Over the past two years, a culmination of many Americans’ greatest fears have come to fruition: a public health crisis, the loss of reproductive freedom, attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, a looming recession. When the aforementioned events have already occurred, it can feel difficult to find the motivation to vote this fall. But it's true what they say: the 2022 midterm elections (and every election going forward) really are consequential—especially when right-wing extremism is on the rise and manifesting through policies across the country.

“I don't think apathy is an option right now because the only way we get better outcomes from our leadership is by picking better leaders. Especially on the state and local level, we have seen the impact that these folks can have,” Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run for Something, tells Marie Claire. “While Congress might not be able to act right now on abortion access, DAs and county leaders and city elected officials and even school board members can make a real difference on reproductive health care access, on schools, on transportation funding, on housing. Most of the things that are really making people mad right now are things that can be solved by electing better local leaders.” 

In August, the Pew Research Center polled 7,647 adults to find out which issues are top of mind for voters in the 2022 midterms—the elections that will determine who controls Congress for the second half of President Biden’s term (and will largely influence his success), as well as the leaders in charge at the state and local levels across the country. The research found that for congressional elections, the economy is most important to voters followed by gun policy, violent crime, health care, voting policies, education, Supreme Court appointments, and abortion. A 19th News/SurveyMonkey poll conducted in August among a national sample of 20,799 adults showed that preserving democracy is also a top voting motivator for Americans. 

All of this research proves that there are a wide range of issues important to different people depending on their lived experiences and a dramatic difference in response to them between Democrats and Republicans. If you’re wondering how the 2022 midterm elections will impact you as you make a plan to vote, we outlined some of the key issues at stake in the midterms, below. We’ll continue to update this piece with new information leading up to Election Day on November 8, 2022.

Abortion Rights

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer, which ended the constitutional right to have an abortion, reproductive freedom—or lack thereof—is now being determined by governors and state legislatures, and has become a leading issue this election cycle. Conservative states like Arizona, Kentucky, Texas, and Missouri have already banned abortion with no exception for rape or incest, and plenty more Republican-led states have legislation in the works and/or in effect to restrict abortion access. The consequences are detrimental and varied, from abortion clinics and hospitals being thrown into chaos to people being forced to travel out of state for care (many who can’t afford to do so in the first place) to putting mothers at risk of death in the event of an ectopic pregnancy. 

“Who we elect in November will decide what access to abortion looks like across the country,” explains Jenny Lawson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes. “Should the Senate go into the hands of anti-abortion politicians—should Mitch McConnell win the majority in the Senate and we lose the House—they have already committed to and are working towards banning abortion nationwide. When people go to vote this November, they are deciding whether or not they want reproductive freedom in their state or not. That is on the line.”

The Biden administration promised to codify Roe (a.k.a. pass a federal law that would offer the same protections Roe did) if two additional Democrats are elected to the Senate and Democrats keep control of the House. Meanwhile, Republicans promise to continue their efforts to ban abortion, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a bill in September to ban abortion nationwide after 15 weeks. In July, President Biden signed an executive order that protects access to contraception, but abortion rights activists are still concerned that contraception could be next should conservative leaders determine any loopholes. 

To find out if the politicians on your ballot are pro-choice, #VoteProChoice has a guide to pro-choice candidates up and down the ballot. Cosmopolitan also published a piece on the five midterms races that matter most for abortion access. If you plan to do your own research on specific candidates, know that most candidates on your ballot who are pro-choice are bold and unapologetic about their stance on abortion access. If they aren’t, they’re likely anti-choice or in the process of shifting their stance, like Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters recently did. Lawson advises voters not to be fooled by politicians who are trying to change their record. 

The Environment

The climate crisis is here, and it reportedly contributed to an additional 10 percent of rainfall during Hurricane Ian. Despite being a bipartisan issue that affects everyone, climate change has remained a contentious debate in Congress with dire effects for communities across the globe. 

There is hope, though: In August, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the most significant climate change legislation we’ve seen—an investment of $369 billion in climate solutions and environmental justice. As Earthjustice noted in its brief following the passage of the bill, “We knew there would be painful provisions in any bill that could get Sen. Joe Manchin’s support, and the bill contains some troubling giveaways to fossil fuel interests that will cause undue harm to communities in the Gulf and Alaska. As a whole, however, it represents a huge step forward in the fight to preserve a livable planet and is one we need to take while we have the chance.” No Republican Senator voted for the bill, despite some of them previously warning of climate danger.

To put it simply, ignoring the climate crisis is not an option. In order to pass bold legislation that would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it’s important to vote for politicians that don’t receive campaign money from corporate interests, like fossil fuel companies. Though campaign finance data isn’t typically revealed until after an election cycle, you can view this Public Citizen report that shows which members of Congress have a history of receiving money from oil and gas companies. Local governments also play a big role in combatting the climate crisis, so you should keep an eye on who’s running for city council in your district and whether or not they plan to take action. 

Gun Policy

If you live in America, it will come as no surprise that there have been over 300 mass shootings in 2022 alone, and 45,222 people died in 2020 from gun-related injuries. Nobody is “bulletproof” from gun violence, and women in particular have a lot at stake when it comes to fighting against gun violence. This year, Congress passed the first federal legislation on gun violence in over 25 years (it had 15 Republicans sign on to it) and hundreds of laws have been passed at the state and local levels, which signals that Democrats and Republicans can come together on the issue. 

“When you go back a decade ago when we started doing this work, about a quarter of all Democrats in Congress had an A rating from the NRA. Today, none do,” says Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “That's because of the work that we have done, creating relationships on both sides of the aisle and showing lawmakers that there's an alternative—they can vote their conscience, they can do the right thing, they can carry out the will of their constituents. We need every single lawmaker to be on the right side of this issue.”

Gun owners also play a critical role in the gun policy discussion. “Most gun owners are responsible and the polling shows [that] they agree with things such as background checks, red flag laws, disarming domestic abusers, and storing your guns responsibly,” explains Watts. “Many of our volunteers are gun owners or their partners are gun owners. There are 400 million guns in this country. This is simply about restoring the responsibilities that should go along with gun rights.”

You can visit GunSenseVoter.org to see where candidates on your ballot stand on the issue. Additionally, you can find a list of Moms Demand Action volunteers running for office that are endorsed by the organization for the 2022 midterm elections. 

LGBTQ+ Rights

In the past few years, there has been a staggering increase in attacks on trans rights and the passage of dangerous bills targeting LGBTQ+ youth—with no signs of them stopping. These bills are originating in conservative state legislatures and aim to prevent gender-affirming care, ban trans youth from participating in sports, prevent gender-affirming surgery, ban classroom discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity, and more. The 2022 midterm elections are an opportunity to fight back against these attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. 

As Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, told Marie Claire last year, “There's been a very well-funded, well-coordinated [anti-trans] movement. Lots of the funding comes from the far anti-LGBT right, but lots of the momentum comes from the emerging anti-trans 'feminist class' and the self-victimized public intellectuals who have made it their life's work to debate trans existence." 

Marriage equality is also on the ballot in 2022. The leaked Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision signaled that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, could be overturned next by the conservative Supreme Court majority. If this were to be the case, most states would immediately ban same-sex marriage. To prevent this from happening, the House passed the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act, but it won’t be voted on in the Senate until after the midterms, so it’s important to find out whether or not the Senate candidate on your ballot supports the bill. Bonus if they’re one of the record number of LGBTQ+ people running for Congress this year.

The Economy

As the country deals with inflation and a looming recession, the economy is top of mind for Americans in the 2022 midterm elections. However, when researching candidates, it’s important to remember that policy makers did not cause inflation. Inflation was caused by global and public health issues, like supply chain disruptions due to COVID-19, port shutdowns, a shift of spending from services to goods, and the war in Ukraine. Knowing this, Economic Policy Institute President Heidi Shierholz advises voters to elect candidates based on their willingness to boost living standards and eliminate inequalities, which directly impacts the economy. 

“[Elected] policy makers don't have the ability to really affect inflation. They do have the ability to pass policies that ameliorate the harms of high inflation for the people who are hardest hit,” she says. “So things like raising the minimum wage, the expansions of the child tax credit which were in the relief and recovery packages. Those are the kinds of things that policy makers can do for the people who are getting hit hardest by inflation until inflation comes down. And it is.”

Still not convinced? Esquire asked GOP Senate candidates how they'd reportedly "fix" inflation, and the responses lacked substantial, immediate solutions. Meanwhile, union organizing is at its highest point of approval since 1965. State and local governments, not just the federal government, have the ability to build worker power (the Economic Policy Institute has outlined some of the ways they can do so). That starts with electing leaders in the midterms who can enact these policies. 

Voting Rights and Democracy

Democracy is on the ballot this November. The “big lie” spearheaded by former President Trump, which falsely claims that there was voter and election fraud during the 2020 election and led to an insurrection, has dramatically increased election misinformation and disinformation, as well as voters’ distrust in democracy. Politicians who do not believe in election integrity (60 percent of voters will have an election denier on the ballot this fall) have used this disinformation as an excuse to pass voter suppression laws that disproportionately harm people of color. A democracy is only a democracy when everyone is able to vote in free and fair elections. 

“What we have seen over the last couple of years are state legislatures introducing and enacting laws that make it harder to vote, and in some instances, enacting laws that make it easier for partisan actors to interfere in election processes,” explains Eliza Sweren-Becker, counsel in the Voting Rights & Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “So, democracy is on the ballot with respect to state lawmakers and also with respect to Congress. Those are elected officials that have a say in how our elections and how our democracy works.”

It's important to note that voter suppression can occur in many different forms before, during, and after voting. Think: anything from strict voter ID laws (check to see what ID may be required for you on Election Day) to voter roll purges. To avoid any potential voting complications on Election Day, check your voter registration status today by visiting RocktheVote.org, clicking “Check Your Registration Status,” and filling out the form with your personal details. 

Additionally, book bans are part of the wider threat to democracy. Conservative politicians have made it their mission not only to control women’s bodies, but the ability to learn the truth about America’s racist past. The 2022 midterms are the first major elections held since these book bans have gone into effect in communities across the country. The candidates elected in the 2022 midterms (especially school board and city council members) will determine whether or not these bans continue. 

Public Health

Despite President Biden’s recent declaration that the pandemic is over, the pandemic is, in fact, not over. This statement will have a dramatic effect on federal COVID-19 spending that has provided free vaccines, at-home testing, and additional public health resources throughout the past two years. Plus, it will likely prevent the reimplementation of mask mandates that control the spread of the virus. This harms everyone, but especially immunocompromised people who are high-risk and cannot perform the same daily activities as people who aren’t immunocompromised. 

That said, public health is on the ballot. To keep yourself, your family, and those around you healthy, it's critical to elect leaders who understand how many people are dying from COVID on a daily basis and are suffering from the effects of long COVID. These candidates will follow the science to enact policies that allow people to remain as safe and healthy as possible. Ultimately, these politicians will make their stance on public health clear if they want the support of their constituents, including the disability community–many of whom feel “disposable” by the current administration and other elected officials. 

Immigration

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s inhumane treatment of people seeking asylum is an example of how state and local leaders, in addition to Congress, play a critical role in immigration policy—an issue voters care about deeply in the 2022 midterm elections. Republicans have reignited their messaging around immigration, which includes extremist language while discussing strict border enforcement policies, deportations, and plans for states to “build their own walls.” 

“We know that there's going to be a really clear difference between the candidates on the ballot when it comes to immigration,” says Bri Gillis, vice president of political strategy for the National Immigration Law Center Immigrant Justice Fund. “On one hand, you have extremist Republicans who are incredibly out of line with where the mainstream public and the electorate is on immigrants' rights. And on the other side, you have Democrats who are pursuing solutions for a more just, humane, and fair immigration system, which is really what the voters want to see.”

Some of these Democratic solutions include defending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), creating pathways to citizenship, unifying families, and affirming the right to seek asylum. Democrats’ full push on immigration will reportedly occur after the midterms, but it's important to see exactly where candidates stand on the issue in the meantime. 

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, a decision that has impacted access to essential health care and abortion for millions of women. Trigger bans have gone into effect across the country, forcing those who are pregnant to fear for their lives. In states like Oklahoma, abortion is now a crime of murder and women could go to jail for seeking necessary medical treatment like abortion. 

Such extreme laws will impact millions of women—and become even more dangerous with continued broad access to reproductive health data. While you may believe that your health information is safe, data from period tracking apps is actually not protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Additionally, according to a 2019 study published in The BMJ, 79 percent of sampled health apps available through the Google Play store regularly shared user data and were described as “far from transparent.” Despite many period tracking apps promising to protect user data, it remains unregulated and women have to put their trust—and even their lives—in the hands of corporations. 

Before the SCOTUS ruling, I sat down with Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-CA) to learn more about her My Body, My Data Act, which she introduced on June 16, 2022, and how it addresses data and safety concerns for women.

Emily Tisch Sussman: With My Body, My Data, how are you thinking about a post-Roe world?

Congresswoman Sara Jacobs: Look, I think the first and most important thing is that we in Congress do our job and codify the right to abortion into law so that we're not relying on the courts. However, in the world we live in right now, we probably don't have the votes for that in the Senate. There's a whole range of other things we need to and can be doing to protect people [who are in need of an abortion]. In places like Texas, there are severe anti-abortion laws that not only are about law enforcement being able to enforce them, but individual people. 

So, right now, the way it works is if you enter into a search history or a search engine a question about reproductive health or sexual health and you're using a period tracking app, a fertility tracking app, or anything like that, your data is not really protected. Companies can sell or share your data to really anybody and they can collect as much of it as they're able to through the app or the search engine. What this bill would do is state that [a company] can only collect and store the data that is strictly necessary for the service [it’s] providing. If you're running a period tracking app, you can only collect the very specific data that you need. And then, with a few exceptions, you cannot share or sell it. This will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This will be important so that, for instance, if in Texas, a private non-profit group decided they wanted to start buying up all this data from these apps and create a matrix of who should be pregnant but isn't and then go and get their bounty for turning them in, this would protect against something like that.

ETS: Just to be really clear about that, we're talking about groups—that would probably be anti-abortion groups—that would buy search history data? Then, a private citizen, like a regular person, could go seek out that woman who conducted these searches and check to see if they were pregnant or not? And then, if it was a state like Texas where a [private citizen] can turn someone in for getting an abortion, they could sue you, right? Or, they could turn you in for potentially getting an abortion, so even if you’ve had a miscarriage, they could still alert authorities that you’ve potentially had an abortion?

SJ: That's exactly right. And that's what this bill will protect against. It also protects those where law enforcement is trying to enforce these anti-abortion laws. Basically, the idea is if these companies aren't allowed to collect and store the data, then the data is not there for a search warrant or something of that nature. I think about it like a bathtub: This bill basically drains the water from the bathtub so if law enforcement came and found the bathtub, there'd be nothing in it.

ETS: You've been quite open about the fact that you've gone through IVF and are thinking about your own personal reproductive future. How has your own journey played into your thinking about what the overturning of Roe v. Wade could mean for assisted reproduction?

SJ: I very publicly froze my eggs at the end of last year. That was another thing I had to do a lot of education about with some of my colleagues. And honestly, even with my friends, everyone's either freezing their eggs, talking about freezing their eggs, having babies, or wondering when they're going to have babies. So, the fact that that was the number one topic of conversation among my friends and peer groups, but not something we ever heard about in Congress was one of the reasons I decided to do it so publicly. And, you know, again, it's why when the draft decision came out, I started getting a ton of text messages from my friends asking, “Should I delete this app?” 

We know that the folks on TikTok and other spaces are having those same concerns. It’s not just about period tracking. It's not just about abortion, but as you said, it's also about the full range of reproductive health and the options that are available. I actually started using a period tracking app because of my egg freezing and because I needed to track very closely when I was ovulating. What we need to be thinking about is, yes, we need to codify the right to abortion into law. That's priority number one. But, there are so many other things we can also be doing to make sure we're protecting people in the meantime, like this bill on reproductive health data, like making sure that we are continuing to provide people access to birth control, to assisted fertility, to the full range of reproductive health options. 

