden’s plan also promises that the U.S. will achieve a 100-percent clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050. But the Biden plan does allow for the continuation of fracking, a controversial practice opposed by some environmental groups because of the risks of contaminating local groundwater and releasing dangerous chemicals, which falls short of the Green New Deal. Trump also supports fracking.

Redistricting could dramatically alter your state’s representation, funding, and policies.

Trump has been taking measures that could lead to huge reductions in the Census population count, dramatically altering the redrawing of political districts for the next 10 years. Deadlines for the 2020 U.S. Census had been extended through the end of October to ensure an accurate population count, but the Trump administration just received Supreme Court support to shut down the census early. Trump is also trying to exclude unauthorized immigrants from completing the census, which could lead to an undercount of the U.S. population. Census numbers determine federal funding for roads and assistance programs, congressional district lines, and numbers of representatives to Congress, so some areas could end up being underfunded and under-represented.

That’s why voting in down-ballot races for state and local positions is extra important this year. State legislatures will draw the new lines for districts using Census information. The make-up of power in your state after this election will have a lasting influence on who is likely to win future elections and which communities will be represented in our government. That impacts the type of legislation that does—or doesn’t—pass, like whether your state permits Covid-related rent freezes or supports adoption and surrogacy rights for LGBTQ families. Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego summed it up well on my podcast: “I hope that as we look at who we elect at the federal level, we also think about people who have faced the challenges our communities face.”

Clearly, a lot is at stake this election. That’s not to say it’s all gloom and doom. As One Arizona’s Executive Director Montserrat Arredondo said during our conversation onYour Presidential Playlist, “Everyone has had something change in their lives. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the voting timeline.” If you’re registered to vote, you still have time to make an impact on all of these issues. If your state allows it, vote early by mail or ballot drop-off to ensure your vote is counted on time. You can also show up at your polling place on November 3 to vote in person. By showing up—not sitting out—we can still make our voices heard and see the progress we want at every level of government.

The stories typically start the same way: "I thought he would bring a different style of leadership." "I never liked Hillary Clinton." "I didn't want a 'regular' politician." Yet at different points over the past four years, five white women realized they'd made a terrible mistake: They voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

White women were one of Trump's largest voting blocs in 2016—exit polls show that 52 percent of white women who voted cast a ballot for him, compared to four percent of Black women and 25 percent of Latinx women. In fact, original data spliced by Marie Claire reveals that if only white women had voted for Trump in 2016, he would have won by an additional 51 electoral votes. Today, President Trump is running on a racist platform that suggests the suburbs, where most of these white women reside, won't be safe in Joe Biden's America. Except this time around, polls are predicting the president's divisive rhetoric won't work—a point that bears out in the interviews we conducted.

For Joni F., a lifelong Republican who didn't tell her Democrat husband she voted for Trump in 2016, it took the president's ill-mannered reaction to U.S. Senator John McCain's death for her to see the type of person Trump truly is. For Jessica F., the ramifications of a Trump administration didn't settle in until COVID-19 hit and she watched the president grossly mishandle a pandemic that's killed 200,000 Americans and counting.

Although these women didn't wake up the morning after Election Day 2016 terrified, anxious, hopeless, and distraught, they realize that many other Americans did. And now they're doing their part to ensure no one feels that way on November 4, 2020.

The Issues Most Important to Her: Women’s Rights, Racial Justice, LGBTQ Rights

"I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 for the sake of the economy. I tend to lean left on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.), but lean more right on business and economic issues. While I still lean right on economic issues, I can no longer stand by and see basic rights being taken away from the LGBTQ community, women, and Black people. I moved to Washington, D.C., a year ago and have been exposed to new ideas and thinking. Voting for Trump in 2016 is not something I'm proud of, and I've always kept it to myself.

My dad is part of the military, so I grew up in a lot of places, but for the majority of my life I lived in Georgia. Leaning more right for economic and business issues I got from my parents, but for social issues I would say that me and my parents disagree quite a bit. I've always kept politics separate, but my older sister doesn't keep politics separate, and I saw the division that it caused [between her and my parents].

My parents know that for this election, I am planning on voting for Joe Biden. They're definitely not very happy about it, and they'll make remarks like, 'I wish you wouldn't.' I've just told them that the things that I've seen go on socially in our world in the last four years, morally, I can't continue to support that.

In 2016, the opponent made a big difference because I really just felt like Hillary was very corrupt and, for a while, I did debate on voting for a third party. But, at the end of the day, I think that fails the system because that third party isn't likely to win, so then it's just taking the vote away.

I realized that I made a mistake in voting for Trump somewhere towards the middle of his presidency. I don't really know if I could pinpoint an exact moment or thing, but I think it was just a buildup of little things that were happening, like his tweets, what he would say in the media, and people he was appointing as Supreme Court justices. I'd been going back and forth on who I'm voting for, but within the last year my beliefs and concerns have really been reinforced and convinced me to vote for Biden.

If Trump wins reelection, my biggest concern would be the open Supreme Court seat. I think it would set us back many, many years regarding different rulings related to women's rights and LGBTQ rights. Also, I think another big concern is the Black Lives Matter movement because I see that it's not really being taken seriously by right-wing people. If Trump were reelected, it wouldn't personally affect me because I'm straight and I'm white. It might affect me as a woman, but as far as Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ+ rights—where they have so much more on the line—I would tell [other white women] to try and put themselves in the perspective of those who are not as advantaged as we are."

—Taylor K., 26, Virginia

The Issues Most Important to Her: COVID-19, Gun Violence, Racial Justice

"I will be 62 years old in a couple of weeks. I'm a lifelong Republican. I voted for Reagan in 1980. Now, I live in Montana—a deep red state. I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 because I never liked Hillary Clinton. I always felt like she was dishonest and opportunistic, and that her main reason for wanting to be president was so that she could be the first woman president. She always talked about that, and that was just a huge turnoff to me. I just didn't like her. Even though I didn't particularly care for Trump (and the remarks he makes about women, his demeanor), I took a chance on him. I thought, Okay, I'm going to vote for him anyway, because he's not a politician, and I want to see what he does with the presidency. I felt like maybe he could make things happen with non-traditional methods.

That didn't turn out so well.

I wasn't really vocal about who I was voting for back then. In fact, I didn't even tell my husband, although I think he kind of knew. My husband is a Democrat, but he's a moderate Democrat and I'm a moderate Republican. I voted for Barack Obama the first time, but I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.

[My husband] has been really supportive and proud of me for using my voice. I have never been particularly interested in politics, but stopping Donald Trump has prompted me to make testimonial videos for Republican Voters Against Trump (RVAT) and 43 Alumni for Biden. I like that Biden can cross party lines to get things done. I have donated to the Biden campaign and the Lincoln Project. I even watch CNN. Now, I feel like [my husband and I] can talk about politics. Before I'd just be like, 'I don't want to talk about that. It doesn't interest me.' But, we talk about politics in a new way. In fact, he tells me, 'If you were still supporting Trump, I would probably have to divorce you.' I said, 'I wouldn't blame you.'

Before Trump took office, I told myself, 'That's just Trump' whenever he'd say or do ridiculous things. After he took office, his actions went from outrageous to downright dangerous. The tide really turned for me when he had to be convinced to lower the flag to half-staff after John McCain's death. The way he treated the family was disgusting. From that moment on, I put his actions under a microscope. When COVID-19 hit, I was outraged. After the death of George Floyd—disgusted. His economy is a false economy. It looks good, but it's not real. People tend to look at the stock market as the economy, but they're not the same thing. I don't believe that Trump is a Republican, and I don't think he represents the Republican party. He has his own party.

I get flack from my neighbors because I'm vocal about who I'm voting for. Some neighbors have been very accepting as far as saying, 'I don't agree with you, but that doesn't make me not want to be your friend or your neighbor.' Then I've had other neighbors...it's the ones that are so Christian that shun you. I'm a Christian, and that isn't Christian in my book.

I have family friends who are evangelical Christians, and they're hardcore Trump supporters. It doesn't seem to matter what you say [about Trump], you can't convince them otherwise. They're the same people you see at his crowded rallies, not wearing masks, jammed together because they believe whatever he says. It's like a cult. He has to be stopped. If this is bad now, can you imagine how he'll be the next four years, knowing he can't be reelected? The country may never recover from the damage he'll inflict. God help us!"

—Joni F., 62, Montana

The Issues Most Important to Her: COVID-19, the Rule of Law, Democracy

"I was disillusioned by 'regular' politicians, and I hoped someone, not a 'regular politician,' would be better. I had been negatively impacted by an action of President Obama's, and I would not support Hillary Clinton because of that. President Obama shut down Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada in 2009. That's where my husband worked, and we had to move to Washington state because he was transferred there. I ended up getting a job at a company that was up to something illegal, and I basically was a whistleblower. Long story short, I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 2012. I was in a very dark place in my life and, in my opinion, I would not have been there if not for President Obama.

I had to move—we're in Phoenix now—and my husband and I lived apart for a few years before he could get a transfer down here. For the longest time, I couldn't watch any news. It triggered everything. I didn't even vote in 2012, and that was a big deal for me. My father was a World War II veteran and we were raised that it was your duty to vote. In 2016, I thought, Okay, here's someone who is outside the political realm, maybe it will be okay. I didn't see how horrible he was. I wasn't voting for him so much as I was voting against the establishment. At one point, my son actually screamed, 'He's a f*cking Nazi' at me, but we never let that rip our family apart. I said at the time, 'How bad can it be? We have a system of checks and balances.' Who knew that the Republicans were going to be just a bunch of sycophants?

The turning point for me was when Trump sent American troops on peaceful protestors in Lafayette Square in June. That's when my eyes were just ripped wide open. He has no honor, no character, no integrity, and no honesty. I was raised by a man of integrity, to have integrity, and to expect it from others. I had my head in the sand and should have known better than to vote for Trump. I will probably never ever be a Republican again.

I feel that I am partially responsible for the deaths of over 200,000 people from COVID-19—and quite possibly the death of America, if the evil creature currently occupying the White House somehow manages to cheat his way into reelection. He is a fascist, and wants to be 'president for life.'

My sister and her family are all die-hard 'Trumpers' who will not leave the cult. They have called me 'crazy' and told me that my 'family is not real' because 'we live on the coast.' (Again, I live in Arizona.) I remember it was June 3rd, and my sister had posted something on Facebook like, 'Trump is my president. He may not be...' blah blah blah. My daughter replied saying, 'How can you possibly still vote for him? Maybe you don't have all the facts. If you think he cares for anyone but himself, then you're DELUSIONAL.'

She was trying to change the world, which you cannot do here. It's a flipping cult. My daughter called my sister that night. My sister called her some names, including an 'entitled millennial witch' or something like that, then hung up on her.