To this point, another thing that I'm working on is actually making sure our military members have access to that full range of reproductive health options, making sure that insurance covers assisted fertility in many different instances, and not just the really narrow ones that they do right now. This way we can give people the ability to make the decision for themselves about when, how, and if they want to become a parent or if they don't want to become a parent at all.

ETS: What piece of the overturning of Roe v. Wade do you feel the most concerned about?

SJ: I mean, it's really hard to pick, right? My youngest sibling is trans and my middle sibling is gender non-conforming. And so, you know, as we're talking about all of this, it's not just about women, right? There are so many people who are going to be affected by this. It's not just reproductive health care, it's all kinds of gender-affirming care. 

The way I'm thinking about it is like, yes, it matters to me, because reproductive health care is my health care and I'm going through this process myself and I use these apps. However, the things we need to make sure we're focused on the most are the protections we can put in place for those people who are going to be the most impacted, which are low-income communities, which are people of color that we know already have a hard time accessing the services even [where they are currently legal]. That's where, again, these privacy concerns with reproductive health data are really important because these people will also be the ones most impacted by the ability for these groups or others to collect their data and go after them.

ETS: How likely is it that the My Body, My Data bill becomes law and what can we all do to help?

SJ: I'm feeling really hopeful that we'll be able to pass it through the House. But, as we all know, the challenge is in the Senate. I think we are all very acutely aware of what it would take to get anything through the Senate, so we are working on it. We have Senate partners that we're working very closely with. One of the other ways I'm thinking about this bill is that it can actually be a model for states who want to put these protections in place. We don’t need to only do it at the federal level.

I think the most important thing anyone can do is talk about these issues, normalize talking about reproductive health, normalize talking about abortions, talking about periods. I've been so moved by my colleagues who have spoken openly about the abortions that they’ve had. I think those kinds of things are really important. We must continue to tell the story about why this matters. Why what apps you use matters, why data privacy matters, why access to reproductive and sexual health matters. All of those stories are incredibly important as we work to change the conversation around these issues and really destigmatize this topic. We don't need to pretend like women and other people don't get periods—it's okay to talk about these things. These are things that have led to a lot of us being ashamed of our own bodies for no reason. 

ETS: You alluded to the likelihood of it passing, which is hopefully soon. Is there anything the White House can do administratively, or does it have to come from Congress? And where do you see the politics falling on the issue? It's a very new issue, which is good, as new issues don't typically have party lines baked into them. Where are you seeing this bill line up?

SJ: In terms of the Biden administration, I know that they are currently looking at all of the options they have to protect people in a post-Roe World. We've got amazing people working there on the Council on Gender Equality, who are really trying to make sure that every lever they have is pulled. 

In terms of the partisanship, look, the fact of the matter is privacy is actually not a progressive issue, right? I think everyone can agree that you want your most personal, sensitive health data to be protected, that it can't just be shared or bought by anyone who wants access to it. It seems to be a pretty baseline thing and honestly something that a lot of conservatives should be able to get behind. 

ETS: What do you say to your friends who are asking you if they should delete their apps? 

SJ: A big piece of this is about your search history or search engines. It is about apps, yes, but it’s also about websites and making sure that these companies are only collecting the data they need to provide the service. This is the time for us, as government, to do our job and put protections in place so that Americans can use helpful services like these without worrying about their data safety. I do think that there's a real conversation we need to be having about what data protection looks like right now, in this world, where we don't have this bill enacted into law. There are real concerns around how your data can be used. I'm not going to tell anyone to use or not to use something. I will say, though, that some of our partners who we are working with on this bill, who are data privacy advocates, are concerned about the time between now and when we get this bill enacted into law. 

You can find more information about the My Body My Data Act on Congresswoman Jacobs's Instagram, @RepSaraJacobs. 

Meghan Markle has shown that she’s willing to put the full force of her famous name behind royal causes. In the last two months alone, she cold-called Senators to pressure them to make paid family leave a reality, she and Harry took a stand for vaccine equality on a trip to New York, and their non-profit Archewell just pledged to go net-zero carbon by 2030. One reason for the outspokenness? Her rumored intentions to run for office (possibly, according to one source, for a Senate seat in California). But if she does, she may have to ditch her royal title because of, fittingly, the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Speaking to Express UK, Harvard Professor Mark Tushnet pointed to Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, called the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which says that no person holding office shall accept a Title “of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without the express consent of Congress. And according to Tushnet, if Meghan Markle wants to run for political office, that’s probably not going to happen: “I don’t think it’s ever happened before. I think the chances of Congress allowing her to retain her titles would be very slim,” he told Express. 

He continued, “Politically it would be quite damaging, I think, for her to retain the titles. Opponents will seize on anything, and this will be a hook to say ‘well she’s not really a true American.’” 

The rule sort of makes sense from an historical perspective. After all, the U.S. as a country was largely founded on not being under the thumb of royalty. And though the ban on noble titles wasn’t introduced into the Constitution until 1810, its goal was to minimize the possibility of foreign countries and their leaders influencing U.S. politics. 

But even if Meghan did have to ditch the royal title, Tushnet told the publication he doubted that it would be much of a blow. “Having been a royal, the celebrity status would still attach, whether she has a formal title or not.”

It’s a tough choice! But either way, she’ll likely remain an outspoken advocate of the causes she cares about. 

It’s no secret that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have been outspoken on a variety of social issues: Paid family leave, environmental protection, and equitable vaccine access, to name just a few that have come up in the last month. And while it would make sense that highlighting these issues, which the Sussexes have said they take very personally, is just part of how they want to use their famous names for good, they may also be helping Meghan gear up for an even bigger role: Running for U.S. Congress.

According to Richard Johnson, a professor at Queen Mary University who spoke to Express UK, there’s even a particular congressional seat Meghan might be keeping in mind: The Senate seat that may soon be vacated by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who, at 88 years old, is rumored to be considering retirement, and will likely not seek reelection. “If she wanted to follow this track of high profile celebrities leapfrogging to the top office, that senate seat would be a very attractive one for her,” Johnson said of Markle. “There is some record of celebrity politicians doing pretty well in the U.S.,” he added, referencing both Ronald Reagan (a former actor turned California governor turned U.S. President) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (another actor-turned-California governor).

Plus, given Meghan’s existing funding and celebrity-level visibility, she would enter any political race having overcome two of the biggest hurdles most politicians face. Johnson continued:

“The thing [to] say is that it's extremely expensive to run for office in California. California is a state of nearly 40 million people. It's bigger than the whole population of Canada. On the other hand, she’s probably got a lot of resources behind her and people who could support her. So she actually wouldn’t be in that bad a position compared to other candidates. And also in California, one of the big challenges is the expense of getting your name out there, because of the various very expensive media markets. Well, she doesn’t have to worry about that because she’s so well known."

Though Johnson acknowledged that her lack of formal political experience would likely be a roadblock for some in the party who might worry Meghan hasn’t “paid her dues,” he added, “I do think just being who she is, she would start in a fairly good position just because of the name recognition and the kind of money she could get access to for a campaign.”

Plus, she has a clear grasp of issues that people really care about, and a long philanthropic history, giving her a great starting point for any political career to jump off from.

Let’s test it out: “Senator Duchess, you have the floor.” Yeah, it has a nice ring to it.

One of the main reasons Meghan Markle and Prince Harry moved to the U.S. was to stretch their advocacy across the pond and focus their energies on the issues that matter most to them. Paid parental leave has been a big issue for the Sussexes, since in the U.S. there is no national paid family leave policy—something that’s been blamed for the recent worker shortage, among other problems.

This week, Duchess Meghan penned an impassioned open letter to the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-MD), in which she called herself “an engaged citizen and a parent."

"I’m writing to you on behalf of millions of American families who are using their voices to say that comprehensive paid leave should not be a place to compromise or negotiate," she wrote. "In fact, most nations already have paid leave policies in place."

It’s not exactly a controversial stance to write a letter in favor of paid leave to the two politicians in charge of Congress. But some Republicans have since spoken out about Meghan’s advocacy, telling her to stay in her lane when it comes to political issues.

In a statement to the Daily Mail, Representative Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri, even suggested stripping her and Prince Harry of their royal titles. “'Ms. Markle's latest interference in U.S. politics reignites the question in my mind as to why the Royal Family does not simply strip her and Harry officially of their titles, particularly since she insists on sending this under the pretense of being the Duchess of Sussex,” he told the publication. A few other members of the party joined in, arguing that the royal family should not weigh in on politics in the future. But it's hard to figure out what it means for an issue to even be considered political in the current climate (more on this in a second).

This is not the first time Rep. Smith has called for the Sussexes to have their titles stripped because they said a thing he didn’t like. Last year, he argued they should be removed from royal duties for interfering in the U.S. election. The interference in question? Prince Harry told his social media followers to “reject hate speech” in the upcoming election. (Earlier this year, Smith was one of the 147 elected officials who voted to overturn a legally held election in order to hand the presidency back to Donald Trump.)

In a larger sense, it’s hard to really see why Meghan’s letter is political—defenders say that her purpose was to advocate for human rights, and that there's nothing inherently Democratic or Republican about paid family leave (or human rights more generally). It has been a traditionally bipartisan issue, and was even a major point for Ivanka Trump’s advocacy during her time as a White House advisor in her father's administration. But it’s interesting that some Republicans in Congress have a knee-jerk reaction to otherwise regular human rights issues, seeing them as somehow antithetical to their views.

Similarly, looking at the rejection of hate speech as somehow politically opposed to Republican ideology is...telling, no? Prince Harry’s message, like Meghan’s letter, did not support any politicians or political party by name. In fact, there was probably a time not so long ago when rejecting hate speech was something most Americans would agree is a good thing to do actually.

So by the logic presented by Rep. Smith, Republicans see hate speech as so central to their platform that rejecting hate speech is a rejection of Republicanism itself. I guess what I’m saying is, that’s a pretty big self-own and maybe politicians should just not weigh in on the royal family in the future?

Read Meghan’s full letter here.

Members of Congress and the Senate are continuing to negotiate the contents of President Biden’s Build Back Better Agenda in the form of a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. Amid conversations and negotiations, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm sat down with Marie Claire to discuss the importance of passing each bill.

As the head of the Department of Energy, Secretary Granholm is responsible for the massive role the department plays in the necessary clean energy solutions needed to combat climate change. “We’ve got 100,000 people who are researching next-generation solutions for our clean energy and climate problem,” she said.

In the spring, Secretary Granholm was tapped by President Biden to advance the American Jobs Plan, which is now known as the $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Now, as both bills continue to be negotiated, she and other members of the Cabinet are breaking down both the human and the hard infrastructure.

“When you say 'hard infrastructure,' we’re talking about roads and bridges, and broadband,” the Secretary noted in conversation with Tisch Sussman. “And then there is the human infrastructure. We want to make sure families have access to child care, that senior citizens can get health and dental through Medicare, that we can get people access to college. Both of them are necessary and important.”

Last weekend, Speaker Pelosi announced a new deadline for passing both bills, telling her caucus that October 31 will be the new target date. With new dates looming, there are whispers that the figures for the reconciliation bill will be drastically cut, putting essential programs like paid family leave, the child tax credit, and more at risk.

The Secretary remained hopeful during the interview, saying she thinks they are about 95 percent of the way there: "I think we are going to see this, if not by the end of this month, then, you know, by Thanksgiving."

Although October 31 is still a few weeks away, Democrats are still struggling to come to a consensus, potentially putting things like paid leave on the chopping block. “Having paid family leave is part of this human infrastructure,” said the Secretary. “They can take the time they need so that these little human beings have those important first months with a parent. “

Secretary Granholm is eager to pass Biden’s Build Back Better plan in its entirety, but she also understands politics. As former Governor of Michigan who worked with a less-than-friendly legislature, she knows what compromise is and laid it out honestly. “Do we give a haircut or do we amputate?” she said. In other words, do they trim each program down or do they slash programs?

It's clear that more than anything, she cares. “Who are we if we are not combating child poverty?” she asks. "It’s ridiculous that we’re the only advanced nation on the planet that doesn’t help families with child care.”

Right now is a critical moment in D.C., as the tough realities for millions meet policy. As a longtime leader and politician, Granholm knows that it’s the American people who will eventually get the final say. “You can hire them, you can fire them,” she said. “The most important thing that you can do is make your voice heard...Vote.”

After more than a year of headlines documenting the real-time exodus of moms from the workforce and an ongoing state of crisis in maternal health and mortality, the pandemic has forced a long overdue conversation about the systemic inequities of American motherhood.

A slate of federal policies could begin to mend the breach. On August 24, Congress approved the $3.5 trillion budget plan that will be utilized for the upcoming reconciliation bill. This will likely include staples of President Biden’s American Families Plan, such as an expansion of the child tax credit, paid family and medical leave, and early education funding. Other reforms in play include the Marshall Plan for Moms, which reflects the demands of a national movement to center mothers in the economic recovery, the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 to address alarming racial and ethnic disparities in maternal health outcomes, and the Support Through Loss Act to establish paid leave for workers who experience pregnancy loss or difficulties related to surrogacy, fertility, and adoption.

As we advance proposals to elevate and ensure the well-being of mothers, we must not neglect another silent impact on maternal and women’s health: Period poverty, a plight that has garnered global attention yet remains one of America’s hidden inequities.

The impact of menstrual inequity runs deep. A 2019 study found that among low-income women in St. Louis, nearly half (46 percent) had to choose between buying food and spending money on menstrual products. People experiencing housing insecurity report isolation and even illness and infection caused by using tampons and pads for longer than recommended. Sometimes they have to improvise with items like discarded paper bags or newspapers.

For teens, lack of support and product accessibility (especially for transgender teens who are already facing an unprecedented number of legislative attacks) can lead to compromised health and lost classroom time—even disciplinary intervention. The pandemic exacerbated the problem: Many people have been unable to access menstrual products from public facilities they once relied on. Another study found that one in 10 college students surveyed nationwide were unable to afford menstrual products in the last year, with nearly a quarter of Latina respondents and 20 percent of Black respondents reporting an ongoing lack of access.

Policy leaders have begun to respond. The 2021 state legislative session saw the passage of laws or extensions of fiscal budgets in California, Colorado, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington that ensure the provision of free tampons and pads in secondary schools and universities. And earlier this summer, Louisiana, Maine, and Vermont joined the roster of states that have eliminated the sales tax on period supplies—a.k.a. the “tampon tax”—bringing the total number states where people can buy tax-free menstrual products to 23.

Efforts to make menstrual products generally more affordable have been popular on a national level, too. For example, a tweak to the federal tax code in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, means that tampons, pads, cups, and period underwear can be purchased with pre-tax dollars via employee health savings and flexible spending accounts.

Yet the distinct needs of low-income mothers—who not only often have their own periods to manage, but also the periods of those in their care—are overlooked. Women-led households are primary participants in many of our nation’s most vital social safety net programs. They’re included among the 42 million recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. Soon-to-be or new moms and their children are also the exclusive recipients of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which offers supplemental food packages and other essential health resources to roughly eight million people.

Shockingly, neither of these programs allow for the purchase of menstrual products. To add insult to injury, the federal government lumps tampons and pads in the same “off limits” category as dog food, cigarettes, and liquor.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines maternal health as "the health of women during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period." For new mothers, the need for menstrual products is most acute immediately following childbirth. Pads to absorb postpartum flow, which can last as long as six weeks, are a necessity for new mothers’ physical and emotional well-being. And, of course, regular menstrual cycles resume once breast-feeding ceases and sooner if babies are fed formula.