My daughter called my husband crying. My sister texted me, 'Your daughter just called me to say who I can and can not vote for. I will probably never speak to her again.' After the dust settled, I sent my sister a fairly lengthy email. I said, 'I'm really disappointed that you're putting politics over family.' Then she basically cut us off. Her birthday was July 2, I sent her a music box with the Serenity Prayer on it. I said, 'May you have the wisdom to see how evil Trump is, and the courage to do something about it...to vote for America and not him.' I called her because we always call on birthdays. She would not take my call.

I've rarely argued politics but, to me, this is not Democratic versus Republican. This is good versus evil. This the future of our country versus Oh my god. Are we going to turn into a fascist regime? Germany only took about 10 years to go from democracy to fascism. I put that in the email to my sister, too.

I just think it's incredibly sad that so many people, like me, have had their families ripped apart. My sister and her family are lost. I pray for them every day. I just found out that my son and his wife are expecting their second child. The first thing I normally would have done is call my sister. Now, I can't. Whenever I bring that up, I'm sad again."

—Ann K., 59, Arizona

The Issues Most Important to Her: Police Reform, Health Care, Getting Trump Out

"I didn't want to vote for Hillary, and my Republican friends assured me that since Donald Trump was a businessman, he would be good for our country. I was Republican, but I am not sure I will go back again. I just registered as an Independent in my state, which will allow me to vote for either party in the primaries.

My husband, who I was dating at the time, tried to discourage me from voting for Trump, but I had been a Republican since 1972 and I trusted some of my friends who were encouraging me to vote Trump. I accept the blame.

When COVID-19 came along, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. I knew I could not [vote for him again]. He's like a dictator. He talks about how much power he has. It really upsets me that I have voted for this. It's been hard to step out of that cognitive dissonance, and walk away from my core beliefs. Being a Republican is one of those core beliefs. I know that [mine] wasn't the vote that made him president, but the fact that I fell for this horrible man's lies, at my age, makes me feel ashamed.

One of the main reasons [white women voted for Trump in 2016] is the abortion issue, and I know that's why they are going to vote for Trump again. Several spiritual leaders who I respected (and yes, that is past tense) have said Trump was sent by God. The other main reason is the economy, but now I know that all of those reasons are just smoke and mirrors. I'm pro-life, but I'm still not going to vote for Trump. I am voting for Joe Biden because he is the better choice by far. After watching the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention, I no longer had any qualms about voting for Biden. The conventions were like day and night. Good and evil.

I have had at least five or six people unfriend me, and one girl is trying to hang on. She's just not happy with me. She thinks I've changed so much, that I'm not the sweet girl that she knew, that I've become hateful. I'm not seeing any hate from me. What's unfortunate is that anyone who I term as a 'Trumpster' considers anything that is news against Trump 'fake news.' I'm not saying that Reagan was all that great with how he handled a lot of things, but he did have integrity, and I think that Obama had integrity. I think Biden has integrity, too. Yes, he's done some things that he's ashamed of, but he's admitted it and you will never have Trump admit he's done anything that he's ashamed of.

More than anything, I'm worried that our country is going to lose our democracy. Trump has just been chipping away at it for the last four years. Another concern is that I'm on social security. I'm 73 years old, and he's talking about taking payroll tax away. I don't trust him. I'm worried about my country. It's not about a party anymore. It's about a country that needs a good leader. It's been a painful experience stepping out of cognitive dissonance, and I want people to see that. However, most of my 'voting for Trump' friends just think I'm a foolish old woman or, at best, a traitor. I can't change what I did, but I can move on and do the right thing."

—Helen L., 73, Colorado

The Issues Most Important to Her: Reproductive Rights, Police Reform, Health Care

"I live in a little town in Georgia called Rockmart. The whole county voted for Donald Trump. I voted for Trump because, like a lot of other people have said, I really didn't see him as the career politician. I thought he had some good ideas. You know, he made some good promises as far as bringing industrialization and manufacturing back to the country. I thought those things were what we needed as a country. That ended up not happening.

The moment I realized I made a mistake was during the coronavirus. I'm not necessarily your typical Trump voter, I didn't drink the Kool-Aid. I'm not a 'Make America Great Again' rah, rah kind of person. Before, I looked at it as, Okay, everybody slings mud at everybody else in government. That's what they do. You can kind of tune out a lot of it. Then, when the coronavirus hit and he took no responsibility for the situation, that was pretty much what ripped it with me. If you don't take responsibility, who gets the responsibility? You're the president. He knew it was worse than he told the American people, and he wanted to keep it under wraps because he didn't want to make himself look bad. It had nothing to do with not wanting to incite panic. Have you seen the cities around here?

If the COVID-19 pandemic didn't happen, the George Floyd situation would have more than likely happened. Could I support somebody who is blunt about being a racist? No. I think it was destined that I was not going to vote for him again. The fact that he let Russia put bounties on American soldiers' heads and still to this day has not addressed it on a national level? Then to call them 'suckers' and 'losers' because they died in battle? Well, my grandfather gave 32 years to the service and fought in three wars. I don't appreciate that at all. If it wasn't one thing, it was going to be another.

For [the largest voting bloc in 2016] to be white, suburban women, maybe they felt like they were the party that wasn't getting heard. Women, in general, have felt like their voices weren't really heard in any major election or event. This gave them that platform, and this was the way to get people to pay attention.

We have four years to deal with what Joe Biden does or does not do. I honestly think Kamala Harris is going to be the driving force behind that presidency, and that's okay. Trump's diehard, 'Make America Great Again' white women may not be the ones that are going to support Kamala Harris, because she's not white. Does that lay ground for their continuation of racism, or are they going to say, 'Hey, we have a strong woman, regardless of color, in the White House who's going to make sure our voices are heard?' I'm not sure.

I voted across party lines my whole life (I voted for Obama; I voted for Clinton; I voted for Bush) because I don't hard-and-fast believe in everything that either [party] says. No, I'm not necessarily all into Joe Biden. But I do not think he's a socialist. I do not think he's trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. I do not think he's trying to take away freedom of speech. I do not think he's trying to pass random abortions at full term. I don't believe any of that. I just don't want to see Trump continue to divide this country and destroy us.

Typically, you vote for who you think is going to do the best job. And if he doesn't do the greatest job, we can repair the damage. But this president? I don't think we can repair the damage. What he's doing is about more than just policy. What he's doing is destructive to the country itself and the people. That's my biggest issue. I want other people to realize that it's okay to change your mind. It's okay to have questions. You're not alone."

—Jessica F., 49, Georgia

Interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.

The heartbreaking death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg—a Supreme Court icon who had served on the nation's highest court for 27 years—comes at a pivotal time for the nation. The announcement of Ginsburg's death came 46 days before an election that will determine whether Donald Trump will retain his position as president of the United States, or give up the White House to Democrat and former VP Joe Biden. The big question is thus: Can a Supreme Court justice be replaced during an election year—like the one we're in?

The answer is complicated. It's also one that was posited as recently as this spring, when Ginsburg was hospitalized for gallbladder treatment. "Republicans Suddenly Cool With Election Year Supreme Court Picks," read a Vanity Fair headline; the story explained that then-president Barack Obama tried his damnedest to get his nominee Merrick Garland into the Supreme Court before his two-term presidency ended, filling the seat left by Antonin Scalia. Republicans, particularly Mitch McConnell, fought Obama on that front, stating that since it was an election year and Obama was a "lame duck" president—I'm quoting McConnell here—the next president should pick the next SCOTUS justice. That wager paid off when Trump entered the White House and picked Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia's seat. Which brings me to...

The Thurmond rule says "no"—but it isn't really a rule.

In politics, we have something called the Thurmond rule, which is named after Senator Strom Thurmond. In the late '60s, Thurmond blocked then-president Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of Justice Abe Fortas as chief justice, citing the closeness of the upcoming election. The "Thurmond rule" posits that a federal justice, such as a Supreme Court justice, should not be decided in the run-up to an election.

But here's the catch: The "Thurmond rule" isn't really a rule. It has no legal standing, although members of both parties have used it over the past half-century to try to justify their decisions to push through—or not—a new SCOTUS justice. Most recently, it was invoked in 2016; Republicans cited the Thurmond rule as a reason to not vote on any nominee of Obama's. Basically...

Republicans said recently that justices should not be replaced during an election year.

Mitch McConnell has personally said that the Thurmond rule isn't really a thing. In 2008, as dug up by the Last Week Tonight team, McConnell said:

That comment came up in 2016, when McConnell said of Obama's nomination of Garland: "This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

McConnell's two comments are at odds, clearly—but that didn't stop the Republican Senate majority from stonewalling Garland as a matter of principle, because Garland was Obama's pick. The "rule" was taken seriously enough by Republicans at the time that the president's nominee was denied, so it would be hard to argue now that Trump deserves to push through a nominee while, potentially, at the very end of his presidency. (Update: Mitch McConnell said Friday night that Trump's nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”)

But the conclusion of the 2016 situation was less to do with an abstract "rule" and more to do with the fact that Republicans had, and have, control of the Senate. Therefore, if Trump does nominate a person to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court bench and the Senate does choose to confirm that person, no arbitrary rule can change that.

But time is not in Republicans' favor. With only a few dozen days left until the election, that's barely enough time to do a background check on a potential future justice, let alone go through the entire process of nominating and confirming somebody. Of course, if Trump is re-elected, he will have his choice of future justices. But even if Joe Biden is elected president in November, Trump may use his remaining months in office—he wouldn't leave the White House until mid-January—to make sure that his last act as president is to get a conservative nominee through.

History shows us how SCOTUS nominations play out in election years.

On Saturday at a campaign rally in North Carolina, President Trump said to the crowd, "There have been 29 times a vacancy opened during an election year or prior to an inauguration. Twenty-nine times. That's a lot," He continued, "Every single time, the sitting president made a nomination. That included — did you ever hear of George Washington? Did you ever hear of Thomas Jefferson? Or how about the great Abraham Lincoln?"

Well, this isn't exactly true. According to Senate and Supreme Court records, there have been only 16 vacancies of a Supreme Court seat, including Ginsburg's, that happened before Election Day during an election year. Ten of those suggestions ended up rejected or were later withdrawn by the president.

So while, yes, past presidents did indeed nominate someone for seats 29 times in total, not everyone fits the specific requirements that President Trump's scenario suggests.

If we really want to get into details, 10 vacancies happened after presidential elections and before a new president was sworn in. Another five vacancies occurred before the start of an election year, so nominations were then made during it. Both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln fall under the latter.

Trump has announced his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, already signaling one step in the long process to replace a Supreme Court judge, so it'll be interesting to see what side of history this nomination will be on.

Since the 2020 race to the White House first began several months ago, we've seen a swarm of politicians, former athletes, and businessmen alike throw their hats in the ring for a shot at holding the highest office in the land. In the Republican corner, things are pretty light; only two conservatives, William Weld and Mark Sanford, have the guts to directly challenge the current incumbent Donald Trump. However, to the left are 17 (down a few hopefuls since the race started) different candidates from a colorful medley of professional, cultural, and political backgrounds clamoring for the Democratic nomination.

With so many people crowding the election, it can feel difficult to distinguish the candidates from one another. There are so many important issues being discussed within the political space right now—healthcare for all, immigration, and the economy have been the focus of many of the recent Democratic debates—and many of the candidates have similar, if not identical stances on the issues that matter the most. However, few candidates have spoken up with thorough plans to address the often-ignored topic of animal rights. Cory Booker has been among the most vocal of his peers. During the third Democratic debate earlier this month, moderator Jorge Ramos pointedly asked if Booker believed that Americans should follow his plant-based diet, to which the former mayor cheerfully responded, "No." But don't take that to mean that he doesn't think that eating less meat is a good idea; the 50-year-old's veganism is closely tied to his personal politics.

Booker's passion for animal advocacy began in 1992; after reading Gandhi's autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth as a college student attending Oxford University, he decided to try cutting meat out of his diet just to see how his body would be affected by the change. Pleased with the results, Booker stuck with his vegetarian diet until he started doing more research about the ways in which the environment and its inhabitants were impacted by animal consumption. "My veganism started then," he told VegNews earlier this year. "It was almost like my conditioning had changed." His very last time eating a non-vegan meal was on November 4, 2014—Election Day.

Now fully vegan, the former Newark mayor's bid for president stands out from that of his opponents in that his proposed policies as POTUS will include measures to create a more sustainable environment for both humans and animals. Those measures will focus on pushing back against the corporate big wigs behind the factory farming system and forcing smaller family farms out of business. Booker's policies will also make illegal the "ag-gag laws" that allow these corporations to hide the animal abuse that goes on at the farms from the American people.

"Legislatively, I want to continue to be a part of a movement of folk who are fighting against corporate interests that are undermining the public good and the public welfare," said Booker in his interview with VegNews. "I believe that Americans do care about the cruelty to animals...so, I think there’s a lot of legislation we could be doing to stop sort of corporate power from reigning over the power of individuals to have freedom of choice, to see more compassion, to see a focus on public health."

The only other current candidate on the Democratic side to come up with a fully fleshed out plan to address animal welfare in the United States is Julián Castro, the former United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama. Castro's proposal, appropriately named the PAW (Protecting Animals and Wildlife) Plan, promises to reinforce the Endangered Species Act by appointing an Interior Secretary with a background in conservation science, creating a $2 billion National Wildlife Recovery Fund to combat extinction, and doubling the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. And like Booker, Castro also wants to regulate the animal farming industry so that animal cruelty on corporate farms no longer goes unseen and unpunished.

Whether you identify with veganism or personally enjoy a medium-rare steak every now and again, animal welfare is a pressing environmental issue that can't be ignored by anyone who wants to be President of the Unites States. In the future, you can bet that more of the candidates, at least on the Democratic end, will take began to roll out their own policies regarding animal rights.

For more stories like this, including celebrity news, beauty and fashion advice, savvy political commentary, and fascinating features, sign up for the Marie Claire newsletter.

SUBSCRIBE HERE

When 17 people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, common-sense gun reform activists Emma González, Jaclyn Corin, and David Hogg had a recurring message for Americans: Vote in the midterm elections. Although the midterms have determined the course of our nation for decades—voting for the members of the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives who ultimately control which legislation is passed—the majority of Americans historically don't show up to the polls, or even have a clue what the midterms elections are.

The gruesome reality of Donald Trump's America should encourage U.S. citizens to participate in these elections not only for themselves, but for their friends, their family members, and their fellow Americans. Every single person who lives in this country deserves not to live in fear everyday of being stripped of their female reproductive rights, being deported, having access to clean water, or getting shot while sitting in a classroom.

With that said, it's more important than ever to educate yourself on how you can make a difference in our country. It begins with voting in this year's midterms. Ahead of November 6, here's everything you need to know about the 2018 midterm elections.

What exactly are the midterms?

The midterms are the general elections held in the middle of the president's term.

When are they?

Elections will take place across the country on Tuesday, November 6, 2018.

Who's up for election?

All 435 seats of the United States House of Representatives are open (the representatives are only allowed to serve two-year terms), and so are 35 of the 100 seats of the United States Senate (the Senate members are only allowed to serve up to six-year terms). This is to ensure the entire office isn't up for election at the same time.

The Senate rotates in cycles during each midterm election, which means you may not even have any senators in your state up for re-election this year. You can find the full list of Democratic and Republican senators who are up for re-election here.

In addition to seats in the House and Senate, 36 of the 50 states (you can find them here) elect their governors in midterm years (Vermont and New Hampshire elect their governors to two-year terms, so they're also up for election during presidential years).

During the midterms, states also hold elections for their legislatures, including mayors, and have special constitutional amendments on the ballot.

Which party currently has control of the House and the Senate?

The Republicans do, which means they have the advantage. The Democrats need to defend 26 seats in the Senate, while Republicans only need to defend nine. The Guardian published great infographics that visually represent what needs to happen for the Democrats to take control of the House and the Senate.

According to the Pew Research Center, for the first time in 25 years a record number of House members, specifically Republicans, are choosing not to run for re-election.

What happens if the Democrats actually win control of the House and the Senate?

This will be the first real chance to block Trump's legislation during his administration, including the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. The Democrats would also have a better chance of blocking future cabinet and supreme court nominations like Brett Kavanaugh who was confirmed to the Supreme Court despite the sexual assault allegations made against him. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford publicly testified in front of the U.S. Senate committee about her allegations against Kavanaugh, but the committee still confirmed him anyways. Dr. Ford remains a hero.

Why are the midterm elections—specifically this election—so important?

"Who we elect determines so much about how we live, and what rights and opportunities we have," Christina Reynolds, VP of communications at EMILY's List, one of the oldest and largest organizations helping elect Democratic women to office, tells MarieClaire.com. "But it's never been more important than it is right now."

"A lot of people are very disappointed in the way Trump is leading the country, what he's done to jeopardize very important rights, and what he's done to take down some very important institutions. In order to have people at the table who stand up for you, your rights, and the things that you believe in, we need people to vote. Historically, people have seen politicians as 'boring,' 'they don't care about me,' 'they aren't people like me'—but this election is proving that wrong."

More women are running for office than ever, and more young people and minorities are planning to vote than ever. In record-breaking numbers, 256 women have won House and Senate primary elections (197 Democrats and 59 Republican candidates). There are also incredible organizations like EMILY's List, IGNITE, Higher Heights for America, Get Her Elected, She Should Run, and Victory Institute helping them run for office. More on that here.

Why are so many women running for office?

"It was the one-two punch of Trump's election. One was watching him win, and two was seeing Hillary lose," says Reynolds. "At EMILY's List, our fear was that people would look at that and say this really qualified woman just lost to this man that's not qualified, I can't do it if she couldn't. Instead they looked at it and said well, that was bad. I'm really worried about what he's going to do, so I'm going to have to go out there and fight."

How do I find out who's up for election in my state?

You can visit your Secretary of State's website, or look directly at your state's party website, which will usually have information about who's running for office in your area. Local newspapers are a great resource as well.

To find out which candidates on the ballot support issues like, say, common-sense gun reform, you can use Everytown's candidate lookup tool and type in the address you used to register to vote. It will immediately show you which candidates in your state believe in gun control so you know who to vote for.

Where should I register to vote?

Rock the Vote is the easiest place to register to vote and find upcoming elections in your area. Encourage your friends and family to vote as well. Reynolds emphasizes that the biggest misconception of the midterm elections is that people think their vote doesn't matter, which is completely untrue.

"In 2016, roughly 80,000 votes determined the course of this country," she recalls. "Despite the fact that nearly 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton, thanks to those 80,000 voters we have a very different president."

Register to Vote

Find out voter registration deadlines for your state here.

How do I find candidates that align with my values?

Focus on an issue you're particularly interested in, then find specific groups that most align with those values and see which candidates they're supporting.

For example, if your number one concern is reproductive rights, visit EMILY's List, Planned Parenthood, or NARAL. If your main issue is the environment, you can research the League of Conservation Voters or the Sierra Club. (MarieClaire.com also published this article on environmental measures on the ballot you absolutely need to know about.) If you're concerned about gun control, you can keep up with Everytown and Moms Demand Action.

And you can find even more information about finding candidates that are in line with your values in this article.

Are there specific elections I should be paying attention to?

Here are a few key ones that could break major records:

• Nevada. It's the only state represented by a Republican senator who's up this cycle that was won by Hillary Clinton in 2016. It's also the state that elected the first-ever Latina to the Senate in 2016. They have the opportunity to hold the country's first majority women state legislature if the Democratic candidates win.
• California. The state has the opportunity to flip the House with some of its competitive districts.
• Pennsylvania. This is the largest state with an all-male congressional delegation. (Read: Every person they send to Congress right now is a man.) However, several women won their primaries and are running in some very competitive seats.
• Georgia. Stacey Abrams (D) is running against Brian Kemp (R) in the Georgia race for governor. If Abrams wins, she'll become America's first black female governor. Kemp was caught on tape saying he's "concerned" about people going out and voting in November. He's currently Georgia's secretary of state and has already purged hundreds of thousands of voters. More on that here.

How can I make a difference in my own community?

Volunteer and connect with your local party apparatus. If there's a campaign you're interested in, reach out to them. Even if you're not campaigning for someone in your own state, you can still help support someone in another state, too. Organizations like Indivisible, Swing Left, Sister District, and The Last Weekend are great places to volunteer. If you can't knock on doors, make phone calls from your couch or write letters to the editor of local publications.

"You'll never feel bad about getting involved. So much is happening in the news, it comes down on us, and most of it is bad," explains Reynolds. "The reality is [volunteering] is a lovely form of therapy to feel like you're out there making a difference. And you are. Come out, make your voice heard, and remember that it matters."

From explainers to essays, cheat sheets to candidate analysis, we're breaking down exactly what you need to know about this year's midterms. Visit Marie Claire's Midterms Guide for more.

Look, some things are sacred. The sound of rain. Cookie dough. Meryl Streep. And the timeless television epic that was Friends, which has now been dragged into one of the most heated elections of midterms season, thanks to a flyer created by Georgia's Republican Party that repurposes the Friends logo to attack Stacey Abrams. A woman all six characters definitely would have voted for, had they happened to live in Georgia in 2018, I have no doubt. (Except maybe Ross.)

There's a line, Georgia Republicans. A freaking line!