Those who rely on food stamps also face significant pressures when it comes to menstrual access and affordability. Cost-effective grocery shopping entails balancing a tight budget with nutritional needs; menstruation implicates this equation, often causing people to choose between having enough menstrual products or enough food on the table. For SNAP recipients with more than one person in the home who menstruates—moms with teens, grandmothers heading multigenerational households—the financial burden increases.

Given the critical impact that reforming SNAP and WIC would have on the mothers who need it most, now is the time to call out these unjust exclusions and set a precedent at the federal level. As Congress drafts the reconciliation bill, members should factor in menstrual access if at all possible; and as they debate other legislative proposals impacting moms, they should prioritize menstrual access from the outset.

Last month, the Biden administration called for an unprecedented expansion of SNAP. Monthly benefits will rise on average by $36–the largest increase in the program’s history–and go into effect in October. While that is an excellent start, making menstrual products eligible for purchase with food stamps, as well as via WIC, would be a simple and humane addition. Plus, because all purchases made with federal benefits are already exempt by law from state sales tax, this change would effectively eliminate the “tampon tax” for people who have low incomes, no matter where they reside—an exponential win.

Periods don’t stop for pandemics—and neither have our nation’s moms. As the president and members of Congress pledge to ameliorate the burdens carried by struggling mothers, we cannot afford to let them leave the costs of menstruation out of the debate.

They are coming after our right to make our own decisions about our lives, families, and futures—and they are getting away with it.

The anti-choice movement, whose agenda is to end access to abortion care and make reproductive healthcare (including, even, contraception and IVF) more difficult to access, has been carrying out a focused and deliberate strategy to slowly but surely chip away at our rights via state legislatures and in the courts.

This year, they are aiming for their long-sought prize: an overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion.

This year is already the worst year for attacks on access to abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. State legislators hostile to abortion have introduced, advanced, or passed more than 315 bills undermining access to abortion since 2021 began—and they are showing no signs of slowing down. In 2021, more than 90 restrictions on abortion access have been enacted at the state level.

And now, as the Supreme Court is preparing to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—a case about Mississippi’s unconstitutional law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks—228 U.S. senators and representatives submitted a brief to the Court saying the quiet part loud: arguing that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two major abortion rights cases, should be “reconsidered and, where necessary, wholly or partially overruled.”

This comes just a week after the state of Mississippi filed its opening brief making the same ask, explicitly suggesting that the Court should overturn Roe.

This moment is the culmination of decades of work by those hostile to our fundamental freedoms. The anti-choice movement has spun a sinister web of laws that compound each other, increasing the costs of care until it is out of reach, closing down clinics that may never again open, and stigmatizing both those who access care and the doctors who provide it. Bans like the one in Mississippi will likely make it impossible for people who need to end a pregnancy to do so. Already the state has just one abortion clinic and multiple roadblocks that can delay a person’s ability to actually access care. These barriers to care impact most severely those already facing the highest obstacles to access, including Black, Indigenous, and other people of color; LGBTQ people; and those with low incomes.

Across the country, we’re witnessing a true avalanche of restrictions, seemingly hitting its crescendo now as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could end the constitutional right to abortion in the United States.

Though we don’t know exactly what the Court will do, we do know that there is no path for it to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban without gutting or completely undoing Roe. Earlier court cases have considered laws designed to shut down abortion clinics or otherwise push access further out of reach; this one is explicitly about the legality of abortion. Previous state-issued bans have been tossed out by the courts because they were so patently a violation of Roe v. Wade; that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is extremely troubling. Thanks to the handiwork of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Senate Republicans, there is an anti-choice supermajority of justices on the Court hostile to reproductive freedom and abortion access.

Should Roe fall, there would be devastating consequences for women and pregnant people across the country. At least 24 states would likely take action to ban abortion outright. Twelve states—including Mississippi—already have “trigger bans” in place, which would ban abortion automatically if Roe is overturned.

The reality is that the right to abortion in this country is hanging on by a thread—and these anti-choice lawmakers want to do away with it entirely. But the American people don’t. Polling shows that 77 percent of Americans support Roe v. Wade and there is no state in the country where banning abortion is popular. The efforts of these lawmakers fly in the face of the values of the vast majority of Americans—the very same people they were elected to represent.

So it’s time for all of us to get to work to secure our fundamental rights. We must call on our leaders in Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, a critical bill that would safeguard the federal right to abortion care, free from bans and medically unnecessary restrictions. And they can’t delay: if abortion clinics are forced to shutter in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling, people who need abortion care will have few, if any, places to turn.

Elected officials have a clear mandate from voters to protect the legal right to abortion—and we won’t let them forget it. By signing onto this brief, these anti-choice lawmakers are blatantly seeking to subvert the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans who support reproductive freedom. But we’re already mobilizing our 2.5 million members to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box, canvassing for pro-choice candidates and protesting anti-choice ones. We won’t stand by idly as extremists work overtime to strip us of our reproductive freedom.

We’re fighting for a world where each of us has the freedom to dream our best lives and live them. We want a world where all of our families and communities have everything they need to thrive. We cannot and will not sit by as these anti-choice politicians double down on interfering in our personal decisions and cave to extremist pressure to turn back the work of generations.

In the week since President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, all eyes have been on the Democratic nominee for president, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Everything from her record as California's attorney general, to information about her father, Donald Harris, to even learning more about her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, potential voters are looking to learn more about Harris, who could very well become the first woman, Black woman, and South Asian woman to become president of the United States.

That includes voters wanting to learn more about Vice President Kamala Harris' net worth. Back in 2019, when she ended her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris said she had to back out of the crowded Democratic primary race "simply doesn't have the financial resources we need to continue."

"I'm not a billionaire. I can't fund my own campaign," she explained at the time. "And as the campaign has gone on, it's become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete."

At the time, according to Fortune, Harris was worth an estimated $6.3 million. Since then, her net worth has increased.

Currently, Harris' net worth stands at an estimated $8 million, according to Forbes. As vice president, Harris earns $218,000 per year. The reason for her net worth's increase, according to Forbes, is largely thanks to a multimillion-dollar home Harris shares with her husband, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff.

According to the same Forbes report, the home increased in value, from $1 million in 2021 to $4.4 million in 2024. Harris has also more than $500,000 from various book advances she received before entering the White House.

It goes without saying, but the nation's first female VP, first Black VP, and first VP of South Asian descent has worked hard for her money—so here's a breakdown of where Harris's significant wealth comes from.

How much money has Kamala Harris earned from her political career?

Kamala was elected as district attorney of San Francisco in 2003. According to Forbes, she made more than $140,000 that year, with her wages steadily increasing throughout her six years in the position, peaking at $202,000 in 2010. The job made her eligible for a pension worth at least $250,000 today, per Women's Health.

When Harris became California's attorney general in 2010, according to her tax returns previously obtained by The New York Times, she took a significant drop in pay from her previous job, earning just under $160,000 a year. Seven years later, when she took office as a U.S. Senator representing California, her pay increased by a slight amount, up to the $174,000 annual salary that's been paid to every Senator since their last pay raise in 2009.

When Harris was sworn in as vice president in January 2021, she started to receive a federally mandated salary of $235,100—quite the pay bump from her past political gigs. In addition, Harris is allowed to write off up to $100,000 for VP-related expenses, along with being housed for free at Number One Observatory Circle, the official vice presidential residence.

How much money has Kamala Harris earned from her books?

As a three-time author, Harris has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in book advances.

Harris published Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer in 2009 and a children's picture book called Superheroes Are Everywhere in 2019. That same year, she released her memoir, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey. According to her 2018 tax returns, she earned $320,125 from writing and publishing her memoir.

In 2019, Harris reported earning $277,763 from various book advances. Since then, her three books garnished more than $359,000 in 2020 and $456,000 in 2021 in royalties.

Harris has not written or released a new book since taking office, however, so her book-related revenue stream decreased to $80,000 in 2022 and $8,488 in 2023, according to her latest filing and as reported by Forbes.

If Harris does become the first woman president of the United States, more books are likely to come.

What are Kamala Harris and Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff's joint assets?

Harris married lawyer Douglas Emhoff in 2014. During their time together and before Harris became vice president of the United States, the couple were estimated to have earned a combined $8.2 million in total, with annual earnings remaining steady around the $2 million mark throughout their six years of joint filings.

Most of their income came from Emhoff’s work at law firms Venable and DLA Piper, according to Forbes. In 2018 alone, according to the tax return Harris released for that fiscal year, she and Emhoff reported a total of $1.9 million in adjusted gross income; they paid a tax rate of about 37% on their earnings that year, which was, interestingly, the highest tax rate paid by any of the 2020 Democratic candidates that year, per The New York Times.

But when Harris resumed the vice presidency in 2021, her husband announced he would leave his law firm (and his substantial salary) behind.

Instead, he became a member of Georgetown University's law school faculty, earning $200,000 a year. The move "significantly dropped" the couple's income, ABC News reports, from more than $3 million in 2019 to around $450,000 in 2023.

When I'm having a bad day, something about watching U.S. Representative Katie Porter skewer someone is uniquely satisfying. And boy, did she deliver today. The assassination took place during a congressional hearing: U.S. lawmakers were grilling AbbVie, a pharmaceutical company, about repeatedly raising U.S. prices of the anti-inflammatory drug called Humira, the best-selling prescription drug in the U.S.—you've probably seen the commercials—while slashing the price in other countries. AbbVie has argued that the price increases were necessary to innovate. Many of the lawmakers were not buying it, especially Porter.

After whipping out her trusty and dangerous whiteboard that so many white men have come to fear (AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez was off camera at this moment, but you can imagine him quivering in fear), Porter asked Gonzalez how much AbbVie spends on stock buybacks and dividends. He said he'd have to get back to her. So Porter brought out the big guns, a.k.a. a big sticky note that showed AbbVie spent 50 billion dollars from 2013 to 2018 on stock buybacks and dividends to enrich shareholders— and a much smaller amount on research and development, or R&D, the department that works to improve drugs.

Porter started trending on Twitter after she posted the clip of her questioning.

“The Big Pharma fairytale is one of groundbreaking R&D that justifies astronomical prices, but the pharma reality is that you spent most of your company’s money making money for yourself and your shareholders,” she says after the inquisition. “You’re feeding us lies that we must pay astronomical prices to get innovative products."

I almost felt bad watching. Almost.

As leaders of national organizations that mobilize women, workers, and their families and as mothers ourselves, we know that American families stand at a tipping point. Our country cannot recover, and we cannot move forward, without paid leave for all.

When schools shut down, we watched our kids struggle to make progress at home and in virtual classrooms. We tried to help them learn, then worked late into the night after putting them to bed. We worried about our grandparents and older relatives in nursing homes, making impossible decisions to try to keep them safe. We talked to our coworkers, repeating to each other: “This isn’t sustainable.” And we thought about the women doing and risking so much more: the ones without the luxury of working from home; the ones leaving their families or putting their lives on the line to care for our family members; the heroes who have carried us through this pandemic.

Well, on behalf of the tens of millions of workers and voters our organizations (Paid Leave for All and Supermajority) represent, we say that this needs to end. Paid leave isn’t only a “women’s issue” or something that would be “nice to have”—it’s an economic imperative in our plan to build back better.

Long before the pandemic hit, women disproportionately shouldered the burdens of caregiving. They watched after our elderly relatives, taught our kids, and worked in our hospitals. They did more with less, again and again. And now, the only reason our country has remained intact through this crisis has been thanks to the work of women, people of color, and essential workers—and at the intersection of all three, the women of color on the front lines. These women held us all together, while also organizing, volunteering, and voting. They literally saved our lives and our economy.

And yet, what have they gotten in return?

Embarrassingly, the U.S. is one of only two countries with no form of national paid leave. We invest less in childcare than almost all other developed countries. Of the 195 countries in the world, 179 countries have paid sick leave, but not us. And eight in 10 working people in America don’t have paid family leave through their work.

We’ve both been lucky—we’ve been able to get some kind of paid leave when we had our babies. But this only gave us a greater appreciation and empathy for women forced to return to work just a few days after giving birth. For women healing from major surgeries, postpartum depression, and complications, the system offers no protection. Many go back to work still in stitches, still bleeding. And years later, when their parents get older, these same women often use every sick day they’ve saved up just to help with their care.

Now, in a pandemic, think about what that means. Many of the workers you have seen every day—treating you in a hospital, delivering your groceries, or filling your prescriptions—did not and still do not have the guarantee of a single day of paid leave if they become ill or need to care for a newborn baby, a child, or a family member.

That’s meant that women are no longer just doing double shifts; many are doing triple shifts, juggling paid work, unpaid care work, supervising remote school, and taking on additional responsibilities. Sixty-six percent of women have reported being primarily responsible for helping children with remote learning during the workday.

Our profound failure to support them has forced women out of the workforce in droves. And when 5.3 million women’s jobs disappeared over the last year, that didn’t just hurt women—it impacted men, families, entire communities, and the economy. Families collectively lose $22.5 billion each year because of a lack of paid leave, and that was before the pandemic.

This unprecedented crisis has created the urgency we need and a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Congress to finally pass comprehensive paid leave for all legislation, like that introduced Wednesday by President Biden as part of the "American Families Plan."

Voters agree. Last year, Paid Leave for All surveyed voters in 11 states with competitive senatorial elections and in 42 congressional districts likely to be tight races and found that 85 percent and 86 percent, respectively, supported paid leave. Two-thirds of small business owners also want a national paid leave plan. Research done recently with TIME’S UP and Caring Across Generations showed that more than 90 percent of voters support paid sick, family, and medical leave in a comprehensive plan to help families.

Paid leave and caregiving policies are also good for the economy. They have the potential to help the economy grow at least 5 percent by bringing women’s labor force participation rates up to levels seen in other countries. McKinsey researchers recently found that taking action before the end of the pandemic to enact policies that advance gender equality could add $2.4 trillion to our GDP.

We cannot pass on this opportunity to protect our workforce and fortify our economy.

Because, no, paid leave is not a “women’s issue.”

Paid leave is an economic issue. Paid leave is a jobs and infrastructure issue. Paid leave is a racial justice issue. Paid leave is a small business issue and a military families issue. Paid leave is a rural issue and an urban issue. Paid leave is, at its core, an issue that affects everyone, everywhere. We can and must pass paid leave for all.

Amanda Brown Lierman is the executive director at Supermajority, an organization aimed at training and organizing women across age, race, and background to push for women’s equity. Before her time with Supermajority, Brown Lierman was the Democratic National Committee’s political and organizing director and is a former national political director for Rock the Vote.

Dawn Huckelbridge is the director of Paid Leave for All, a campaign of 25 organizations to win paid family and medical leave for all working people. She has held leadership positions at Supermajority, American Bridge, Planned Parenthood, People For the American Way, and the Barbara Lee Family Foundation.

On Wednesday, January 20, Kamala Harris will not only become the first female vice president, but she'll also become the first Black woman and first Asian-American woman to hold the position. Harris has made her position on the gun control debate clear: During her presidential campaign last year, Harris declared that she would sign an executive order "mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year," per the New York Times, if Congress didn't take action within the first 100 days. She also stated that she would close the boyfriend loophole and ban assault weapons, and fugitives would not be allowed to purchase any handgun or weapon.

Since making those statements, she has remained consistent on her stance, and emphasized that it's possible for citizens to keep their Second Amendment rights while also passing effective gun control legislation that could save millions of lives. (For the record, she's a gun owner.) In August 2019, four months after the executive order statement, Harris once again laid out her gun control proposal as president:

"As president, I will take executive action to:

→Revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers & dealers that break the law

→Require anyone who sells more than 5 guns/yr to run a background check on all gun sales

→Ban the importation of AR-15-style assault weapons"

Of course, there's a chance these proposals could shift now that Biden is the president-elect, but Biden has also maintained a strong stance on gun control. He has a close relationship with Fred Guttenberg, father of Jaime Guttenberg—one of the 17 victims of the Parkland shooting on February 14, 2018—and has a history of battling the National Rifle Association (NRA). In 1993, Biden helped pass the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which enacted the federal background check system. The following year, Biden and Senator Dianne Feinstein also passed a 10-year ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Together, the NRA knows that Biden and Harris have a powerful stance on gun control. The gun rights advocacy group, which is currently being sued by New York Attorney General Letitia James, attacked Harris and Biden on Twitter immediately following Biden's VP announcement and claimed that "Harris's presidential campaign died soon after announcing extreme gun control agendas."

The NRA's tweet is false, but quite telling of where Harris stands on gun control. Two hours after Harris was officially selected as Biden's running mate, Everytown for Gun Safety sent out an email to subscribers stating that "we have the chance to elect the strongest president and vice president for gun safety in American history."

You can read the Biden administration's full plan for gun control measures here. It includes: banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; requiring background checks for all gun sales; ending the online sale of firearms and ammunitions; and closing various loopholes that allow people to buy guns.

In honor of the inauguration, Marie Claire's op-ed series Moving Forward asks influential and politically active women to examine the work that needs to—and can be—done by the incoming administration to reconcile an increasingly divided country.

The deadly COVID-19 pandemic has ensured that 2020 will be remembered in history books as a devastating year for our country and the world. Tragically, a second pandemic of lies, hatred, and inequality, has caused 2021 to get off to an even worse start. The seditious attack by a violent mob on January 6, intent on preventing the peaceful transfer of power, was a calculated strike against our most cherished democratic values. Those who encouraged and empowered that mob apparently believe that some votes count more than others. I believe that idea is not just in conflict with, but wholly antithetical to, everything that has made this country a beacon of hope. We must take this moment to positively affirm, in every corner of this nation, the central tenet and highest ideal of our nation's founding: equality.

Numerous studies have shown that women suffered more than men as the pandemic exploded across the United States. They faced more lost jobs, cuts in wages, double duty as schools went virtual, and higher prices on essential items. And Black women, Latinas, single moms, older women in congregate care, and women with disabilities were hit the hardest across all economic and health indicators.

The pandemic put a spotlight on the underlying problems we’ve yet to resolve, including systemic racism, healthcare that is both too expensive and inaccessible, a broken public health infrastructure, and rampant gender discrimination.

With everything we are facing, we must go beyond band-aid solutions and temporary fixes. Women and all marginalized genders need equality under the law. This can only be secured by adding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to our Constitution.

We have faced far too many injustices and setbacks without it.

As President of the ERA Coalition Carol Jenkins previously put it, women were "deliberately left out of consideration" when the Constitution was written and "have been paying the price in rights, protections, and recourse ever since." Women deserve the respect and legal guarantees that come with securing gender equality in our nation’s founding legal document.

The manifestation of women’s equality in the Constitution means that we can finally achieve justice for women in the workplace, in the courts, and beyond. We have long fought for equal pay for equal work—dating back to before the Equal Pay Act of 1963. But we cannot enforce permanent pay equity without women having equal rights built into the Constitution.

There is nothing more basic and essential to human dignity than protection from domestic violence and sexual assault. But our nation still lags in providing fundamental safeguards for women and girls, as demonstrated in the recent increase in intimate partner violence—a troubling “pandemic within a pandemic.” In fact, without the ERA, important parts of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) were struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In 1994, Congress included the right to sue one’s attacker in the Violence Against Women Act. But, when a woman named Christy Brzonkala tried to exercise that right, the Supreme Court dismissed her case and deemed the provision unconstitutional.

The benefits of the ERA also reach beyond women. Contrary to popular belief, the ERA will also help men; benefits that currently apply mainly to women would be extended to everyone, not taken away. In the workplace that would mean paid parental leave for all and the extension of some veteran benefits to men. And it would mean we can combat gender-based pricing—the “pink” and “blue” taxes—on goods and services, insurance rates, retirement plans, and more.

Ratifying the ERA will empower legislators, like me, on the federal, state, and local levels, to enact laws that protect our basic freedoms and rights.

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris said early on in her presidential campaign that the ERA would be her first order of business, using it as a key tool to pursuing economic justice: “When you lift up the economic status of women, you lift up the economic status of children and of families and of neighborhoods and of communities, and all of society benefits.”

Thankfully, most of the work on the ERA front has already been done. In addition to Vice President-elect Harris’s support, President-elect Biden also put the ERA front and center in his Agenda for Women. With this team in the White House, I’m hopeful that we can finally complete the work our foremothers began a century ago.

I have been a lead champion of the ERA in every Congress since I took my first Oath of Office in 1993, working to build momentum and support for this critical constitutional change. Now, thanks to the work of advocates across the country and activism like the women’s marches around the globe, which show the strength of the feminist movement, we finally have reached the 38 state threshold to make the ERA the 28th Amendment. The ERA was ratified by Nevada in 2017, followed by Illinois in 2018, and in January 2020—led by incredible Black women legislators in both the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate —Virginia became the 38th and final state needed to ratify.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration blocked the final step in the process and the ERA stays stalled.

Now, as we welcome the new Biden-Harris Administration, I hope we can finally turn a page as a nation and begin again our work to make this a more equitable union—a country that serves all its people and ensures equality, respect, and justice for all. As we work to tackle the problems laid bare by this unprecedented pandemic, President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris can act swiftly to give Congress the tool we need, the Equal Rights Amendment, to protect women and all marginalized genders. By acting immediately to retract a Trump administration legal memo that is blocking the National Archivist from completing the amendment process, they will allow the Archivist to certify the final state ratifications and officially reprint the Constitution with the ERA as the 28th Amendment.

By cementing gender equality in the Constitution—our nation’s foundational legal document—the ERA will send a clear message that our new president and this country are committed to equality for all. We can make good on a promise 100 years in the making and use it to build the equitable future we all deserve.

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney represents New York’s 12th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. She was the first woman to represent her Councilmanic District; the first woman to represent her Congressional District; and the first woman to Chair the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

• Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned out the hypocrisy of the Blue Lives Matter movement in an Instagram Live video Tuesday, after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol last week.
• "I don’t want to hear or see the Republican Party talk about blue lives ever again," Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said. "This was never about safety for them. It was always a slogan, because if they actually cared about rule of law they would speak up when people break the law."
• "They don’t give a damn about the law. They don’t give a damn about order. They don’t give a damn about safety. They give a damn about white supremacy," she continued.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke candidly about the pro-Trump mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol last week, in an hour-long Instagram Live video watched by almost 100,000 people on Tuesday. The following evening, she shared two short clips from the livestream to her Instagram feed, in which she condemned the hypocrisy of the Blue Lives Matter movement in the wake of the Capitol attack. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after he was overpowered by rioters and hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, while four participants in the attack on the Capitol also died.

"I don’t want to hear or see the Republican Party talk about blue lives ever again," Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said in the first clip. "This was never about safety for them. It was always a slogan, because if they actually cared about rule of law they would speak up when people break the law."

"They don’t give a damn about the law. They don’t give a damn about order. They don’t give a damn about safety. They give a damn about white supremacy," she continued. "They care about preserving the social order and the mythology of whiteness more than the grandeur of our democracy. That’s what they care about. They lust for power more than they care about democracy."

In a second clip, Ocasio-Cortez added, "Maybe we should just start voting on things based on whether we think it’s right or not, and stop pretending that this shit’s complicated. Cause it’s not. You’re either with the people or you’re with that mob. It’s pretty clear cut."

A few minutes into her full livestream on Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez said she feared for her life as the pro-Trump rioters rampaged through the Capitol. "I had a pretty traumatizing event happen to me and I don’t even know if I can disclose the full details of that event due to security concerns, but I can tell you I had a very close encounter where I thought I was going to die," she said.

"You have all of those thoughts where, at the end of your life, these thoughts come rushing to you," she continued. "That’s what happened to a lot of us on Wednesday. I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive. And not just in a general sense, but in a very specific sense."

Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she did not take refuge in the protected "extraction point" where lawmakers were instructed to shelter, as the Washington Post reports, fearing that other members of Congress would share her location with the mob. "There were QAnon and white-supremacist sympathizers and, frankly, white-supremacist members of Congress in that extraction point who I know and who I have felt would disclose my location and would create opportunities to allow me to be hurt, kidnapped, et cetera," she said. "So I didn’t even feel safe around other members of Congress."

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley wrote on Twitter Tuesday that she shared Ocasio-Cortez's concerns about the delegated safe room, and noted that some Republican lawmakers did not wear masks while sheltering. Democratic lawmakers Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Rep. Brad Schneider have since tested positive for COVID-19, the Associated Press reports.

"The second I realized our "safe room" from the violent white supremacist mob included treasonous, white supremacist, anti masker Members of Congress who incited the mob in the first place, I exited," Rep. Pressley tweeted. "Furious that more of my colleagues by the day are testing positive."

Rep. Pressley's office, too, proved unsafe, according to her chief of staff Sarah Groh. Groh told the Boston Globe that after she and Pressley barricaded themselves in the office, alongside Pressley's husband and other staffers, they realized the security system had been sabotaged. "Every panic button in my office had been torn out—the whole unit," Groh said. 

It was a bright, cold day in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011. I needed a pair of gloves, which you don’t usually need in Tucson. Other than that, I don’t remember much about the day I was shot at point blank range. Eighteen members of my community who were there with me were killed or injured. Like too many other places in America, the shooting changed our community, and the trajectory of my life.

When I think about that tragic event 10 years ago today, I try not to dwell or focus on the suffering and hardship the victims and survivors endured. Instead, I remember what was so special about the people with me, and what they accomplished and dreamed of. I think of Judge John Roll. We differed politically from one another, but he was always a generous and dedicated public servant. I think about Christina-Taylor Green, who was only nine years old when she was killed. She’d come to visit me because she was interested in running for office. I think about the survivors, how we’ve all had to persevere—even when it was unimaginably hard.

I think about the first steps I took after being told I might never walk again, the first word I spoke after learning of the damage the bullet had done to my brain. I’d rather focus on the heroism of the individuals who acted quickly outside the Safeway supermarket that day to save even more lives, and the many inspirational, courageous men and women—many of them young people—whom I’ve met in the decade since.

After the Senate’s failure to act in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, I decided to make fighting gun violence one of my life’s missions. I draw incredible energy from the next generation of activists I’ve met in this fight. It’s not easy to stand up when others tell you to be quiet—especially when you are wrestling with the pain and trauma that gun violence leaves in its wake.

But I kept my persistence, determination, and clarity of purpose by following the examples of heroes that came before me like the late Rep. John Lewis and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now, I find strength in new voices like Emma Gonzalez, Malala Yousafzai, and Greta Thunberg who have never let people who are older and more powerful tell them that their voices have no value. Sometimes I see myself in their indomitable will to make a difference.

My personal mantra is "move ahead." This doesn’t mean glossing over your own grief or turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. It means using this grief and suffering to build a deeper, more meaningful life. One of the reasons that I’ve connected so deeply with Joe Biden is that he is no stranger to turning tragedy into purpose. After losing his wife and infant daughter years ago, and then losing his son Beau more recently, Joe has found a way to keep going. He channels his deep empathy and compassion into public service. I know he’s going to continue to do the same as our president.

Together, he and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris have an enormous task at hand: healing a country devastated by a pandemic and bitterly divided by an outgoing president. I know they’re more than up to the task, and I have faith that this administration will be the most reflective of the American people—in terms of identity, experience, and mirroring our needs, hopes, and dreams—of any administration in American history.

But there’s no vaccine to prevent gun violence.

This new administration needs to treat gun violence with the urgency it deserves, and I have every reason to believe that it will. I will turn this hope into a call to action every opportunity I get. It’s why my organization, Giffords, created a blueprint on how our new administration can better stop the spread of gun violence. This includes the establishment of an interagency task force led by top White House officials, so our government finally takes a coordinated, comprehensive approach to the crisis by creating an office of violence intervention and investing in proven community-based solutions to gun violence. Community-based violence prevention programs, which have been proven to drastically reduce homicides in our nation’s underserved communities, don’t require the passage of new laws at all—just funding.

Still, we can’t let Congress off the hook. There are research-based solutions that we know save lives and enjoy broad public support, but will only move forward if legislators have the courage to act. Ten years ago, I made a promise to do just that.

My life has never gone back to the way it was before I was shot, and I don’t think our country will go back to the way things were before COVID-19, either. That’s okay, as long as we keep moving forward by finding new strengths and focusing on new dreams and goals. What we’ve endured together can help us move onward towards a brighter future.

• Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib have all been reelected to Congress.
• That means all four members of the Democratic Party's progressive "Squad" will maintain their seats.
• "Our sisterhood is resilient," Omar wrote, sharing the news on Twitter.

All four members of the Democrat's progressive "Squad" have won reelection to Congress, the Guardian reports. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan have all secured second terms in the House.

The Squad, hugely popular among progressive Democrats, have championed causes including Medicare for All, drastic action against climate change, and racial justice. They've also withstood repeated racist and misogynistic attacks from Donald Trump—perhaps most notably in July 2019 when he falsely suggested they weren't American citizens in a series of racist tweets and public comments, saying they should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." In a subsequent press conference, Ocasio-Cortez said, "What I want to tell children across this country is that no matter what the President says, this country belongs to you," while Pressley said, "Our squad includes any person committed to building a more equitable and just world, and that is the work that we want to get back to."

Omar celebrated the Squad's victory on Twitter, writing, "Our sisterhood is resilient." In a previous tweet, she wrote, "We are building a movement that sees my struggle as inherently tied to your struggle, and sees a world where all workers can be uplifted. Together," adding, "Today’s vote—the results of this election—are not the end. This is just the beginning.

"Serving NY-14 and fighting for working class families in Congress has been the greatest honor, privilege, & responsibility of my life," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. "Thank you to the Bronx & Queens for re-electing me to the House despite the millions spent against us, & trusting me to represent you once more." She later commented on Joe Biden's poor performance among Latinx voters in Florida, writing, "I won’t comment much on tonight’s results as they are evolving and ongoing, but I will say we’ve been sounding the alarm about Dem vulnerabilities w/ Latinos for a long, long time. There is a strategy and a path, but the necessary effort simply hasn’t been put in."

Pressley tweeted, "Together, we have fought for our shared humanity. We have organized. We have mobilized. We have legislated our values." She continued, "I am so proud to be your Congresswoman & your partner in the work. I believe in the power of us. And we’re just getting started."

Tlaib tweeted, "#Detroit: I love you so much." She went on to retweet a video of ballot counters cheering to motivate each other as they counted absentee ballots, commenting, "#Detroit: You inspire me. You are showing up for our country. I love you so much."

In 1787 the Founding Fathers met at the Constitutional Convention, and the electoral college was born. The now-kinda-outdated-but-we're-in-too-deep voting practice selects the election winner not through the popular vote but by the electoral vote. Which means the candidate who was the most popular in that state gets all the electoral votes for that state (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska).

Each state has a different number of electors: California has 55, but North Carolina has 15. When you add all up the states and their electors, the total equals 538 electors in all—but how many of their votes do you need for the election?

The answer: It takes 270 or more electoral votes to win a presidential election.

Back in 2016, Donald Trump won with 304 electoral votes, despite the fact Hillary Clinton famously won the popular vote. It was the fifth time in American history that the presidential election winner lost the popular vote.

It's important to note, however, that while a projected winner is usually announced on election night in November after you vote, the actual Electoral College vote takes place in mid-December when the electors meet in their states. So while you may hear one thing in November, the official announcement of who won the election won't come until later.

Now, if so many people think the practice is outdated, why haven't they got rid of it yet? Since the practice is listed in the U.S. Constitution, it would take a constitutional amendment to change the process, meaning it has to be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

While in today's political environment, that seems highly unlikely, there's one time in the past when it got close. In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by 338 to 70 to send a constitutional amendment to the Senate that would have dismantled the Electoral College—but just a year later, it was shot down by the Senate.