I joke, of course. Republicans in Georgia crossed that line back in July with the nomination of Brian Kemp, a conservative, Trump-endorsed firebrand who threatened to abduct "criminal illegals" with his bare hands and once pointed a gun at a teenager in a campaign ad. He's running against Stacey Abrams, a progressive activist with a long and storied history in local politics. Kemp, meanwhile, is best known for refusing to step down as Georgia's secretary of state during his campaign (meaning he's in charge of his own election) and purging voters left and right, leading many voters in Georgia to believe that the upcoming November election may be rigged in his favor already.

Which brings me to the flyer, created and distributed by the Republican Party in the state, which uses the Friends logo (the nerve!) to suggest that Stacey Abrams is BFFs with Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, three Democrats often used as symbols of the "radical left."

Reads the ad:

Pelosi and Sanders back Abrams for a reason...She's just as extreme as they are. Abrams even called Pelosi a "rock star"...Stacey Abrams and her radical friends Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi want to force their extreme agenda on Georgia families and taxpayers...Radical liberals will turnout in record numbers. Its [sic] up to you to stop Extreme Stacey Abrams and All Her Radical Friends.

It's true that Pelosi, Clinton, and Sanders have publicly thrown their support behind Abrams (as have Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and really every big-name Democrat). And, look, I'm joking about the audacity of the Republican Party in Georgia for repurposing the Friends logo, but I'm sure as hell not joking when I say that the party is also preparing for a bleaker political future in the state. The New York Times described Kemp as an "enemy of democracy," and he's been credibly accused of voter suppression over and over again. He's also firmly anti-abortion, pro-fear-mongering, and anti-voter turnout (he was even caught saying that his team is "concerned" about how many people may vote in November).

The only thing more egregious than tainting Friends' good name is, well, trying to stop a historically marginalized demographic from being able to choose who governs them. So if you're in Georgia, check your voter registration status, and then check it again. And, most importantly, show up to vote on November 6, whether you're in Georgia or anywhere else in the country. It matters.

From explainers to essays, cheat sheets to candidate analysis, we're breaking down exactly what you need to know about this year's midterms. Visit Marie Claire's Midterms Guide for more.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning. Within moments of her statement starting, it was clear that this would be historic. When she came forward with allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (which Kavanaugh denies), Dr. Ford started a national conversation about where we are as a country when it comes to believing women.

Whether that actually impacts Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination remains unclear—in order to be denied confirmation, two Republican senators would have to vote against him. Three GOP senators on the fence even before Dr. Ford’s testimony, and it would be hard not to feel moved by her bravery and strength during her statement—especially in front of a lot of men who, she knows, want to disprove her experience. In fact, sniffles could be heard from the chambers during the most intense parts of her testimony (and plenty of folks too to social media to discuss how emotional the experience of watching her speak made them).

Voice quivering but resolute, Dr. Ford gave a testimony that was detailed, emotional, convincing, and often very hard to hear. These were some of the most striking moments:

“I am here today not because I want to be: I am terrified.” —Christine Blasey Ford

This quote came at the beginning of her statement, and explained in a frank way what so many of us assumed: That Dr. Ford had far more reasons not to come forward than to do so, and she did so anyway.

She continued, “I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school."

“They were laughing.”

As she went over the harrowing details of her alleged assault, one detail struck a chord and was brought up again and again: Dr. Ford claims that Kavanaugh and his friend Mike Judge were “laughing” to each other during her assault.

During the first round of questioning, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Dr. Ford what her strongest memory of the assault had been, and she said, “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two, and they’re having fun at my expense.”

“Thousands and thousands of people who have had their lives dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and have thanked me for coming forward.”

Dr. Ford mentioned that she had received support from people in every state in this country, which is hopeful news for anyone with their own stories who fear being open about them.

However, she also detailed the ways in which coming forward had upended her life.

“My greatest fears have been realized.”

One of the sticking points for Republicans—and what they seem to be trying to prove in order to discredit Dr. Ford’s testimony—is that she came forward late in the process, which they feel looks opportunistic.

Let this be a lesson to them: There were only downsides to her coming forward, and Dr. Ford did it anyway. Those downsides were what kept her from doing so earlier, she said, because she knew that the public scrutiny would be painful for both her and her family. “The reality has been far worse than what I expected,” Dr. Ford said. “My family and I have been the target of constant harassment and death threats and I’ve been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable.”

She added that her and her parents’ addresses had been posted online, and she and her family had had to move out of their home because of the threats against them.

“I’ve had to relive this trauma in front of the world.”

This is such a deeply personal thing to have to say in front of a political committee, though anyone who is or knows a survivor has known it all along. Remembering the details of trauma can be incredibly painful, even for people just watching it happen. Dr. Ford has had to do so in front of the country and the world, again, knowing full well that many of the people listening don’t want to believe her.

“It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court. My responsibility is to tell you the truth.”

This is an important point that may serve to counteract the opportunistic narrative that Republicans are pushing in order to discredit Dr. Ford. She is highlighting that her goal was not to tank Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing or chances on the Supreme Court. She just wanted to tell the truth, and considered it her civic duty to do so. It’s a hard point to argue against.

“The first thing that struck me from your statement this morning was that you are terrified. And I just wanted to let you know I’m very sorry. That’s not right.” —Rachel Mitchell

The independent prosecutor hired by Republicans to question Ford and Kavanaugh is Rachel Mitchell, a lawyer with years of experience prosecuting sex crimes, who was there to make Republicans look more sympathetic to Dr. Ford than a bunch of white guys who want to get this confirmation process over as soon as possible. Though her goal would ostensibly be to poke holes in Dr. Ford’s testimony, she opened her questioning with this apology to Dr. Ford that felt important and right. It’s a poignant reminder of how brutally painful this entire process is.

“Bravery is contagious. Indeed, that’s a driving force behind the #MeToo movement. And you sharing your story is going to have a lasting, positive impact on so many survivors in our country. We owe you a debt of gratitude for that, Doctor.” - Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

A beautiful, relevant quote from the Democratic senator from Vermont.

“One hundred percent.”—Christine Blasey Ford

During questioning, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), brought up a theory that’s been circulating that Dr. Ford may have mistaken her attacker for Brett Kavanaugh, and was actually assaulted by someone else.

Senator Durbin asked, “Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?” To which Christine Blasey Ford replied bluntly, “One hundred percent.”

Yesterday, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced he wouldn't be seeking re-election, and today he sat down for an interview with Gayle King on CBS This Morning, during which the co-host grilled him on the lack of diversity in the Republican party—specifically woman and minorities.

She referenced a photo that President Trump tweeted Wednesday that shows Ryan and a bunch of other white male Republican Congressional leaders with their thumbs up. Gayle asks what they were all celebrating, to which he responds, “Just the accomplishments we’ve had heretofore and then the rest of the agenda we’re working on.” Ryan lists off infrastructure and health care bills as agenda items they are working on.

However, King has a different agenda topic in mind and changes the conversation. "I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I look at that picture, I don't see anyone that looks like me—in terms of color and gender," King said. "And you were one of the main people that said you want to do more for the Republican party, to expand...you wanted to expand the base. Some say this president doesn't really want to expand the base."

After King says she feels "excluded," Ryan tries to defend himself by saying, “I don’t like that you feel that way. We need more minorities, more women in our party."

He says he plans to focus on "inclusive, aspirational politics" and on recruiting more women, like Mia Love. He adds that he's "going to keep fighting for the things [he] believes in," which is, you know, trying to take away a bunch of women's rights, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

The American people are on a first-name basis with many of the leading ladies of the White House: Ivanka. Melania. Omarosa (until she was fired, kicking and screaming, that is).

But further down the list of well-known women working in the White House Office—past Kellyanne Conway, Hope Hicks, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (thank you, Aidy Bryant, for making her as recognizable as she is now)—are a number of women who, while they don’t dominate the headlines, wield plenty of power. They're the cogs in the wheels of the domestic policy council, office of communication, office of legislative affairs, and more, writing executive orders, press bulletins, and deciding who gets face time with the leader of the free world.

We suggest getting to know them, since female staffers are far outpacing the men in their tenures.

Mercedes Schlapp

Senior Communications Strategist

Schlapp, a longtime GOP strategist and conservative commentator, secured a top role in the White House, despite all the talk in 2016 of "draining the swamp." She’s also half of a D.C. power couple: She co-founded a political consulting firm with her husband, Matt Schlapp, who serves as chairman of the American Conservative Union and the yearly Conservative Political Action Conference. Another interesting factoid: Schlapp is a first generation Cuban-American, raised in Florida, whose father was jailed for six years by the Castro regime.

Lindsay Walters

Deputy White House Press Secretary

Walters knows the chaos of the White House well: As part of her current role, she also served as an advisor to Press Secretary Sean Spicer until his abrupt resignation. Now, Walters often leads “press gaggles” on Air Force One. Corralling the press likely comes naturally to her, having spent one year as a spokesperson for the National Republican Committee

Helen Aguirre Ferré

White House Media Affairs Director

Not only is she a journalist—formerly of the Miami Herald and Univision—a profession Trump loves to loathe, but Ferré was also an outspoken critic of his during the campaign, calling Trump “anti-feminine” and saying that he “is trying so hard to win the nomination from conservative voters that he’s trying to say what he thinks the conservative voter wants to hear. And that’s why he ends up messing up, constantly.” She has since purged her Twitter account of such rants. Ferré might seem an unlikely fit for the Trump White House, but she was appointed before the inauguration and is still there, so she’s clearly found a way to make it work.

Neomi Rao

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Rao is the woman overseeing Trump’s plan to dramatically overhaul the current government rules and regulations. She's no political lightwight: Rao has served in all three branches of the federal government, including as a clerk for SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas and a member of the George W. Bush White House. She's currently on leave from her job as a law professor at George Mason University, where she lobbied successfully to rename the law school to honor the late, ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia with a multi-million dollar gift bestowed by the Koch Brothers.

Zina Bash

White House Domestic Policy Councilmember

She worked on the presidential campaign of Trump's rival Senator Ted Cruz, but that seems to be water under the bridge. Now, the Harvard Law School and Wharton Business School grad focuses on regulatory reform for legal and immigration policy. Bash has thus far made headlines for things unrelated to her work, like her spot on the The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful list and for her high net-worth (in the millions). Soon after taking the White House job, she gave birth to her first child, a daughter, Mabel.

Katy Talento

White House Health Care Policy Advisor

Talento's resume makes her an apt choice for her role. She served as legislative director for Republican Senator Thom Tillis and is an infectious disease epidemiologist by training with a degree from the Harvard School of Public Health. But she was a controversial pick: Talento has long expressed deep-seated fears that birth control pills cause abortions. “Is chemical birth control causing miscarriages of already-conceived children?” she wrote in a January 2015 column, in which she continued, “the longer you stay on the Pill, the more likely you are to ruin your uterus for baby-hosting altogether.”