Even same-party members have different views on abolishing the Electoral College. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden doesn't support eliminating the Electoral College, but his Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris thinks differently.

Harris told Jimmy Kimmel, "I'm open to the discussion. I mean, there's no question that the popular vote has been diminished in terms of making the final decision about who's the president of the United States and we need to deal with that."

Regardless of the Electoral College, every vote counts. If you're not registered to vote, sign up here.

For the past three-and-a-half years, the Trump administration has attempted to make life impossible for immigrants living in the United States, while simultaneously making it harder for people to seek refuge here. It has implemented truly extreme anti-immigrant policies including the Muslim Ban, the detention of children in cages, an increase in funding for immigration enforcement and ICE raids, the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs, and an enforcement of the Public Charge Rule.

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump’s racist decision to end DACA. After massive backlash, the White House was also forced to halt its efforts to deport foreigners with student visas if their university was offering only online classes. Despite Trump's attacks on DACA since the Supreme Court ruling, immigrant youth are here to stay.

But the fight continues. Immigrants and people of color are not only under attack by this administration, but we’re also among the hardest hit by COVID-19. A report by The New York Times found that Latinx and Black people are three times as likely to become infected with COVID-19, and nearly twice as likely to die from the virus as white people. Women of color are also experiencing some of the highest unemployment rates—in April 2020, 20 percent of Latinx women and 16 percent for Black women were without a job, compared to 14.7 percent for the general population. COVID-19 is magnifying the long-standing health and economic disparities that put us at risk.

Through it all, immigrant women and our families continue to serve on the frontlines of this crisis, risking our lives to make ends meet and keep us all safe. Immigrants make up about 16.5 percent of all healthcare workers in the U.S., and 1 in 8 registered nurses is an immigrant woman. One in 5 food sector workers is also an immigrant, keeping us fed but dying without proper protective gear. Then there are the more than two million domestic workers, the majority of whom are women of color and immigrants, facing severe financial and health uncertainties with scant protections.

One domestic worker confronting this crisis is Magdalena, an undocumented mother of three. Magdalena has lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years; she currently resides in Northern California with her husband and three U.S. citizen children. She and her husband make a living doing yard work and cleaning homes. Since the start of this pandemic, like many undocumented families, their income was cut in half.

Magdalena’s family doesn’t know when or if they will have a regular income again, and they’ve been trying to limit the amount they spend to reduce their bills. Magdalena has expressed concerns that immigrants have been left out of coronavirus relief plans, like the CARES Act that President Trump signed into law late March.

“Families like mine aren’t receiving assistance from the federal government," she says. "Because I’m undocumented, my U.S. citizen children aren’t even eligible for aid. That’s wrong.”

Like Magdalena, Karen R. and her mother are facing financial disaster. Karen works as a special education kindergarten teacher for deaf and hard of hearing children in Austin, Texas. She is one of the almost 15,000 teachers and more than 200,000 essential workers who are DACA recipients.

Even as schools grapple with how to continue educating kids this fall, Karen has not stopped fighting for her students. She’s been advocating for her students to get access to laptops or tablets to continue their education. She cares deeply about her students and is committed to helping every child communicate with their families and have access to high-quality education.

Karen is now financially supporting her undocumented mother who can’t make ends meet because of the pandemic. Trump's latest memo attacking DACA puts Karen’s future in limbo yet again.

On top of the pandemic, immigrants—undocumented and documented—face the burden of government attacks, barriers to receiving stimulus money, and an unequal health system. There is no relief in site. More than 10 weeks ago, the House passed the HEROES Act, which, if signed into law, would provide all immigrants, regardless of immigration status, direct assistance and relief from the hardships of the pandemic, including access to free testing and treatment, previous and any additional stimulus checks, and extended work permits for DACA recipients and TPS holders.

The Republican-led Senate has not brought the HEROES Act to the floor for a vote. Instead, they released their own plan last week. Rather than prioritizing relief for hard-working families, the HEALS Act doubles down on excluding immigrants, including the U.S. citizen children of undocumented people. At the same time, it slashes unemployment insurance, fails to extend eviction protections, fails to implement worker safety provisions, fails to provide funding for safe elections, and fails to adequately fund healthcare. Senate Republicans have prioritized giving $1.6 billion to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) so their agents can reign terror on immigrants and protestors alike. It also makes sure corporations can’t be held accountable when their negligence costs workers their lives.

The HEROES Act is a good first step for immigrants like Karen and her mom and Madgalena, but we’ll need more as we enter month six of the pandemic. The American public must reject the Senate’s cruel proposal and demand that Congress put people over profits—no exceptions. We need a bill that provides relief for all of us, immigrants included; one that includes healthcare, unemployment insurance, housing protections, direct assistance, and workplace protections.

We can get through this crisis if we pull together and support each other. Immigrants are risking their lives to keep their families fed and our communities moving forward. It’s time for the federal government to have our backs.

The rise of U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) in New York’s 14th Congressional District was part of a historical moment—when a record 100 women were elected to the House. AOC helped open doors—and now ex-MSNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is hoping to walk through them, running against AOC for her seat representing the Bronx and Queens in the Democratic primary election on June 23. Here’s what MCC, as she’s known, says she is bringing to the race (and, possibly, to the House).

Marie Claire: How long have you been thinking about a political run? Has this been in the back of your mind since the 2016 election, like it was for many of the congresswomen elected in 2018?

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: I was still working in journalism at the time of the 2016 election, so I didn’t think about it in those terms. The first seed was planted when Amazon decided against building their headquarters in the Bronx in early 2019. This district deserves better—the median income of New York-14, which includes the Bronx and Queens, is $60,000 a year, while in the next district over in Manhattan, the median income is $110,000. I’m running because I want to be a congresswoman who brings more and better jobs to the district.

MC: You cite your grandparents and their immigrant experience as inspiration. How does their coming-to-New York story factor into the race for you?

MCC: The people of the Bronx and Queens remind me so much of my grandparents. Many of them or their parents have recently arrived in the U.S. When my grandmother and grandfather first came from Italy and Cuba, they both worked in the dangerous and unregulated meatpacking industry—where it was easy to lose a finger or an arm. Eventually, my grandmother ended up also working as a waitress in a donut shop for tips in addition to her wages. Two generations later, their granddaughter has had a successful career and is able to run for Congress. That’s the American dream.

MC: This race started off with as many as 15 people on both the Democratic and Republican sides in the running for this seat. Why do you think this race is so buzzy?

MCC: It’s getting buzz because AOC is part of this huge group of freshman reps in Congress that’s been making headlines, and that’s exactly what I’ll be. I worked at Pizza Hut and in landscaping before I worked in journalism. After those experiences, I’m ready to take on a new challenge, because in seeing and listening to the people living in this district, I know what they want. And the great thing about democracy is anyone can enter in. You don’t need a degree—you just have to inspire people with your ideas.

MC: What ideas in particular are you sharing with the residents of NY-14?

MCC: The main three things for me are more jobs, more schools, and streets that are safe. First, I want to reach out to businesses that want to come to Queens and Bronx—if you want to start a business here, I’d like to help you. Other than that, parents are very eager to have more good schools, and to have a choice in where their kids go to school. And to keep the streets safer, we need criminal justice reform that doesn’t target minorities, many of whom end up in jail because they can’t afford bail for non-violent crimes. Of course we can’t afford to have violent people returning to the streets, but there needs to be rational bail reform.

MC: Can you give us a sneak peek into some issues in Congress that you have your eye on?

MCC: When I’m in Congress, I want to focus on ways to reduce healthcare costs. People shouldn’t have to worry about the cost of their prescriptions that keep them healthy. Another issue that’s really important is tax policy. Congress voted to get rid of the deduction for state and local income taxes, so if you own a home in this district, it’s suddenly impossibly expensive to do so. I would want to introduce a bill to bring back the deduction for these homeowners.

I’m not looking to be a national star—I’m focused on this race and the issues that are important to the people of the Bronx and Queens first. My career has taught me, first and foremost, to listen. As a journalist, you ask a question and then you listen for the answer. I want to listen to what the people of New York-14 want. Most importantly, what I’ve heard is they want someone who will be present to listen to their concerns. My door will always be open.

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

• George Floyd's brother, Philonise Floyd, spoke before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington Wednesday, calling on lawmakers to enact police reform and accountability.
• Philonise spoke about his older brother's murder by white police officer Derek Chauvin. "I can’t tell you the kind of pain you feel when you watch something like that," he said. "I’m tired of the pain I’m feeling now, and I’m tired of the pain I feel every time another Black person is killed for no reason. I’m here today to ask you to make it stop. Stop the pain. Stop us from being tired."
• "George wasn’t hurting anyone that day," he said. "He didn’t deserve to die over $20. I am asking you, is that what a Black man is worth? $20?"

George Floyd's younger brother, Philonise Floyd, spoke before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington Wednesday, sharing his agony at his brother's murder by white police officer Derek Chauvin and calling on lawmakers to enact police reform and accountability. Philonise addressed Congress just hours after George was buried in Houston, as the Guardian reports, speaking of his desire to ensure his brother would be "more than another face on a t-shirt. More than another name on a list that won’t stop growing." He remembered George as a "gentle giant" who "gave the little that he had to help others."

Speaking about the video of George's murder, Philonise said, "I can’t tell you the kind of pain you feel when you watch something like that." He continued, "I’m tired. I’m tired of the pain I’m feeling now, and I’m tired of the pain I feel every time another Black person is killed for no reason. I’m here today to ask you to make it stop. Stop the pain. Stop us from being tired."

"George called for help and he was ignored. Please listen to the calls I’m making to you now. To the calls of our family and the calls ringing out in the streets across the world. People of all backgrounds, genders and races have come together to demand change," Philonise said. "Honor them, honor George, and make the necessary changes that make law enforcement the solution—and not the problem. Hold them accountable when they do something wrong. Teach them what it means to treat people with empathy and respect. Teach them what necessary force is. Teach them that deadly force should be used rarely and only when life is at risk."

"George wasn’t hurting anyone that day. He didn’t deserve to die over $20. I am asking you, is that what a Black man is worth? $20?" he said. "This is 2020. Enough is enough. The people marching in the streets are telling you enough is enough. By the leaders—that our country, the world needs the right thing."

Read Philonise Floyd's full testimony, as reported by the Guardian, below:

Chairman Jerrold Nadler and members of the committee,

Thank you for the invitation to be here today to talk about my big brother, George. The world knows him as George, but I called him Perry. Yesterday, we laid him to rest. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I’m the big brother now. So it’s my job to comfort my brothers and sisters, Perry’s kids, and everyone who loved him. And that’s a lot of people. I have to be the strong one now, because George is gone.

And me being the big brother now is why I’m here today. To do what Perry always would have done—to take care of the family and others. I couldn’t take care of George the day he was killed, but maybe by speaking with you today, I can make sure that his death would not be in vain. To make sure that he is more than another face on a t-shirt. More than another name on a list that won’t stop growing.

George always made sacrifices for our family. And he made sacrifices for complete strangers. He gave the little that he had to help others. He was our gentle giant. I was reminded of that when I watched the video of his murder. He called all of the officers "sir." He was mild mannered; he didn’t fight back. He listened to all the officers. The men who took his life, who suffocated him for eight minutes and 46 seconds—he still called them "sir" as he begged for his life.

I can’t tell you the kind of pain you feel when you watch something like that. When you watch your big brother, who you’ve looked up to your whole entire life, die? Die begging for his mom?

I’m tired. I’m tired of the pain I’m feeling now, and I’m tired of the pain I feel every time another Black person is killed for no reason. I’m here today to ask you to make it stop. Stop the pain. Stop us from being tired.

George called for help and he was ignored. Please listen to the calls I’m making to you now. To the calls of our family and the calls ringing out in the streets across the world. People of all backgrounds, genders, and races have come together to demand change. Honor them, honor George, and make the necessary changes that make law enforcement the solution, and not the problem. Hold them accountable when they do something wrong. Teach them what it means to treat people with empathy and respect. Teach them what necessary force is. Teach them that deadly force should be used rarely and only when life is at risk.

George wasn’t hurting anyone that day. He didn’t deserve to die over $20. I am asking you, is that what a Black man is worth? $20? This is 2020. Enough is enough. The people marching in the streets are telling you enough is enough. Be the leaders that this country, this world needs. Do the right thing.

The people elected you to speak for them, to make positive change. George’s name means something. You have the opportunity here today to make your names mean something, too.

If his death ends up changing the world for the better, and I think it will, then he died as he lived. It is on you to make sure his death is not in vain. I didn’t get the chance to say goodbye to Perry while he was here. I was robbed of that.

But I know he’s looking down on us now. Perry, look at what you did, big brother. You changed the world. Thank you for everything. For taking care of us when on Earth, for taking care of us now. I hope you found mama and you can rest in peace and power. Thank you.

By her own admission, Rep. Katie Porter is “pretty well-known” for not tipping her hand while she’s questioning witnesses on Capitol Hill. So the Congresswoman was all the more flummoxed when Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to answer a question on coronavirus testing that she had, in a rare move, sent his office a week in advance. Her staff even re-sent the question the night before he testified on the Hill.

“We let the CDC know that we would be asking Dr. Redfield to make this commitment to the American people that testing will be available regardless of insurance,” Porter told Marie Claire in an interview the day after Redfield's testimony. “And yet, he thought he could come to the American public and simply bob and weave and use words to obfuscate his duty to protect the public health, and I wasn’t having any of it. And the American people shouldn’t be standing for that, either.”

The scene of Porter, whiteboard and dry erase marker in hand, pushing Redfield to commit to free coronavirus testing for all Americans (he did), and grilling DHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response Robert Kadlec on whether he knew how much those tests cost (he did not), went viral—a video on Twitter of the moment has since amassed 26.8 million views. Porter’s methodical and targeted questioning of the men, peppered with phrases like “not good enough” and “reclaiming my time,” wasn’t a fluke. She and her staff had practiced with that whiteboard, gaming out the strategy and diligence it would take to get Redfield to commit under oath.

“I think too often members of Congress wander into hearings and simply read off a piece of paper. We really try to dig in and fully engage the witnesses that come before us, whether we’re asking them to teach us or whether we’re holding them to account,” Porter said.

Porter’s win came as the coronavirus threat took a new turn in America. Last Wednesday night, President Trump announced a ban on travel from Europe for most people during an address from the Oval Office. Hours earlier, the World Health Organization officially declared the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic. Graphs of U.S.-based infections shot up like hockey sticks.

The Trump administration remains under fire for the lack of testing kits available in the face of the crisis. (They’re currently being used on high-risk patients, while otherwise healthy people showing flu-like symptoms are encouraged to self-quarantine.) Porter’s math showed that if someone without insurance got tested, they’d be hit with a $1,331 bill. Research shows that nearly 40 percent of Americans can’t cover a $400 unexpected expense and 33 percent put off medical treatment due to costs last year.

"Nobody symptomatic should be afraid or unable to get testing because of the financial consequences," she said, reiterating her point from her whiteboard.

As a freshman member of Congress, Porter is one of the record number of women who was elected during the 2018 midterms. That wave of wins by women is credited with securing Democrats a majority in the House of Representatives. Hailing from Orange County, California, Porter defeated a Republican incumbent to flip her district from red to blue—the first time that’s ever happened in her district’s history. On Friday—as President Trump was preparing to declare a national emergency—Porter spent the morning answering her own phones and waiting for House leadership to hash out a multi-billion dollar bill to blunt coronavirus' impact. (On March 18, five days after we spoke with Porter, a relief package that included free coronavirus testing, as well as unemployment benefits and food and medical aid to people effected by the pandemic, was signed into law by President Trump. The Senate passed the bill, 90-8, earlier in the day, according to The New York Times.)

"I think we’re all really concerned about the difficulty in getting this bill to the House floor and called for a vote," she explained. "We’ve had very few updates from House leadership, and so I’m largely sitting there."

Asked what’s at stake, Porter didn’t mince words.