Lindsay Reynolds

FLOTUS's Chief of Staff

This former third-grade teacher who's also been an event planner is on her second stint in the White House. During the George W. Bush administration, she worked in the White House Visitors Office. And Reynolds has strong ties to a prominent Republican family with deep pockets: Her father-in-law was the national finance chair for Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff

Senior Advisor to FLOTUS

Wolkoff was Melania Trump’s first East Wing hire. Rather than rising in the ranks in D.C. political circles, Wolkoff came up through the fashion industry. She's formerly a special events planner for Vogue and fashion director for Lincoln Center. Wolkoff is a longtime friend of the first lady, reportedly helped plan Trump's inauguration, and was hired before FLOTUS considered a chief of staff or communications director. It helps to be well-connected.

Stephanie Grisham

Director of Communications for FLOTUS

Grisham is a testament to loyalty. She worked for the Trump campaign as a traveling press secretary and was part of the transition team before taking the role of Communications Director for the First Lady. The hardest part of the job for her while on the campaign trail? Going five-and-a-half months without seeing her kids.

More on the Anniversary of Trump's Inauguration

yesterday, Congress passed a tax bill less popular than Matt Lauer at a company Christmas party. Just one-third of Americans were in favor of it, and two-thirds believed (rightly so) that it will do more to benefit the wealthy than the middle class, despite promises from politicians to help the latter. So how did it possibly get approved? With a strict party-line vote—only Republicans for, only Democrats against.

Republicans and Democrats couldn’t hate each other more. That’s not hyperbole: According to a Pew Research Center report released in October, the gap between the two parties is wider than ever before. And George Washington, while rolling in his grave, is pausing just to say I told ya so.

In 1796, Washington warned the American people that political parties would become “potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”

Sounds familiar. As America’s first leader accurately prophesied, our two-party system has become one of crazed competition. A system where—as evidenced by this week's brouhaha surrounding the tax vote—political leaders care more about winning (actual subject line of an email I received from the RNC yesterday: "WINNING") than rightfully representing the people who put them there. It’s become a battle for political power, rather than a battle for the good of the people. A battle based solely on relentless pettiness.

Such pettiness was exemplified earlier this year when, in July and again in September, a group of Republican senators wanted so desperately to defeat Obamacare (and with it, the Democrats) that they met behind closed doors to sloppily draft a bill that would leave 23 million Americans without healthcare coverage.

When the bill didn’t pass, President Trump declared his newly devised plan was to “let Obamacare fail.” He made good on his word in October by issuing an executive order cutting off insurance subsidies. Because, again, defeating the Dems (and giving the rich a tax break) is far more important than the wellbeing of Americans.

Through Trump’s numerous scandals in his just ten months in office, Republican lawmakers have stood by the president, likely with their own re-election in mind. After Trump’s controversial firing of FBI director James Comey, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan defended Trump’s decision, stating that Comey had “become an issue himself.” When Trump fired off a wildly unsubstantiated tweet claiming Obama wiretapped him, McConnell refused to even comment. And when Trump retweeted a video edited to depict him hitting Hillary Clinton in the head with a golfball, the lack of reaction and condemnation from Republican lawmakers was inversely proportional the outrage expressed after the Kathy Griffin incident.

But Democrats aren’t innocent when it comes to playing partisan politics. In August, Pelosi bragged that they have “won every fight” against Republicans under Trump. And in May, after Republicans lacked the votes to pass yet another healthcare bill, a group of Dems in the House sang “Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye,” in stereotypical high-school-basketball-rivalry fashion.

Voters aren’t happy about the side-taking. Frustration with the two-party system has been posited as a cause of the substantial increase in third-party voting in the 2016 election. Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein tripled the Libertarian and Green Party votes, respectively, from the 2012 election. That surge is thought to have affected the outcomes in swing states. “In Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, third-party voters had an enormous, Nader-like impact,” said MSNBC’s Steve Benen. Meanwhile, in states including Nevada, Oklahoma, and Ohio, there was an evident increase in protest votes (either writing in a person of your choosing or not voting at all). But our two-party system is so ingrained in America's political machine that protest votes simply swing an election to Democrats or Republicans.

Twenty years ago, there was evident overlap between the ideological politics of Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Today, such overlap no longer exists. And with the disintegration of ideological overlap came an increase in partisan hostility. Since 1994, the proportion of Americans with a “highly negative view” of the opposing party and a belief that the other side’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being” has doubled.

Although these figures have increased drastically, the majority of Americans don’t actually express parallel beliefs. Most Americans do not identify as consistently liberal or consistently conservative. And most Americans believe that elected officials need to compromise with their opposing party in order to resolve arguments and pass effective legislation.

It seems as though the expected beliefs of our political parties are more divided than the actual beliefs of our people. According to recent Gallup polls, Americans hold record-high liberal views on moral issues. The majority of Americans—regardless of political affiliation—believe in having access to birth control, support gay marriage, believe the effects of global warming are evident, and more.

This disparity is largely attributed to the fact that moderates are less likely to vote, donate to political campaigns, and contact elected officials, which means the voices of those on the extremes are the ones that get heard.

Political parties no longer serve their original purpose: connecting the American people with a distant government. They have become an intimidating and persuasive presence, coercing unsure voters to back a candidate with which they may not fully agree. They have led us to believe we are far more different in our politics than we truly are. And they have become a divisive force in our country, unremittingly building a wall between the left and the right. We were told this would happen more than 250 years ago. It's high time we listened.

Alabama residents went to the polls Tuesday in a special election for U.S. Senate—and Alabama native Channing Tatum made a rare political statement to weigh in on the race.

The Huffington Post reports that Channing Tatum, who was born and raised in Cullman, Alabama, made a rare political statement in support of Democrat Doug Jones. In an Instagram video, Tatum made it clear that his priority is that young people go out and vote, no matter who they choose. He noted that he doesn’t identify as a member of either party.

But he said that his choice would be to vote for Jones, because Republican candidate Roy Moore “has done things, in my opinion, that go beyond the line of trust.” Moore has been accused of having inappropriate relationships with teenage girls when he was in his 30s.

Read his full statement below:

“What’s good, Alabama? Roll Tide, what up Auburn, Troy University, Calhoun, Jacksonville State, any student inside of Alabama. I’m Channing Tatum, and I’m proud to be from Alabama.

Look, Tuesday, December 12 is a special election for senator of Alabama. And look, usually I’m not a political person. For the record, I’m not a liberal, Democrat, or Republican. I am my own mind and my own heart and that is more complex than red and blue. But all that being said, my choices are between Roy Moore, which is a man that’s been accused of assaulting girls. And barring that, Roy Moore has done things, in my opinion, that go beyond the line of trust. So I’m supporting Doug Jones. Doug Jones, again, from my perspective, has been an advocate on behalf of helping people his whole life.

So that’s who I’m supporting, and that’s my opinion. But I want you to have your own opinion. It’s important. No one thinks students are going to go out and vote, so prove them wrong. Go out, vote. It’s important for Alabama, it’s important for America. It’s important for you to have your own opinion. Please, go out and vote.”

It's been quite a year. In addition to a Donald Trump presidency (and all that entails), members of the GOP have been saying some *truly* unbelievable things. And that's not hyperbole. We actually have a hard time believing that these things were said by adult humans who were elected to public office—but they were. So, here we go: presenting the craziest things the GOP have said in 2017.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie: Proposing the Department of Education is abolished.

In February (actually, on the same day the Senate confirmed Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education), Massie introduced a one-page bill that would entirely abolish the Department of Education, effective December 31, 2018. Under Massie's plan, education would become the responsibility of state and local governments.

"Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children's intellectual and moral development," Massie said in a statement. "States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students."

Utah GOP Chairman: Arguing that women shouldn't even *want* equal pay.

In February of 2017 (that's correct, the following happened this year and not in the distant past), James C. Green—a vice-chair in Utah's Wasatch County Republican Party—penned a letter to the editor of his local paper The Wasatch Waves, in which he un-ironically argued that equal pay is bad for women.

Here's just a snippet:

"If businesses are forced to pay women the same as male earnings, that means they will have to reduce the pay for the men they employ...simple economics. If that happens, then men will have an even more difficult time earning enough to support their families, which will mean more Mothers will be forced to leave the home (where they may prefer to be) to join the workforce to make up the difference."

Green later apologized and resigned in the wake of massive fallout from the letter.

Iowa State Rep. Shannon Lundgren: Arguing that women should be required to carry dead fetuses to term.

Iowa Republicans are pushing to ban all abortions in the state after 20 weeks, with no exemptions for cases involving rape or incest. During debate on the bill in March, state Rep. John Forbes (a Democrat and pharmacist) used his own pregnant daughter as a hypothetical example while grilling Republicans on the law's scope.

"Worst case scenario, she talks to her doctor next Wednesday and her doctor tells her, 'We don't see a heartbeat anymore in this child.' Under this legislation, she would have to carry that baby until her life became endangered?" he asked. "Is that good medicine?"

The bill in question defines abortion as "the termination of a human pregnancy with the intent other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus," meaning the scenario Forbes described should not actually be covered by it. Still, the bill's manager Republican Rep. Shannon Lundgren argued that a woman in the situation Forbes described should carry a dead fetus to term.

"Rep. Forbes, this bill wasn't written for the intent to protect or govern, on the side of the woman. It was written to save babies' lives," Lundgren said. "I would concur that—in that instance—if your daughter's life is not in danger, that yes, she would have to carry that baby."

Missouri State Senators Bob Onder and Wayne Wallingford: Suggesting that women who seek abortions should go to the zoo.

In the beginning of April, two Missouri senators made thoroughly head-scratching remarks regarding the St. Louis zoo and abortions (yes, you read that correctly). Some context: Bob Onder was against a tax hike that would benefit the zoo. He was also upset because the city had proposed a bill that would stop employers and landlords from discriminating against pregnant women, women who use contraception, and women who have had abortions. This issues ended up being...well, conflated.

In a speech opposing the tax hike, the senators compared abortion clinics to the zoo (seriously)—and Onder even filed an amendment to the tax bill saying the zoo should have to change its name to the "Midwest Abortion Sanctuary City Zoological Park." He maintains this was a joke and even released a statement asserting as much via Twitter.

In session, the jokes went beyond just the amendment name. After Onder said the zoo is more regulated than abortion clinics (noting that the St. Louis Zoo is inspected once a year), Wayne Wallingford suggested, "Maybe we should send the people that want an abortion to the St. Louis Zoo, because we know it'll be safer."

Sean Spicer: Inaccurately stating that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.

During a White House press briefing earlier this month, Press Secretary Sean Spicer discussed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, describing him as worse than Hitler because the latter didn't "sink to using chemical weapons."

To quote: "You had someone as despicable as Hitler, who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."

This, of course, is inaccurate. Hitler was well-known for his use of chemical weapons. Spicer later issued multiple apologies for the comment. "I was obviously trying to make a point about the heinous acts that Assad had made against his own people last week, using chemical weapons and gas," he said. "Frankly, I mistakenly made an inappropriate and insensitive reference to the Holocaust, for which there is no comparison. And for that I apologize. It was a mistake to do that."

North Carolina General Assembly Rep. Larry Pittman: Comparing Lincoln to Hitler.

This month, Pittman was dealt a blow when his unconstitutional bill to restore a same-sex marriage ban in North Carolina failed to pass. Commenters came after him on Facebook, and (in a now-deleted comment) Pittman compared Abraham Lincoln to Hitler—calling him a "tyrant" and referring to the Civil War (which brought about the abolition of slavery) as "unnecessary."

"And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it?" he wrote. "Lincoln was the same sort if tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional."

Oklahoma Rep. Markwayne Mullin: It's "bullcrap" for constituents to say they pay his salary.

During an April town hall meeting, Republican Congressman Markwayne Mullin took issue with the idea that taxpayers pay his salary. His reasoning? He's paid enough in taxes over the years to have covered his own salary. He essentially sees the job as a volunteer position.

"You said you pay for me to do this. Bullcrap. I pay for myself," he said. "I pay enough taxes before I ever got there and continue to through my business. This is a service; no one pays me to go. I do it as an honor and a service."

New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance: Suggesting that Planned Parenthood split into two organizations—one that performs abortions and one that doesn't.

Lance also hosted a town hall this month. During his, a constituent pressed him about Planned Parenthood, and asked if he would continue efforts to defund it after the GOP's Obamacare replacement failed.

Lance's solution—to split Planned Parenthood into two organizations; one that does all the stuff he approves of, and one that performs abortions—garnered boos from the audience.

"What I have suggested to Planned Parenthood is that it have two separate organizations―one organization that deals in the services regarding women's health and another organization that performs the abortion procedure," he said. "I would hope that Planned Parenthood might look at that."

Wisconsin Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.: "Nobody's got to use the Internet."

This month, Sensenbrenner addressed citizens at a town hall. When one attendee brought up concerns over the elimination of online privacy protections, the Congressman countered by saying that people can just opt out of the internet if they don't like having less privacy online. Since this is 2017 and using the internet is no longer optional, people were not having it.

"Facebook is not comparable to an ISP. I do not have to go to Facebook," the town hall attendee said. "I do have one provider.… I have one choice. I don't have to go on Google. My ISP provider is different than those providers."

Here's how Sensenbrenner responded:

"Nobody's got to use the Internet. … And the thing is that if you start regulating the Internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no Internet. …Internet companies have invested an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now. The fact is is that, you know, I don't think it's my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising for your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it, and then you take it upon yourself to make that choice.… That's what the law has been, and I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives."

😶 😐 😬.

Follow Marie Claire on Facebook for the latest celeb news, beauty tips, fascinating reads, livestream video, and more.

We're torn: We can't wait to watch Elisabeth Moss's performance in The Handmaid's Tale, Hulu's buzzy new series based on Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel of the same name that drops on April 26th. But then, just seeing the trailer (the final one was released yesterday, appropriately on "A Day Without A Woman") is a bit unnerving. Given the current political climate, its themes seem less and less like speculative fiction and more like real life.

If you haven't read The Handmaid's Tale since college (guilty), the book tells the story of Offred (played by Moss), a woman forced into sexual slavery after a group of ultra conservative, extremely religious white men take over the U.S. government and disenfranchise women, non-Protestants, gay people, and people of color. Offred is now a so-called handmaid required to sleep with Fred (the man who owns her), a married military commander whose wife is infertile. Her sole purpose is to produce a child. Abortion is illegal, and women are controlled by male leaders whose M.O. is to block women's autonomy over their own bodies.

Atwood wrote the novel in the 1980s, as the New Right—conservatives against abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, and LGBTQ equality, to name a few things—became increasingly influential. Ronald Reagan gladly accepted the New Right's support to help him win the presidency, and in return, gave more political power to evangelicals, which helped energize the anti-abortion movement.

Perhaps prescient execs at Hulu decided 2017 was the year to adapt the modern classic after spotting similarities between the GOP of the 80s and today: President Trump campaigned on a largely pro-white, pro-male platform. He has surrounded himself mostly with like-minded white male conservatives, including Vice President Mike Pence, who while governor of Indiana, approved some of the most extreme abortion regulations in the country (which he signed into law "with a prayer"). And let's not forget Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon, who as the head of Breitbart News published such articles as "Lesbian Bridezillas Bully Bridal Shop Owner Over Religious Beliefs." Here, a few other scary similarities:

1. Women are forced to have children whether they want them or not.

Although abortion is still legal in the U.S., (mostly white, mostly male) elected officials are making it ever harder for many women to obtain one. More than 300 restrictions on the procedure have been enacted at the state level since 2010, including mandatory waiting periods and in-person counseling sessions that can delay a woman's ability to have an abortion, potentially making the procedure more $$$.

Then, in January, House Republicans voted to make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer money from being used for abortion services. This hurts low-income women specifically. Not to mention that if Planned Parenthood is defunded, as Trumpcare stipulates, the government would cease to reimburse the organization for all services needed by all Medicaid patients, including STI testing, cancer screening, and family planning services.

It certainly doesn't help that the Trump administration has positioned itself squarely in the anti-abortion corner, with Pence speaking at the March for Life rally in January and Trump tweeting his support. "The message from the White House is that they are on a mission to overturn Roe v. Wade," said Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, before Trump took office.

2. Abortion providers are targeted and killed.

Atwood imagines a society where abortion providers are hanged for crimes against the state. In real life, it was less than a year and a half ago that three people were shot and killed at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. Six years prior, anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder killed George Tiller, MD, an abortion provider in Kansas. In total, there have been 84 incidents of extreme violence, including murders, bombings, and arson attacks, targeting providers and clinics in the last 20 years. Then there's the harassment. As David Cohen, co-author of Living in the Crosshairs: The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism, told ProPublica, "A lot of [abortion providers] deal with home picketing… It sends a not-so-subtle message: We know where you live, we know where to find your family, and maybe we'll do something more."

"I am very concerned about the impact that [Trump's opposition to abortion] could have on both healthcare providers that are already under attack for providing these services and women who are frequently punished and shamed for doing so," Miller said.

3. Men dictate what happens to women's bodies.

In The Handmaid's Tale, Offred is forced to have sex with her owner in order to produce a child. The idea that men are in control of women's wombs isn't so far-fetched: All those state bills limiting reproductive rights go through state legislatures (roughly 75 percent male, on average). Then the bills are signed into law by state governors—of which 46 are currently men.

Here are two recent examples: In late January, Arkansas's Asa Hutchinson signed a bill criminalizing dilation and evacuation (aka "D&E"), a low risk procedure used to safely terminate a pregnancy after the first trimester. Not only does the bill effectively make it impossible for women to get an abortion after about 14-weeks, but it also states that a spouse, parent, or legal guardian of a woman who receives or attempts to receive a D&E can sue the provider. Then, in February, the Oklahoma House advanced a bill requiring a woman seeking an abortion to get written consent from the man who impregnated her. Rep Justin Humphrey defended the proposed legislation by saying that once a woman is pregnant, she's a "host."

4. Women are purposefully kept uninformed.

Women are forbidden to read in The Handmaid's Tale. And so, by stripping women of their right to information, the men in Atwood's novel are able to maintain authority—if they can control women's minds, they can control their bodies. Currently in the U.S., 17 states require that women seeking an abortion undergo counseling that includes inaccurate and unsubstantiated information about a link between abortion and breast cancer, fetal pain, and/or negative psychological effects. Likewise, several states require that medically inaccurate handbooks be given or made available. In short: If women don't have reliable information about their reproductive health, it hurts their ability to choose their best course of action.

5. Women are stripped of economic independence.

Another way to control women: Limit their ability to earn. It's taken to the extreme in this story, with women denied jobs, education, and access to credit cards. Today, the discrimination is softer but not insubstantial. As of last year, the median income of women working full-time, year-round in the U.S. was just 79 percent of what men earned, according to the White House archives. That gap is even wider for women of color.

Here, there is some hope, though: In his speech to Congress last week, President Trump said his administration "wants to work...to make childcare accessible and affordable" and "to help ensure new parents have paid family leave." Both policy items are crucial to women's economic advancement. To really move the needle, POTUS will have to do better than the plan proposed during his campaign—one which benefits higher-earning families and leaves out adoptive parents and fathers.

6. Women's health is negatively impacted by pollution and STIs.

Many women in The Handmaid's Tale are left infertile after exposure to environmental toxins, as well as untreated STIs. While we may not be suffering from the aftermath of nuclear and biological warfare (and thank goodness for that), the Trump administration continues to deny climate change and STIs are on the rise.

On Trump's first day in office he eliminated any mention of global warming from the White House website. Then he announced Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt as his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt, who has close ties with the fossil fuel industry, has already made moves to place climate skeptics at the top of the agency and roll back water regulations. Ignoring the environment can have serious consequences for people's health—asthma, cancer, heart disease, neurological disorders, and other conditions could all potentially become more prevalent as a result of climate change.

If that's not worrisome enough, the U.S. is already in the middle of a spike in STIs, partially as a result of budget cuts that caused clinic closures, according to the latest report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Women experienced a 27 percent hike in reported syphilis cases from 2014 to 2015, as well as increases in gonorrhea and chlamydia. Undiagnosed or untreated case can lead to infertility. Defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides STD testing to women and men would only leave more people without care.

It's no wonder that in an interview with Marie Claire, Moss pointed out that the cast of The Handmaid Tale has been noticing similarities between what they're acting out and what's happening in real life. "We occasionally will send articles to each other from that day's paper that exactly mirror what's happening in the show—whether it is reproductive rights, whether it's an environment issue, some new random crazy strain of virus," she said. "We are fascinated and horrified by the parallels." Us too.

Follow Marie Claire on Facebook for the latest news, fascinating reads, livestream video, and more.

A GOP chair in Utah has resigned amid criticism for a letter he wrote, claiming that women's demands for equal pay are unfair to men. James C Green, the Vice Chair of the Wasatch County Republican Party, feels that men deserve to make more because "they are considered the primary breadwinners for families", in a letter published February 16 in local newspaper The Wasatch Wave.

"If businesses are forced to pay women the same as male earnings, that means they will have to reduce the pay for the men they employ...simple economics," Green wrote. "If that happens, then men will have an even more difficult time earning enough to support their families, which will mean more Mothers will be forced to leave the home (where they may prefer to be) to join the workforce to make up the difference." Forcing more women into the workforce creates more competition for men, he concluded, which is bad and unfair to those poor men who are used to being prioritized in every walk of life.