“Lives,” Porter said, taking a beat to let that sink in. “Look, I’m a mother. I am a daughter of parents. I’m a Cub Scout leader. I’m a professor. I care about my community. There are tools available at the disposal of this administration that can be used to slow the spread of this pandemic and save lives.” Beyond ensuring free testing, Porter mentioned the importance of providing paid sick leave and delivering food via school lunch and Meals on Wheels—some of the aims of the sweeping coronavirus relief bill that’s making its way through Congress.

“We need Trump administration officials to step up and use the tools they have and then let us know what more they need so we can act quickly. Not turn this into an ideological battle,” she added.

Amid being hailed as a hero in the Twitterverse, Porter is quick to share credit with her current staff members, as well as those who worked in previous administrations and crafted the laws and regulations they’re relying on now. She also spoke about the importance of creating an office culture that encourages staff and the public to speak up with their ideas—a responsibility she thinks is shared by women at all stages in their careers.

“Building a strong team culture is something that’s on each of us, I think especially as women,” Porter said. “It makes us more effective leaders and there’s an obligation on all of us to try to do that.”

Part of her own strength as a leader and a lawmaker on Capitol Hill is her reliance on a skill she hones in everyday life: listening. Whether that means parsing expert testimony on the Hill or sussing out her kids’ and students’ white lies.

“I think that’s something that women, frankly, and teachers, and mothers—and I am all three of those things—have to be really good at,” Porter said. “So you know, when I ask my kids, ‘Did you brush your teeth?’ and they say yes, I can tell when they really didn’t brush their teeth. When I call on students and they give a bad answer, and I say, ‘Did you do the reading?’ and they say, ‘Uh, yeah,’ I know that that’s not true. And so it’s just really using that skill set from my life to benefit the American people.” 

This story was updated to reflect the details of the relief package that was passed into law.

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

Ayanna Pressley is an advocate, a policy maker, an activist, a survivor, and the first woman of color to be elected to Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Here, in an exclusive excerpt from Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman's upcoming anthology, Believe Me: How Trusting Women Can Change the World (out January 28), Pressley shares her own experience as a sexual assault survivor and how to ensure justice for all.

At times when we find ourselves on the precipice of a political or cultural breakthrough, folks are often inclined to claim a lucky break, a strike of lightning, or a once-in-a-generation moment. I will never give short shrift to the power of the people, but let us be clear about our history: It was not as if Rosa sat on a bus, Martin gave a speech, and we were granted civil rights. Behind every breakthrough, every movement that caught fire and captivated the nation, there are hours of quiet sweat equity invested in the struggle for justice.

And so as we work toward a more just nation, it is critical that we fortify ourselves with a vivid image of what that future looks like. A day to come where we walk among our brothers and sisters in community, in a nation that lives its values out loud. A world that not only believes survivors and centers their voices in the struggle for justice but also holds consent, bodily autonomy, and liberation as the standard.

I have said to survivors at organizing meetings, in personal conversations, and on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives that what I want for every survivor is justice. I vehemently believe that. Justice is a critical step in our healing as individuals and as a survivor tribe. We know that the statistics are startling: Less than 1 percent of perpetrators are brought to justice in a court of law. But when I speak of justice, the future I dream of is not actually defined by the confines of a courtroom or even trauma-informed judges on the bench (though, yes, that would be a victory). The justice I seek is bolder. I want a world where survivors are believed and validated and supported. I also want a world where within a generation the number of those impacted by sexual violence plummets. I reject any narrative that says we as a society have to tolerate this behavior. When we look at what informed policy has done to stave off deaths caused by drunk driving or gun violence (in developed countries aside from the United States), I am emboldened. I dream of a world where consent is taught at the youngest age, where we invest in breaking down the intersectional barriers of systemic oppression and abject poverty that too often leave folks rendered voiceless, and a world where we provide the economic opportunity and mobility that enables strong, healthy relationships, and communities that can protect us in moments of vulnerability. Our stories, the inflection points of the survivor community organizing, and our collective power matter.

As a survivor, I struggled for years to tell my own story, and I know how it feels to be a survivor in a country where believing and supporting survivors has become a partisan issue, where survivors are made to feel marginalized and ostracized. I tell my story both because it is part of my own ongoing healing and because I know that sharing my story can provide others with agency too. Since I began sharing my story publicly, I have been humbled and moved by how many survivors approach me and disclose—folks from every station in life and every background. At a walk for the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center a few years ago, a woman told me that hearing my story encouraged her to tell her daughter and her husband about the assault she had experienced decades ago. Experiencing assault can make us feel voiceless and marginalized in deep and dark ways that I still struggle to put words to. But I know in my own healing, reclaiming my agency over my story has been an important part of moving forward. Survivors should be able to disclose when, how, and to whom they want to. A colleague confided in me how liberated he felt when a friend reminded him that he is in control of whom he discloses to. There is no shame and no fault for him to hold, and it should be his choice when he’s called upon to share his story. Assault steals our agency, so reclaiming our agency as we heal is critical. It does not get easier to disclose. The phrasing comes to me in a way that feels familiar now, but the words cut all the same.

During my 2018 congressional campaign, many times well-intended journalists would engage me in a line of questioning that amounted to relitigating the details of my childhood sexual abuse and campus sexual assault. In those moments I would aim for composure and grace, reminding myself that the public life I have chosen brings with it intrusive questions all the time. Those interviews would be triggering and at times very frustrating for me and members of my senior staff who were also survivors. They would feel outraged at the line of questioning, and I would feel deeply vulnerable. In those moments, I would try to remind myself that this is why we need survivors in positions of power and influence everywhere. We know that we carry our lived experiences into every space we occupy.

Creating real change requires continued movement and coalition building. It requires that more elected leaders listen to their constituents and keep themselves in close proximity to the pain, and it demands systemic change—to ensure that our institutions of power more accurately reflect the diversity and lived experience of those in our communities.

Simply put, we belong everywhere. Our truths deserve to be whispered in corridors of power and shouted from rooftops. We belong at every table where decisions are made about our lives, our livelihood, and our justice. Our lives, our stories, and our struggles matter.

As I write this, I am a few weeks into my first term proudly representing the Massachusetts Seventh in Congress. Just this past week, I stood on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and spoke in support of a bill that aims to bring us a step closer to a vision of justice for survivors of sex trafficking. As I waited for my turn to speak, and my colleagues rose to deliver their remarks, I thought back on a day months before when I’d sat at a long table with young women supported by the My Life My Choice program. Their backpacks piled in the corner, hair in braids and ponytails, an occasional nervous flash of braces, we passed around bottles of juice and a box of muffins as commentary about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle gave way to stories of their experiences being trafficked. It was one of those weeks on a campaign where everything from weather to poll numbers was headed in the wrong direction. At that table, none of that mattered. I broke down in tears as I told the girls my story. I held a tremendous sense of responsibility in that moment to not only share my story to offer shared liberation but also to fight for them as hard as I could. At the close of that meeting I told the girls how, shortly before my mother passed, she left me a journal of quotes and stories. The last tab in the journal read “for inspiration.” I jotted on the whiteboard behind me SHIRLEY CHISHOLM. BARBARA JORDAN. MAYA ANGELOU. AUDRE LORDE. “Get to know them,” I said. “They inspired me just like you do.”

Days after my remarks on the House floor, my chief of staff would tell me, “I just realized you were the only survivor who spoke on the floor about this bill. Or maybe just the only person to disclose.”

When we liberate ourselves, we liberate others.

Our movement builds when we elect survivors. Each time our government takes a step toward representing and valuing the diverse lived experiences of the American people, our policy making becomes sharper, crisper, and more responsive. When those with relevant firsthand experiences ask pointed questions, the conversation changes. It does not mean that we aren’t still healing. It does not mean that we do not hold simultaneously fears, hopes, and a deep sense of responsibility. But every survivor that sits upon the dais, leads proceedings in a committee hearing, or calls for a federal investigation acts not on her own behalf but on behalf of thousands who are united through a shared experience. Real and lasting change takes hold as we claim our seats at the tables of power. And we’re just getting started.

Excerpted from Believe Me: How Trusting Women Can Change the World edited by Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman. Copyright © 2020. Available from Seal Press, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, Inc.

In a turbulent period for abortion rights, one nonprofit veteran decided to quit her job to make change happen from inside Congress: Allison Fine, 55, the chairwoman of the national board of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, resigned last week to launch her candidacy for Congress in NY-17. She's running for the seat recently vacated by longtime Democratic representative Nita Lowey, and is the first woman to join the race for the role.

Fine will be running alongside New York State Senator David Carlucci of New City, state assemblyman David Buchwald of White Plains, and Mondaire Jones, who previously worked for the U.S. Department of Justice under the Obama administration.

“I want to build on the trailblazing legacy of Nita Lowey while taking on the crucial issues facing the 17th district and our country," Fine said. "Every century, Americans remake our democracy. This is that time again. It’s time for new voices, especially in Congress where women are greatly underrepresented."

Fine is a founder of the Network of Elected Women (NEW), and started the Innovation Network to improve the work done by grassroots organizations. She's also a founding board member of Civic Hall, an organization that wants to make sure technology in NYC is used for good purposes, and she's the author of three books on online activism.

She's said that her experience will make her a top candidate in the fight for women's reproductive rights, as Roe v. Wade continues to face the potential for repeal at the hands of the Supreme Court. “If a woman doesn’t control her body, she doesn’t control her future and we can never get to parity and to economic justice without reproductive freedom,” Fine explained to The Rockland/Westchester Journal News.

If elected, Fine plans to enact a federal statute guaranteeing the right to an abortion. She's also a massive advocate for an expansion of funding for reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion services. “Fighting for a woman’s seat is a good fight to have,” Fine said to The Rockland/Westchester Journal News.

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

A lot of legislators talk big talk about the need for paid family leave in the U.S. But when it comes to their own staffs, do they put their budgets where their mouth is? There’s no across-the-board policy in Congress for paid family leave—how many weeks to give is left up to each member—so Marie Claire asked all 100 senators to tell us what they provide.

Thirty-two out of 100 members replied: 28 Democrats, two Republicans, and two Independents. Of those, Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) has the most generous plan, with 16 weeks paid, followed by Senator Harris, with 14 weeks paid; most others who give paid family leave allot 12 weeks.

Here’s a full state-by-state rundown of what every Senator had to say:

Senator Jones (D): 12 weeks paid FMLA leave, maternity, paternity, adoption, caring for an ill family member

Senator Shelby (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Murkowski (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Sullivan (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Arizona

Senator Sinema (D): 12 weeks paid for maternity and paternity leave.

Senator McSally (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Arkansas

Senator Cotton (R): Called, emailed. No response

Senator Boozman (D): Called, emailed. No response.

California

Senator Harris (D): 14 paid weeks leave: 12 weeks of paid parental FMLA, plus 2 paid sick weeks.

Senator Feinstein (D): “We don’t make our office policies public.”

Colorado

Senator Bennet (D): 12 weeks paid maternity and paternity leave with the option to use annual leave after exhausting paid FMLA. The office also provides 3 weeks of paid sick leave annually.

Senator Gardner(R): Called, emailed. No response.

Connecticut

Senator Blumenthal (D): Up to 12 weeks of paid maternity and paternity leave. Up to 8 weeks paid leave for medical situations and for the care of an immediate family member.

Senator Murphy (D): 12 weeks paid maternity leave and 8 weeks paternity leave. The office also offers 8 weeks of paid medical leave for employees facing a serious health condition and 8 weeks of paid family leave to care for a loved one.

Delaware

Senator Coons (D): 10 weeks paid maternity leave, 4 weeks paid paternity leave, 8 days per year paid sick leave for all employees.

Senator Carper (D): Up to 12 weeks paid leave for employees to care for a new child (birth, adoption, or foster care).

Florida

Senator Rubio (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Scott (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Georgia

Senator Isakson (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Perdue (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Hawaii

Senator Hirono (D): 8 weeks paid maternity and paternity leave, 12 weeks total leave. Care for newly adopted or new foster placement (maternity and paternity) 8 weeks paid, 12 weeks total. Care for self: up to 12 weeks paid. Care for immediate relative: up to 12 weeks paid.

Senator Schatz (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Idaho

Senator Crapo (R): “Our office offers FMLA, which covers maternity and paternity leave at up to 12 weeks. It depends on length of service, but they are generally paid. We offer 10 days of sick leave a year.”

Senator Risch (R): “We cannot provide comment.”

Illinois

Senator Duckworth (D): 16 weeks paid family and parental leave. Her office policies also allow any employee with a serious health condition or who has an immediate family member with a serious health condition to take time to recover.

Senator Durbin (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Indiana

Senator Braun (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Young (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Iowa

Senator Ernst (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Grassley (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Kansas

Senator Moran (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Roberts (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Kentucky

Senator McConnel (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Paul (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Louisiana

Senator Cassidy (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Kennedy (Re): Called, emailed. No response.

Maine

Senator Collins (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator King (I): 12 paid weeks a year of maternity and paternity leave.

Maryland

Senator Cardin (D): Up to 6 weeks paid maternity and paternity leave under FMLA.

Senator Van Hollen (D): 12 weeks paid parental leave to all staff, 20 days of paid personal leave, which includes sick leave.

Massachusetts

Senator Markey (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Warren (D): 12 weeks of paid leave for birth mothers, 8 weeks of paid leave for all new parents, and 8 weeks of paid leave for family caregivers.

Michigan

Senator Peters (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Stabenow (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Minnesota

Senator Klobuchar (D): 12 weeks of paid family leave to employees.

Senator Smith (D): If employee has been employed full-time for at least 6 months, up to 12 weeks of paid FMLA leave. If employee has been employed full-time for at least 6 months, up to 12 weeks of paid FMLA to care for a sick family member.

Mississippi

Senator Hyde-Smith (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Wicker (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Missouri

Senator Blunt (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Hawley (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Montana

Senator Daines (R): Called, emailed. No response

Senator Tester (D): 12 weeks of paid maternity leave; for an employee whose spouse gives birth, the office offers up to 8 weeks of leave.

Nebraska

Senator Fischer (R): 6 weeks paid time off for new parents, 2 weeks paid sick time.

Senator Sasse (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Nevada

Senator Cortez Masto (D): 12 weeks paid family and medical leave with full salary for both men and women.

Senator Rosen (D): 12 weeks paid for all to care for a newborn, newly adopted or fostered child, child with a medical condition, care for a spouse or parent with a medical condition, care for a covered military service member or to address a serious health condition, including childbirth or complications caused by pregnancy.

New Hampshire

Senator Hassan (D): 12 weeks paid parental leave, six weeks paid leave for health issues with an employee or a family member.

Senator Shaheen (D): Called, emailed. No response.

New Jersey

Senator Booker (D): All staffers receive 12 weeks of paid maternity and paternity leave as well as 12 weeks paid leave for FMLA, which is related to an employee’s serious health condition. Employees also receive 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a spouse, partner, son, daughter, or parent who has a serious health issue.

Senator Menendez (D): Called, emailed. No response.

New Mexico

Senator Heinrich (D): 12 weeks paid for maternity and paternity leave.

Senator Udall (D): Called, emailed. No response.

New York

Senator Gillibrand (D): Up to 12 weeks paid for employees who take time to care for a new child (birth or adoption), care for a sick or injured family member, or care during a personal medical emergency.

Senator Schumer (D): 12 weeks paid family medical leave.

North Carolina

Senator Burr (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Tillis (R): Called, emailed. No response.

North Dakota

Senator Cramer (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Hoeven (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Ohio

Senator Brown (D): 12 weeks of paid leave.

Senator Portman (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Oklahoma

Senator Inhofe (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Lankford (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Oregon

Senator Merkley (D): 12 weeks paid for all new parents, 12 days paid sick leave, in addition to other paid annual and personal leave.

Senator Wyden (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Pennsylvania

Senator Casey (D): Up to 12 weeks paid maternity leave. Spouses, adoptive parents, and foster parents receive up to 6 weeks of paid parental leave, plus up to another 6 weeks of paid leave from their FMLA bank.

Senator Toomey (R): “We don’t share that information.”

Senator Toomey (R): “We don’t share that information.”

Rhode Island

Senator Reed (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Whitehouse (D): 12 weeks paid maternity, 6 weeks paid leave for spouses/partners. Up to 6 weeks paid leave to employees recovering from an illness or taking care of a loved one.

South Carolina

Senator Graham (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Scott (R): Called, emailed. No response.

South Dakota

Senator Rounds (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Thune (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Tennessee

Senator Alexander (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Blackburn (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Texas

Senator Cornyn (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Cruz (R): Office says it provides paid maternity and paternity leave, but did not share details.

Utah

Senator Lee (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Romney (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Vermont

Senator Leahy (D): All employees, 10 weeks paid FMLA leave.

Senator Sanders (I): 12 weeks paid for maternity, paternity, or adoption leave.

Virginia

Senator Kaine (D): 12 weeks paid maternity and paternity leave and up to 12 paid weeks to take care of themselves or a family member.

Senator Warner (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Washington

Senator Cantwell (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Murray (D): Called, emailed. No response.

West Virginia

Senator Capito (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Manchin (D): Called, emailed. No response.

Wisconsin

Senator Baldwin (D): Up to 12 weeks paid leave to care for a newborn, newly adopted or newly placed foster child, to care for a spouse, son, daughter, or parent who has a serious health condition, for the employee’s serious health condition, for a qualifying emergency, or to care for a covered military or service member.

Senator Johnson (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Wyoming

Senator Barrasso (R): Called, emailed. No response.

Senator Enzi (R): Called, emailed. No response.

A version of this story originally appeared in the September 2019 issue of Marie Claire.

This story was updated on October 8, 2019 to include the policies of Senator Brown, which were submitted after publication.

subscribe here

Ilhan Omar, the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district. is the latest target of President Trump's racism. On Wednesday evening, at a rally in Greensboro North Carolina, the President delivered a speech criticizing the work of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.)

"These congresswomen are helping the rise of a militant, hard left. They never have anything good to say, which is why I say, ‘If they don’t like it, let them leave.’"Trump said. “They don’t love our country, and in some cases I think they hate our country.”

He also tweeted that the four women should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how."

All four of the congresswomen are citizens of the United States, and the only one not born in the U.S. is Rep. Omar, who immigrated to the United States as a Somalian refugee. Trump made sure to capitalize on this during his campaign rally, falsely accusing Omar of supporting al Qaeda. "Send her back. Send her back," chanted the audience at the rally. Trump did nothing to mitigate the hateful speech. (That said, he's since stated that he "was not happy with it.")

Before Trump could even attempt to backtrack, Rep. Omar made it perfectly clear that she is exactly where she belongs.

Omar began her defense against Trump by quoting the late Nobel prize-winning author Maya Angelou. She took an excerpt from Angelou's famous poem "Still I Rise," and tweeted it in response to the hateful speech.

Then she laid down the law. As former first lady Michelle Obama would say, "When they go low, we go high." And that's exactly what Omar did, writing, "I am where I belong, at the people’s house and you’re just gonna have to deal!"

Following the campaign rally, #IStandWithIlhan flooded Twitter. politicians, celebrities and everyday citizen spoke up to show their support for the congresswoman.

Now that's how it's done.

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

At first glance, the midterm elections back in November seemed a bit defeating—major gun-control advocates like Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, and Beto O'Rourke lost their gubernatorial races, and Republicans kept control of the U.S. Senate. But change happens in inches, not feet, and our country has still taken a major political step—specifically in the fight for common-sense gun laws.

The Democrats won the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives (that now includes more than 100 women), which means there will be a strong push for gun control legislation allowing Americans to freely go to a bar, a concert, a movie theater, a classroom, a place of worship, a yoga studio, etc., without the fear of being shot. Electing these gun control advocates—many who have experienced gun violence firsthand—was the first step. Now it's time to push them to introduce new legislation on both the state and federal level.

Ahead, a quick and easy guide to legislators who believe in common-sense gun reform, and how to support them.

Editor's note: This post includes a sampling of pro-gun control lawmakers throughout the country currently in an elected position and will continue to be updated.

State: New Jersey

Position: U.S. Senator

What he says about gun control: “If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a gun.” Learn more about Booker’s ambitious gun control policy here.

SUPPORT HIM

State: California

Position: U.S. Senator

What she says about gun control: Most recently, Harris says if elected president, she’ll give Congress 100 days to pass gun laws. Otherwise, she’ll issue an executive order.

SUPPORT HER

State: Massachusetts

Position: U.S. Senator

What she says about gun control: “I've never taken a penny from the NRA & I'm not going to start now. That's why I'm taking the #NoNRAMoney pledge. If enough leaders join me, we can finally stand up to the gun lobbyists & get some real change,” Warren tweeted in May 2018.

SUPPORT HER

State: Indiana

Position: Mayor of South Bend

What he says about gun control: Buttigieg is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group within the Everytown network that's comprised of more than 1,000 mayors advocating for gun safety. Learn more about his stance on gun control here.

SUPPORT HIM

State: Minnesota

Position: U.S. Senator

What she says about gun control: Klobuchar has made it clear it’s time for common-sense gun reform, though she’ll be looking at legislation from the perspective of "Would this hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand?" Banning assault weapons and background checks would not hurt Uncle Dick.

SUPPORT HER

State: New York

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 14

What she says about gun control: After the Christchurch, New Zealand massacre, AOC tweeted, “You know, instead of training children, teachers, houses of faith, & concertgoers to prep for being shot, we could just:

-Pass Universal Background checks (#HR8!)

-Disarm domestic abusers

-Mandate safe storage

-Ban bump stocks, semiautos, & high cap mags designed to kill people.”

SUPPORT HER

State: Massachusetts

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 7

What she says about gun control: Pressley wrote an opinion piece for The Boston Globe on how women can help stop gun violence. Read it here.

SUPPORT HER

State: New York

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 2

What he says about gun control: King voted to push H.R. 8 forward as a Republican co-sponsor of the bill, and has encouraged his fellow party members to support it as well. H.R. 8 is the most historic piece of gun legislation that has passed through the House. Learn more about it here.

SUPPORT HIM

State: Georgia

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 6

What she says about gun control: “It is unfortunately not surprising that on the very same day I officially became a congresswoman-elect, other families in this country are receiving the same exact call that I did six years ago when I learned my son had been murdered,” McBath said in a statement, according to The Washington Post. “The tragedy in California is one of far too many. I grieve with the families affected and for every life lost. I pray that Congress will support me in taking action to prevent these tragedies from affecting the lives of so many."

SUPPORT HER

State: Florida

Position: Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services

What she says about gun control: “For eight years Florida’s Department of Agriculture has been run by the NRA," Fried said in a direct message to the NRA. "After the failure to perform background checks, we cannot afford another NRA sellout putting our safety at risk...I have a message for the NRA—your control over concealed weapons permits is finished. As commissioner, I won’t be beholden to you, but to the people of Florida. I will do my job and stand up for what’s right.

She continues, "This isn’t partisan—background checks save lives—without violating our Second Amendment. We’ll conduct a full audit of the permit process—to ensure complete, thorough background checks. It’s time for the people to govern.”

SUPPORT HER

State: Kansas

Position: Governor

What she says about gun control: "I believe it’s especially important for those of us who support gun rights to lead this fight to find common sense ways to keep our kids and teachers safe from gun violence," Kelly said in a statement in February. "I will work to implement gun safety standards—like requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning bump stocks, and limiting access to the types of assault weapons that were designed for combat zones."

SUPPORT HER

State: Arizona 

Position: State House Representative, District 24

What she says about gun control: “This is going to sound extremely corny, but after that incredible act of evil—someone deliberately pointing a gun at my fiancé and me, and firing it, I’ve always felt this weird need to offset that violence, that evil," Longdon told New Mobility.

"I own a handgun and a hunting rifle—legacy guns from my family—and I own a Glock .45. I'm going to be first in line to protest when we start doing gun grabs, but there need to be universal background checks," she also told Rolling Stone. "It's reasonable and prudent to know who is owning the firearms. Certain machines don't belong in civilian hands. AK-47s were designed to kill, to sweep streets in military conflict—I don't think that belongs in the hands of civilians. We prevent tyranny at the ballot box, not at muzzle point."

SUPPORT HER

State: California

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 48

What he says about gun control: "It’s time we pursue common-sense reforms that will keep our neighbors and family members safe. We need to implement mandatory background checks for all gun buyers, including online, at gun shows, and even for 3-D printed guns," Rouda says on his website.

"We need to prevent all convicted domestic abusers from buying guns and once-and-for-all close the so-called 'boyfriend loophole.' And we need to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines, ban the sale of guns to violent criminals and the mentally ill, and ensure that every gun-buyer is subject to an appropriate waiting period for all purchases."

SUPPORT HIM

State: California 

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 25

What she says about gun control: “As Democrats, we should not try to make this a political issue that is about gun legislation because any of the gun legislation we’re advocating for would not have prevented this," Hill told The New York Times after the Thousand Oaks shooting. "We lose credibility if we try to make it as if it would’ve."

SUPPORT HER 

State: Colorado 

Position: State House Representative, District 37

What he says about gun control: “Those are just common sense things, those are things that the vast majority that the community agrees with and so those are the types of things we can do—banning bump stocks, things that turn assault weapons into machine guns. Those don’t belong in our communities," Sullivan says.

"That’s a common sense thing that people agree on yet we couldn’t get something like that passed last year. But now with both houses and a governor, those are the type of things that can get taken care of.”

SUPPORT HIM 

State: Nevada

Position: U.S. Senator

What she says about gun control: "We can support the Second Amendment AND take reasonable steps to reduce gun violence in our communities," Rosen tweeted in October while she was a member of the House of Representatives. "Gun violence is a public health crisis. I urge my colleagues to join together and work across the aisle to decrease the scope & devastation of these mass shootings."

SUPPORT HER

State: Connecticut

Position: Governor 

What he says about gun control: "As governor, I will tighten our existing gun laws and close existing loopholes, expand gun buyback programs, preserve and seek to expand funding for efforts like Project Longevity, a program launched in 2012 operating in New Haven, Hartford, and Bridgeport that has helped reduce rates of gun violence by intervening before violence occurs," Lamont wrote on his website.

"I will review and support implementation of policies that have had success in Connecticut and neighboring states, including Trauma-Informed Community Response in which communities, mental and social services and other health services and law enforcement work together to help communities heal from gun violence and understand how to prevent future gun violence. I will be a continuous and vocal advocate for smart, common sense legislation."

SUPPORT HIM

State: Minnesota

Position: U.S. Senator

What she says about gun control: “If you can buy a gun at Dick’s Sporting Goods and get a background check, why not if you buy a gun online?” 

SUPPORT HER

State: Virginia

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 10

What she says about gun control: According to her website, Wexton says she "will support legislation that expands mandatory background checks on gun purchases, closes loopholes that allow criminals to purchase firearms, establishes a ban on sales of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and allows the federal government to study gun violence as a public health issue."

SUPPORT HER

State: Nevada

Position: Governor

What he says about gun control: "Gun violence has taken too many lives, including the 58 lost on 1 October," Sisolak tweeted in April 2018. "As governor I will stand up to the @NRA & enact commonsense reforms like enforcing background checks & banning assault weapons, bump stocks, high capacity magazines & silencers #EnoughisEnough #VegasStrong"

SUPPORT HIM 

State: Colorado 

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 6

What he says about gun control: According to Vox Crow's "proposed gun control solutions are ones that both parties can get behind. The list of measures he’s backing includes universal background checks, a ban on military-style assault weapons, magazine limitations, closing the gun show loophole, overturning the Dickey Amendment, and imposing better checks on mental health before people purchase guns."

SUPPORT HIM

State: Minnesota

Position: State House Representative, District 52B

What she says about gun control: "I support common sense gun reform, including things like universal background checks that are supported by the vast majorities of Americans including gun owners," says Richardson.

SUPPORT HER

State: New Mexico 

Position: Governor 

What she says about gun control: "I am inspired to see young people from all across the country doing everything they can to make their schools and communities safer places to live and learn. I share their passion, their determination, and their frustration with a Congress that has repeatedly failed to enact widely-supported, common-sense protections to address the gun violence epidemic in America," Grisham says.

"They, and the vast majority of Americans, agree that we can do more to stop criminals and the seriously mentally ill from getting guns, while also ensuring that law-abiding, responsible citizens can freely own them."

SUPPORT HER

State: New York

Position: U.S. Senator

What she says about gun control: After the Thousand Oaks shooting in November, Gillibrand told Stephen Colbert, "It is extraordinarily heartbreaking and it's infuriating because Congress literally has done nothing in the face of gun death after gun death in communities all across this country. And it is because of the greed: the greed of the gun manufacturers and the greed of the NRA."

SUPPORT HER

State: Minnesota 

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 3

What he says about gun control: “Thoughts and tweets don’t save lives—courage and action save lives," Phillips wrote on his website. "And since Congress has refused to effect change to improve safety, I will do everything in my power to support students mobilizing to change Congress.”

SUPPORT HIM

State: Connecticut

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 5

What she says about gun control: Hayes wrote an essay for Medium on her gun control stance titled, 'Common Sense Gun Laws Saves Lives.' "As most people know by now, I am an educator. What people may not know is that my husband is a police officer. When we get dressed for work, he puts on a gun and I do not. He goes to work to protect and serve, I go to work to give kids the tools they need to succeed."

She continues, "The idea of arming teachers and mixing these two professions is insane and as an educator and as your congresswoman, I will vigorously oppose it. But simply opposing bad ideas is not enough — we need to go on offense."

SUPPORT HER

State: Oregon 

Position: Governor 

What she says about gun control: “I’m proud to sign this bill, making Oregon the first state to take action to prevent senseless gun violence since the tragedy in Parkland, Florida," Brown said in March 2018.

"Today marks an important milestone, but we know we have more to do. It’s long past time we hold the White House and Congress accountable. Now’s the time to enact real change and federal gun safety legislation.”

SUPPORT HER

State: Illinois 

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 14

What she says about gun control: "We have a moral obligation to address the gun violence epidemic that is threatening communities across our country," Underwood writes on her website.

"First, we absolutely need universal background checks for all gun sales, whether through federal licenses, over the internet, or through private exchanges. The current system includes loopholes that make it easy for criminals and dangerously mentally ill to buy guns; it’s just common sense to fix this vulnerability. Additionally, individuals who have existing legal actions regarding threats of violence (i.e. restraining orders) should not be permitted to purchase new firearms. We must be allowed to study this epidemic as the critical public health issue that it is—and its time to repeal the Dickey Amendment. This is a public safety issue of critical importance, and I have been so disappointed in the lack of courage or congressional action on this issue. We deserve better."

SUPPORT HER 

State: Florida

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 22

What he says about gun control: In a Sun-Sentinel op-ed Deutch wrote, "Congress could pass commonsense gun safety laws that would save lives and make our streets safer: Reinstate the assault weapons ban, prevent modifications that enable simulated automatic fire, ban high capacity magazines, prohibit sales to known terrorists, and require universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness."

SUPPORT HIM

State: Virginia 

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 7

What she says about gun control: "I support background checks for all firearm purchases, regardless of where or from whom the purchases are made," Spanberger says on her website. "States that require background checks for all purchases have fewer suicides by gun, fewer law enforcement officers shot and killed, and fewer women killed by an intimate partner. Ninety four percent of Americans support background checks for all firearms purchases, as well as the Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence and the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police."

She continues, "I support common sense gun policy, such as HR 2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act of 2017. The implementation of Gun Violence Restraining Orders allow family, friends, and law enforcement to help people facing crisis who, with a firearm in their possession, might be a risk to themselves or others. I support ensuring that states have the ability to provide current information to the NICs database to ensure informed background checks, and I support funding the research of gun violence. I also support the proposed HR 5087, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018."