The letter, unsurprisingly, sparked such huge controversy that Green was forced to apologize—albeit in one of those "I'm sorry if you were offended" statements that doesn't really suggest he's sorry for the right reasons. The day after the letter was published, Green resigned, complaining that he had been subjected to "hateful, vile comments, and messages."

"I didn't want to hurt the party any further," he said. "They didn't force me to do it. There was no coercion. I chose to step down...I will pray for America."

Between this nonsense and the Oklahoma lawmaker who referred to pregnant women as "hosts," this month has really been a learning curve in terms of the mental acrobatics men will do to justify their own misogyny.

Follow Marie Claire on Facebook for the latest celeb news, beauty tips, fascinating reads, livestream video, and more.

First Lady Melania Trump continues to round out her White House staff. This time, she has announced her chief of staff, Lindsay Reynolds. Here's what you need to know about the woman who will be Melania's top staffer at the White House.

1. She's a veteran of the Bush administration.

This won't be Reynolds' first time in the White House. She's a veteran of the Bush administration, having served as associate director of the White House Visitors Office under George W. Bush. Reynolds will likely put her background in the Visitors Office to good use right away. The Trump administration has yet to put anyone in charge of the office, and Reynolds said in a statement that staffing it is a top priority for her and the first lady's staff.

She explained that she is "working to ensure that the White House Visitors Office is fully staffed and operational and ready to accept tour requests for the public in the coming weeks."

2. She has deep ties to the GOP establishment.

According to the Washington Post, Reynolds has deep ties to the Republican establishment and serves as a link between the Trump administration and the "old guard of the GOP." Her biggest link to the GOP establishment comes in the form of her father-in-law, Republican fundraiser Mercer Reynolds. Mercer Reynolds served as the national finance chair for Bush's 2004 reelection campaign and later as one of the finance co-chairs for John McCain.

"I would be silly to say that I'm not associated with the Republican side," Lindsay told Cincy Magazine. "I think everybody knows that (about the family's links to the Republicans), but we're willing to do anything." She is married to James Mercer Reynolds, who handles property management for the company that oversees Mercer Plantation in Georgia, according to Cincy Magazine.

Reynolds was involved in Cincinnati's bid to host the Republican National Convention, as project manager of the Cincinnati Host Committee. The 2016 Republican National Convention was ultimately held in Cleveland.

"Lindsay has deep experience of the inner workings of the White House, she's a natural leader, and she already knows the Trump family through her work on the presidential debates and the Republican convention," Lea Berman, a former White House social secretary under George W. Bush, said.

3. She has experience in education and event planning.

Before joining the Bush administration in 2004, Reynolds taught third grade in Ohio. After leaving the White House the first time, Reynolds returned to Ohio to form an event planning business with friends. The official statement announcing her new role highlighted her event planning experience, saying she "brings over fourteen years of experience in political fundraising, event management, and logistical expertise" to her new position.

4. She'll be Melania's representative in Washington, D.C. for the time being.

While some appointees to the FLOTUS' team, like Chief Strategist Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, will reportedly work with the first lady in New York leading up to her move to Washington later this year, Reynolds is expected to set up shop in the East Wing of the White House right away. This will leave her responsible for representing the first lady in Washington, at least until her move at the end of the school year.

5. She'll be a key part of the FLOTUS' staff.

As chief of staff, Reynolds will be a key member of Melania Trump's White House team. In fact, she'll be her top staffer and in charge of managing the first lady's day-to-day schedule.

"The first lady is thoughtfully selecting her team, establishing the office of the first lady and supporting her husband President Trump," Reynolds said in a statement.

Historically, the first lady has been responsible for hostessing duties at the White House, particularly at official events like state dinners. In recent years, first ladies have also championed causes close to their hearts, often (but not always) related to children or women's issues. Melania has indicated an interest in working to combat cyberbullying during her time as first lady.

Follow Marie Claire on Facebook for the latest celeb news, beauty tips, fascinating reads, livestream video, and more.

In a speech carried live from Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, on at least three TV networks last December, soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump was telling the world he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the United States. "It's temporary," he later tried to soften. And then I heard my name.

"She's back there. Little Katy. She's back there."

I was six months into covering the Trump campaign for MSNBC and NBC News, and there I was, in the belly of a World War II battleship, in a press pen made out of bicycle racks, surrounded by thousands of whipped-up Trump supporters.

A few days earlier, at another Trump rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, I'd tweeted live as wave after wave of protestors stood up during his speech. "Now 10," I wrote from the scene, counting the interruptions. "Trump ends speech abruptly and leaves stage."

Trump thought my tweets were "disgraceful" and "not nice!" according to a chastising note from his 26-year-old press secretary, Hope Hicks. In the hours that followed, Trump took his complaints public, trashing me and CBS News reporter Sopan Deb for the coverage.

"@KatyTurNBC & @DebSopan [sic] should be fired for dishonest reporting," he tweeted. "@KatyTurNBC, 3rd rate reporter & @SopanDeb @CBS lied."

He demanded I apologize.

I didn't, so Trump decided to go further in Mount Pleasant, pointing his finger squarely at me and launching a personal attack as millions of Americans watched at home.

"What a lie it was," Trump said, referring to the claim that he had left the stage abruptly. "What a lie. Katy Tur. What a lie it was. Third. Rate. Reporter. Remember that." The crowd's boos ricocheted off the iron hull of the USS Yorktown.

By Election Day, I'll have lived out of a suitcase for a year and a half, swearing by the lifesaving powers of dry shampoo and the magic ability of scarves to make the same coat look new. Following Trump to city after city, I've made more than 3,800 live television appearances and visited more than 40 states. I've also endured a gazillion loops of Elton John's "Tiny Dancer," a staple of Trump's rallies.

Trump, meanwhile, has made history. He won more primary votes than any other GOP hopeful, ever, and he's the first major party nominee in six decades who was not first a senator, governor, or member of the House.

But to understand how truly unexpected this campaign season has been—for the country and for my own life—you have to understand something about presidential elections in general. The politicians devise strategies and court donors years in advance. At the same time, newspapers and networks carefully decide which reporter they'll match with which candidate.

Trump wasn't part of anyone's plan. For that matter, neither was I.

In fact, when the ginger-haired billionaire announced his bid for the White House on June 16, 2015, I honestly don't remember hearing about it. I was living in London, working as a foreign correspondent, which meant my focus was everything but America.

The expat life was a good one: There was my French boyfriend. My bright two-bedroom flat in Islington. My wine at lunch. I had a "go bag" packed with loose linens and mosquito repellent—I was ready to be flung to the outer edges of the world at a moment's notice. It was all intrigue and adventure.

Then came a Make-A-Wish Foundation request from Aaron, a severely ill teen from Pennsylvania. He wanted a tour of NBC's headquarters at 30 Rock and the chance to shadow me for a day.

I booked a ticket to New York. I left clothes in the dryer and milk in the fridge. I told my French boyfriend I'd meet him on vacation in Sicily in two weeks. (As it turned out, I wouldn't really return to Europe for 10 months.)

I took Aaron and his family to the Stonewall Inn, the birthplace of the LGBT rights movement. The Supreme Court had just handed down its decision to legalize gay marriage, and thousands of happy people gathered to celebrate. I marveled at how open this country had become. Love had won. I was ready to go home.

But then Trump announced his run for the GOP nomination, descending a golden escalator in Manhattan's Trump Tower. Paid actors cheered. (Trump's camp denied they were actors.) But the bigger story became his labeling of Mexican immigrants as "rapists" and "criminals."

Because I happened to be around—literally just standing around the newsroom—I got the assignment for NBC Nightly News and the Today show. A couple of days later, when the Trump story wasn't slowing down, my cell phone rang. NBC's head of news coverage had a proposal.

"How'd you like to spend the summer in New York?" he asked. "We want you on Trump's campaign. It will be six weeks, tops. But hey, if he wins, you'll go to the White House."

My first Trump "rally" was that very night in June. Trump was at a New Hampshire home, pitching himself to a couple hundred overdressed people around a backyard pool.

"I get more standing ovations than anyone," he bragged.

Trump must have recognized me from my days at NBC's local New York station; he called me out by name to pay attention.

"You're looking at your phone!" "I'm tweeting what you're saying!" I said. He nodded and continued talking. Afterward, I asked Hicks for an exclusive interview with Mr. Trump. A week later, Trump agreed. I panicked. I was known as a dogged, unflappable live reporter, the kind who runs barefoot to the camera, high heels in one hand, notebook in the other. Most recently, I'd spent months covering airline disasters in Asia and Europe, from the downing of MH17 to the disappearance of MH370 and the murder-suicide of Germanwings.

But I was not a political reporter, and I didn't know much about Trump. With one night to prepare, I read until my eyes crossed and took notes until my fingers cramped. I also bought a pair of Jimmy Choos to feel powerful.

Bright and early the next morning, Trump and I sat down for a talk inside Trump Tower. The result was a combative 29-minute interview that MSNBC aired three times in eight hours.

Trump called me naïve. He told me I didn't know what I was talking about. He shamed me when I stumbled on a question. And when the cameras shut off, he was furious. He didn't like my questions, which were direct, or my tone, which was conversational.

"You couldn't do this," he said, searching for a put-down. "You stumbled three times."

"It doesn't matter if I stumble," I said. "I'm not running for president."

That's when he landed what he saw as the harshest insult of all.

"You'll never be president," he said. I laughed. What else was I supposed to do?

Let me clarify a few things about TV news, on the national level at NBC and MSNBC. We write our own stories. There is no teleprompter for reporters. No traveling makeup artists or stylists. And there is very little sleep.

The trick is to never let people see you sweat. I learned that from my parents, the reporters who shot the beating of Reginald Denny during the 1992 L.A. riots and O.J. Simpson's 1994 Bronco chase. My father flew the helicopter. My mother handled the camera, dangling out over the skids.

It wasn't scary, she says now, so long as she was looking through the viewfinder. For me, the key is to stare at the pinhole deep in the lens.

Headlines pile up. Trump says Hillary Clinton was "schlonged" by Obama. Trump says John McCain isn't really a war hero. Then Trump reacts to the political reactions, and the whole cycle starts again. It's like covering a hurricane that makes landfall on a daily basis.

A traditional presidential campaign has a media bus with the candidate's name on it and an itinerary days in advance. Trump has a plane with his name on it (that we aren't invited on) and an itinerary that often mutates daily, along with his talking points.

As a result, my work often starts before sunrise, usually in a drab hotel room in a mid-list town. I dry my hair upside down while scrolling through Trump stories. Then there are conference calls and the morning's live shots. Each one involves me, a camera, and two or three minutes of dead air on an NBC or MSNBC live TV show that I fill with my own reporting. Later, there will be afternoon, then evening live shots.

Most days, I subsist on hard-boiled eggs, packets of Justin's peanut butter, and handfuls of Cheez-Its, my face never far from my ever-vibrating iPhone. Most afternoons and evenings, Trump holds at least one major rally. Imagine a cross between a circus performance, a religious revival, and a rock concert. Thousands of people attend, gathering before dawn with lawn chairs and tents, waiting for the sunrise and then the candidate.

Five hours before Trump arrives, the Secret Service lets us bring in our cameras and equipment, then kicks us out and completes a sweep for bombs. No one gets in without being screened.

The complexion of the crowd reflects Trump's base, which, according to polls, is white and male. They dress in all-camouflage, or all red, white, and blue, or—because they are meeting a billionaire–all suits, gowns, and formalwear. There are moms, cute kids, and roaming packs of young people. The pregame parking lot can feel like a state fair without the Ferris wheel.

Trump is a room-reader. He'll slow down a line, rephrase a point, work in a pause, and ride the energy of his audience wherever it takes him. For 45, 60, even 90 minutes, he'll run through classic riffs, like bomb the hell out of ISIS, build a wall, make America great again. But he'll also experiment, as when he launched an ethnically tinged attack on a Mexican- American judge deciding the civil fraud case against Trump University.

Then another plane ride or long drive. My producer, Anthony Terrell, and I travel like pros, with gold-member this and platinum-elite that. Still, by the end of the day, it's hard not to feel punched.

I've lost a diamond earring, a gold ring, a glove, two hats, a blazer, and one boyfriend (au revoir, Benoit), who said of my schedule: "This is not what we do in France." Friends and family have married, divorced, given birth, and died during this campaign, and I've missed it all.

But there are also the memories I'll never lose with people I'll never forget. The group of reporters following Trump will be friends for life. We often help one another, putting aside corporate rivalries or the day-to-day of who's scooping whom. If you miss a line of Trump's speech, someone will fill you in. If you're missing a charger or even the occasional contact, someone is always there with the assist. We depend on one another's public reporting, using it to spur new lines of inquiry and fresh reporting of our own.

We've all had birthdays on the road (the most popular gift: anti-puff eye cream). Lots of meals at gas station mini-marts. And the occasional taste of the country's best food. (Here's looking at you, Fig in Charleston, South Carolina.)

Some of the surprises of the road are good ones. In Birch Run, Michigan, last August, I walked headfirst into one of my best friends, Sara Murray, a new reporter for CNN. "What are you doing here?" I practically squealed. "No, the question is what are YOU doing here?" she hit back. Turns out I wasn't the only one suddenly assigned to Trump.

Other surprises are, ahem, not surprises at all. We're a bit like a traveling dormitory, coed and giddy because every day is like finals day and the last day of school rolled into one.

So, yes, things happen. And it's obvious. The not-so-stolen glances. The not-so-subtle arm touches. The loud laughs at jokes that aren't particularly funny. I mean, it's pretty glaring when a Marriott Rewards loyalist suddenly shows up at a Hilton. I know at least one couple with plans to marry post-election.

Timothy Crouse got a lot right in The Boys on the Bus, arguably the most famous book about the campaign trail. (Crouse was a Rolling Stone reporter covering the 1972 U.S. presidential election.) The trail combines "the incestuous-ness of a New England hamlet with the giddiness of a mid-ocean gala and the physical rigors of the Long March." It's a little "womb-like," as Crouse puts it, and as a result, we risk stories that are too "inside the Beltway." In her essay about the 1988 U.S. presidential election, "Insider Baseball," Joan Didion was even more pointed about these perils, describing a political press that had forgotten its audience.

But a lot more has changed. For one thing, the boys on the bus are now the girls on the plane. Fellow NBC reporters Andrea Mitchell, Kasie Hunt, Hallie Jackson, Kristen Welker, and I are the first women-led politics team in the history of network news—just one remarkable shift in a campaign season where the only rule seems to be that there are no rules.

On June 6, during a spot on Fox & Friends, Trump described me as "not a very good reporter." A few weeks later, at his golf course in southwest Scotland, he introduced me to some investors as a "great reporter." He caught himself and added "sometimes."

It's unlikely, however, that any of Trump's future attacks will be as scary as what happened in Mount Pleasant, where the crowd, feeding off Trump, seemed to turn on me like a large animal, angry and unchained.

It wasn't until hours later, when Secret Service took the extraordinary step of walking me to my car, that the incident sank in.

The wave of insults, harassment, and threats, via various social-media feeds, hasn't stopped since. Many of the attacks are unprintable.

"MAYBE A FEW JOURNALISTS DO NEED TO BE WHACKED," tweeted someone with the handle GuyScott33, two weeks after Trump lashed out. "MAYBE THEN THEYD STOP BEI[N]G BIASED HACKS. KILL EM ALL STARTING W/ KATY TUR."

But I'm still ready with a wave. And whether or not Trump wins the White House, I'll still run for those live shots. What else am I supposed to do?

Epilogue

Since my original story went to press, Trump did it again: He called me out on national TV.

The number of people, places, and things he's insulted on Twitter alone recently passed 250, according to a list compiled by theNew York Times. That puts me in the strange company of Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (Trump called him "dopey"), the state of New Jersey ("deeply troubled"), and a podium in the Oval Office ("not good").

I'm not sure how the prince or the Garden State feel about those put-downs, but the podium is still standing and I am, too. In fact, I'm still running for those live shots. Trump, meanwhile, is still calling me out by name.

Except this time, Trump was officially the Republican presidential nominee. He was fresh off a rocky convention that saw the #nevertrump movement try to stop his nomination, his wife Melania plagiarize part of her speech from Michelle Obama's 2008 address, and his former rival Ted Cruz snub him by refusing to endorse him onstage.

Later, House Speaker Paul Ryan would say he hoped those four days in Cleveland would be a turning point for Trump. He did stay on prompter for his acceptance speech. But it didn't last.

In a matter of days Trump was back to being Trump. In one day alone he made 15 eyebrow-raising statements, extinguishing one controversy with the next.

By the time Trump took the podium to face follow-up questions from the press in Miami, it was day three of the Democratic National Convention, itself in turmoil over leaked emails that seemed to show the DNC's bias toward Hillary Clinton over then-opponent Bernie Sanders. Trump hoped to exploit that, scheduling a press conference at his Doral golf course.

It started off as a standard political speech. Trump accused Clinton of rigging the system and playing by her own rules. His big case-in-point was the private email server she had used as Secretary of State—a server missing 33,000 deleted emails, according to officials. Trump looked into the cameras and made a strange plea:

"Russia," he said, as cameras clicked and whirred, "if you're listening I hope you're able to find the 33,000 missing emails. You'll probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

A feeling of disbelief filled the room. Here was a presidential hopeful appearing to ask a foreign government to illegally pry into the email server of a private citizen.

I raised my hand and yelled out a question.

"Mr. Trump, do you have any qualms about asking a foreign government—Russia, China, anybody—to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country?"

He didn't answer.

So I tried again.

And again.

And again.

And then it happened: the shushing.

"If they have them, they have them" he was saying. "You know what gives me more pause? That a person in our government, crooked Hillary Clinton—be quiet, I know you want to, you know, save her."

My phone jumped with Twitter notifications.

"Did he just tell @katyturnbc to 'be quiet'?"

"Trump tells @katyturnbc to 'be quiet'."

"A day after a 105 year old woman casts nominating vote for HRC, Trump tells a female reporter to 'be quiet.'"

Honestly, I didn't even notice. Besides, I'm in good company. Trump has called ABC's Tom Llamas "a sleaze" and CNN's Jim Acosta "a real beauty." He even impersonated my friend Sara Murray on stage.

So, where does that leave us? Well, in about three months, America will go to the polls and I can't tell you if Trump is going to win or lose. The only safe prediction is that this most bizarre campaign will get even more bizarre before the ballots are popped.

Trump finally did answer my question, by the way.

"If Russia or China or any other country has those e-mails, I mean, to be honest with you, I'd love to see them," he said.

Then he thanked me as he walked out of the room.

This article appears in the September issue of Marie Claire, on newsstands August 16. Main image by Rebecca Greenfield.

Republicans really, really don't like Planned Parenthood. If thepresidential candidates haven't made that clear, conservatives in Congress did last week when they threatened to shut down the government—yet again—over Planned Parenthood's federal funding.

But the reason Planned Parenthood exists and even receives federal dollars in the first place is largely because Republicans got it off the ground. 

When birth control was legalized, Republicans helped expand access to contraception for low-income people because they recognized its economic value to women, families, and taxpayers. Even when abortion was legalized through Roe v. Wade, a women's right to choose wasn't immediately a partisan issue—or much of an issue at all.

Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has shifted further right—and the politics behind this evolution explain why the GOP is trying to stop the very thing that they started 45 years ago. 

From Nixon using abortion legislation to strategically woo Catholics to lobbyists deliberately linking family planning to abortion in the '90s, the Republican long game to court a new voter base was nothing if not effective. Today, it's almost impossible to be a pro-choice Republican running for any major political office. And across the country, state-level efforts to restrict abortion access are powering forward: in Texas, the number of abortion providers dropped from 40 to eight in a little over a year.

Though reproductive rights seem to be disappearing before our eyes, the secret Republican history of Planned Parenthood tells a different story—namely that it doesn't have to be this way, because it hasn't always been.

The organization was an affiliate of the American Birth Control League, which would eventually become Planned Parenthood.

He helped launch their first national fundraising campaign.

The same year, former Republican President Eisenhower (who said just six years earlier that it's not the government's "business" to support birth control) serves as co-chairman of a Planned Parenthood committee with Harry Truman. In a 1968 address to Congress, then-Congressman George H.W. Bush advocates for government support of family planning programs, citing statistics from a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The federal grant program, which provides planning services to low-income families, was championed by President Nixon and George H.W. Bush (who was such a vocal supporter of birth control that he was supposedly nicknamed "Rubbers"). The funds have never been used to provide abortions because of provisions written into the law.

Only a year after the Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts' prohibition of birth control for unmarried women through Eisenstadt v. Baird. 

As they adopt an anti-choice stance, the Democrats adopt their first pro-choice platform.

A Human Life Amendment, which would have overturned the Supreme Court's decision, comes to vote for the first and only time after several attempts. The Senate defeats it, with Goldwater reversing his previous position to vote against it (Planned Parenthood still issues an achievement award named for him.)

Their strategy centers on the idea that government funding for family planning providers "frees up" money that is used for abortions. In 1992, polls show that as many as 71% of Republican Party members are pro-choice. But by 1996, public opinion changes sharply as the number of people believing that abortion should be legal "under certain circumstances" overtakes the number of people who believed abortion should always be legal.

Only six Republicans vote against it.

She's grilled by GOP members who would rather the government shut down than Planned Parenthood continue to receive federal funding—even though that funding has never been used to provide abortions.

Follow Marie Claire on Instagram for the latest celeb news, pretty pics, funny stuff, and an insider POV.