SUPPORT HER

State: Texas 

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 32

What he says about gun control: "Proud to be certified as a Gun Sense Candidate by @MomsDemand," Allred tweeted in April 2018. "I will continue to stand up for common sense gun safety because we must do more to protect our country from gun violence."

SUPPORT HIM

State: New Jersey

Position: U.S. Senator

What he says about gun control: "Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues act as if mass shootings are inevitable when, in reality, they are preventable. And the American people are sick and tired of it. That’s why they’ve been so inspired by the students from Parkland."

Menendez continues, "As Americans take action, the question is whether Congress will do the same. Far too many of my colleagues still fear a backlash from the NRA. But if we’re going to get anywhere, we must stop letting the NRA set the agenda here in Washington.” Watch the full video here.

SUPPORT HIM

State: Colorado

Position: Governor 

What he says about gun control: “The fight for gun safety isn’t about politics. It’s about the lives of our kids and their friends," says Polis. "I’m the parent of a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old, and I won’t let the NRA—or the politicians they’ve bought—stand in the way of our children’s safety.”

SUPPORT HIM

State: Florida 

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 10

What she says about gun control: “Every American should have the right to go to school, to go to church, to go to a mall, to go to a movie theater or a night club without being brutally murdered by someone with a gun." Watch Demings' full address here. 

SUPPORT HER

State: Illinois

Position: Governor

What he says about gun control: "It’s time we address gun violence as we would treat a public health epidemic. Like treating a disease, we need to interrupt gun violence, reduce the risk of it spreading, and prevent it by building safer and healthier communities," Pritzker says.

"Without a doubt, we need common-sense and long-overdue gun safety legislation. Criminals and those who want to do harm shouldn’t have access to guns, and no one should have access to weapons of war or be able to obtain guns illegally. We need to ban assault weapons, bump stocks, and high-capacity magazines, and we need to stop the importation of illegal guns across Illinois’ borders. It’s also time to enforce universal background checks and enact a gun dealer licensing bill."

SUPPORT HIM

State: Florida

Position: U.S. House Representative, District 7

What she says about gun control: “The people of Florida know better than almost anywhere else in the country how devastating the impact of gun violence can be. It was right here in Orlando’s Pulse nightclub where 49 people were shot and killed, and it was just a few hours away where 17 students and teachers were murdered in Parkland, FL," Murphy said in a Brady Campaign statement. "In my first campaign and now in my re-election, I’ve run as an unapologetic advocate for common-sense gun safety reform."

"I’ve been proud to fight for gun safety in Congress, and I’ll be prouder to do it alongside the remarkable, newly-elected men and women who will be standing beside me in the years to come. My thanks go out to the Brady Campaign for their dedication to this important issue and to getting the vote out in our district so that we can continue our efforts to save lives. Let’s get to work!"

SUPPORT HER

State: Rhode Island

Position: Governor

What she says about gun control: “Yes, we need to change Rhode Island’s gun laws to protect Rhode Islanders. Yes, we need to outlaw military style assault weapons like our neighbors have in Massachusetts and Connecticut," Raimondo told The Providence Journal.

She continues, "Yes, we need to join with the majority of states that already prohibit civilians from carrying concealed weapons in our children’s schools. And yes, we need to ban the high-capacity ammunition magazines used to kill 17 students and teachers this past Wednesday in Parkland, Florida, and 26 church congregants in Sutherland Springs, Texas in November, and 58 concertgoers in Las Vegas in October, and 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando [in 2016], and 26 students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012."

"As Governor, my top priority is keeping Rhode Islanders safe. It is past time for Rhode Island to join our neighbors in enacting these common-sense measures."

SUPPORT HER

First they marched. Then they ran. And then? They won—big. In last year’s midterms, women candidates crushed glass ceilings, marking historic victories across America. Congress now has more women than ever before; 24 percent of its members are female. Maine elected its first female governor. Tennessee sent its first woman to the Senate. There were so many women running, in fact, that many firsts came in pairs: Two Native American women and two Muslim women were elected to Congress. As newly-elected Rep. Sylvia Garcia of Texas—one of the first Latinas ever elected to Congress from her state—puts it, it wasn’t just another Year of the Woman, a sequel to the 1992 blockbuster: It was the Year of the Woman of Color. Here, in their own words, they discuss how they got here, how they’ll fight for women, and how they plan to keep busting barriers in office.

Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)

Marie Claire: When was the first time you felt like you could make a difference in politics?

Ayanna Pressley: I grew up in a community where it was easy to feel voiceless and invisible to government. But my mother was a super voter, and I remember going with her when I was a young girl. Watching her pull back the curtain on the voting booth, standing in her power, and making her voice heard made me feel powerful and it created my abiding faith in the power of us, the people, to make a difference and create change.

MC: Why did you want to run?

AP: The Massachusetts 7th Congressional District is the most diverse district in our delegation, and also one of the most unequal. The existing disparities—in education, economic opportunity, life expectancy—have been exacerbated by Donald Trump, but they existed long before he took office, created by policies like redlining, the war on drugs, and unequal access to healthcare. The job description of our representatives in Congress has changed. In this election, voters issued a mandate not just against hate, but for hope—for bold, activist leaders who not only resist Donald Trump, but who work to advance progressive policies that will result in real progress for the people they represent.

MC: One of your favorite phrases on the trail was “the people closest to the pain should be closest to the power.” Why do you think that resonated with people?

AP: Too many individuals and communities have felt ignored or overlooked for too long. Our campaign did not make assumptions about who desires or deserves a seat at the table, and we offered people a stake in their government. We saw people react when they were listened to and engaged intentionally.

MC: What will be at the top of your agenda in office? What legislation do you plan to sponsor?

AP: A defining issue during my tenure on the Boston City Council, gun violence claimed the lives of several young people in my district just in the weeks following my election. Addressing the continuing impact of gun violence—and the trauma it leaves in its wake—is the reason I pushed Democratic leadership for a commitment to take early action on critical gun control legislation, and why I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

MC: What’s been the most surprising part of being on Capitol Hill?

AP: I spent 16 years as a congressional staffer, but I had forgotten how unforgiving these marble hallways are when you're in heels. I'm going to be factoring in a few shoe changes throughout the day, but that won't slow me down.

Deb Haaland (D-NM)

MC: What one issue will be at the top of your agenda in office?

Deb Haaland: Climate change is the number one issue—it always has been for me. Whatever bill I can pass, whatever hearing I can organize, whatever policy I can move on, whatever members of Congress I can influence to help make sure that we’re moving the issue forward, that’s definitely going to be what I do. That includes the Green New Deal, an infrastructure plan, educational opportunities, and appropriations to make sure that we’re moving the renewal energy economy forward.

MC: What Native principle do you think will be most helpful to you in Washington?

DH: Patience is probably one of them. Through our ceremonies and all the things that I was taught by my parents and my grandparents, a lot of it is patience. I’m ready to work diligently, but I realize that things don’t happen overnight.

Sharice Davids (D-KS)

MC: Why did you run?

Sharice Davids: In general, we just need more people running for office with different lived experiences. I think that means a lot of different things for me as a Native American and a member of the LGBT community. And then, also, being a first-generation college student and having to work the entire time I was in school. I looked at the slate of candidates, and I felt like I wanted something different, and I wasn’t seeing that. I wondered if anybody was going to do anything about it. Then I realized that I should. If I’m going to ask the question, then I should consider whether I can be part of the solution.

MC: How does being Native American inform your policy positions and views?

SD: My lived experience really helps me see the validity and the reality of how different everyone’s experience can be—but also how similar it can be. It really matters to recognize that although your experience is different than my experience, that it is just as real and deserving of being heard and considered when we’re talking about policy and legislation. Both Deb Haaland and I have a much deeper understanding of the relationship between tribal governments and the federal government, and what impact federal legislation and policy has on Native communities. We’ll be bringing that to the table of decision makers.

MC: What does it mean to you to be one of the first Native American women elected to Congress ever?

SD: We’re literally bringing thoughts and ideas and experiences to the conversation that haven’t been there. I think in the day-to-day it will just mean that we are bringing up things that people likely just have not thought about. The impact that can have on policy and legislation is really phenomenal.

Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

MC: Why did you get into politics?

Marsha Blackburn: I am a tremendous believer in the American dream, and preserving what I call the big five: faith, family, freedom, hope, and opportunity. Getting government off your back, out of your pocketbook. Making certain that everything I do every day is there to bolster and encourage freedom. Free people and free markets. That is what has drawn me to the political and the public service process.

MC: What was the first time you felt like you could make a difference as an elected official?

MB: In the state senate in Tennessee, I led the fight against imposition of the state income tax. Then in 2014, our state had a constitutional amendment on the ballot and we passed that amendment to forever prohibit a state income tax in the state of Tennessee.

MC: What will be at the top of your agenda in office?

MB: Broadband expansion into rural areas. The fact that mothers have to put their children into the car and drive them 15 or 20 minutes into town to get to wifi in the evening to do homework is so disruptive to family life. You can’t have 21st century education, economic development, or healthcare without access to high-speed internet. Closing that digital divide and opening those opportunities will be at the top of my to-do list.

MC: How does it feel for you to share this victory with so many other women, Republicans and Democrats, who ran and won this year?

MB: To hear from women who are business owners, who are moms, who are volunteers working in their churches and their children’s schools, communities, and just to know their hopefulness that this indeed represents another barrier that has been broken, another door that is open for their children and their grandchildren—I’m just so honored to be the one to knock the barrier down.

Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

MC: What does it mean to you to be one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress?

Ilhan Omar: It’s exciting to me to have so many firsts under my name, mostly because of all the people who tell me that they feel represented at a national level for the first time. But it’s really not why I ran. I ran because there are so many voices missing from Congress, and those voices make the environment richer and more reflective of what America actually looks like. When you don’t come from money, when you are Muslim, black, Latina, LGBTQ+, you have grown up with a different set of challenges, and the different points of view we bring because of that is all that can solve the immense challenges we face as a nation.

MC: You’re also the first refugee elected to Congress. How does that experience inform your views on politics and policy?

IO: When you have had hardship, it strengthens your resolve. Running for Congress hasn’t been easy, but coming from a refugee camp and living through war gives me perspective. Refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers have so much strength. Everything we have been through makes us thankful, determined, proud Americans. We often risked our lives to pursue the dreams that have built the American narrative. We sat on ships on far away shores and dreamt of this place, and we want it to live up to that dream. We still see the hope of the American dream because it is fresh for us.

MC: In a time of heightened Islamophobia, I’m sure you’ve experienced your fair share. Is there a particular moment that stands out? How did you handle it?

IO: I do my best to not get bogged down in the hate, because it is relentless. If I took time to catalog it, I would become overwhelmed. Much of it is so ridiculous that it is hard to take seriously, especially when they try to use the worst assumptions about my faith to prop up lies about my politics. As a mother, the only time I worry is when things escalate to actual threats, and thankfully we have the people in law enforcement to handle those cases.

Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

MC: Your historic win comes during the tenure of a president who has targeted Muslims. What does that mean to you?

Rashida Tlaib: It’s time to turn the tables on those who target the most vulnerable in our communities. It’s time they see how it feels like to have the spotlight on them for a change. I hope this shows people who look like me, or talk like me, or pray like me, that our voices are all important, that our government is stronger when it represents all of us.

MC: You’ll be a part of one of the most diverse Congresses in history—and a record number of women. How does it feel to share this victory with so many other women?

RT: I don’t feel alone. This rainbow of incredibly strong women gives me courage. The fight ahead of us will be thoughtful and creative because women of color are problem solvers and have a razor focus on the issues that matter. I can’t wait to fight to make this country more just for all people with some real heroes by my side.

Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)

MC: How did you first get interested in politics?

AF: I was a 10-year-old who asked my parents for a subscription to Newsweek. I would devour it. And then on Saturday nights, I would go to church, and then walk down to my grandparents’ house. I’d be sitting there with my grandfather who was a Democrat, my uncle who was a Democrat, and another uncle who was a Republican. We’d talk about what was happening in the world. Even though I was a young girl, I had every right to a seat at the table with grown men.

MC: What will be at the top of your agenda in office?

AF: A big thing for my district is making sure that we finally do have an infrastructure bill, that we bring good paying jobs here to Iowa, that we’re investing in trade schools and apprenticeship programs because not everybody is going to go to a four-year [college]. And quite frankly, you shouldn’t have to to be able to work hard and have a good life like my family was able to have. It’s bringing some of these kind of commonsense issues from the Midwest to Washington.

MC: What does it mean to you to be one of the first women Iowa will send to the House?

AF: Growing up in the ‘90s, there weren’t a lot of women in politics. Or at least they weren’t on the covers of Newsweek. I didn’t know that there was that space for me. It’s exciting now to be in this position where I want to show young women in this state that you can work hard and you can stand up for your community.

Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)

MC: You ran an unsuccessful bid for this same seat during the first Year of the Woman, in 1992. How have things changed in the last 25 years?

Sylvia Garcia: The biggest change is the number of women running. When I ran in ’92, the numbers were smaller. The network had really just begun. When I look around the freshman class during orientation, we definitely outnumber the men. That was not the case back in ’92. The second thing that’s very important is that to me it’s not just the Year of the Woman. It’s the Year of the Woman of Color. We have certainly made our mark. We’re finally looking in the Congress the way America looks like.

MC: In the 2020 presidential contest, do you think Democrats should nominate a woman?

SG: I think it would be super! Certainly all things being equal I would always vote for a woman.

MC: What women’s issues will you take on in Congress?

SG: I’ve been a voice and a champion for reproductive rights, for equal pay for equal work, for diversity and inclusion. I will be fighting on all those fronts. But I will begin with raising the minimum wage. I think that, particularly women heads of household—in order to keep their families together and make sure that working families have a shot—we need to raise the minimum wage.

Veronica Escobar (D-TX)

MC: You worked for years on political campaigns. Tell me about the first moment you decided that you should be the candidate.

VE: It took 10 years of volunteering for other people, and my insistence that I just wanted to stay behind the scenes. And it took a friend of mine—a former mayor, whose administration I was very fortunate to be a part of—it took him continuously badgering me about running for office. I tease him, and I say he bullied me into running, but it took someone else to force me to look in the mirror and to say, “I have value, and I have enough heart to serve the community that I love.” I have found that a common theme among other female candidates, that women frequently have to be encouraged and pushed into considering running for office. It’s unfortunate because we need more women, but he really made me take a long, hard look at my excuses, and he said, “Look. If you’re unwilling to do the job, you have no right to ask others to do a job that you don’t want to do.” And he was right.

MC: Why have you made the border such a touchstone of your campaign?

Veronica Escobar: It has been an essential component of the politics of cruelty. You have an administration that separates families, that refuses to let asylum seekers into the country, that calls Mexicans rapists and criminals. I am a third-generation El Pasoan. My family has been here for over 100 years. I know the truth. The truth is that as complex as the border is, it is fundamentally a vibrant, safe point of opportunity. And if we cannot change the narrative about our community, then we are going to continue to see very bad public policy directed toward us.

MC: What does it mean to you to be one of the first Latinas elected to Congress from your state?

VE: We made history in Texas during an era of unprecedented bigotry, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies. It’s this juxtaposition of having a president and members of Congress who are enabling him to malign and misrepresent communities like mine, and my community fighting back and deciding to make history in the face of all of that. That’s what is so beautiful and powerful.

Janet Mills (D-ME)

MC: You have been the first woman in many of the offices you’ve held in Maine, like criminal prosecutor and attorney general. Are there any moments of sexism that stand out throughout your career?

Janet Mills: I was the first woman District Attorney in New England and one of the first in the country. When I got on the board of the National District Attorneys Association, I would go to the board meetings and there’d be all men in the room and only one woman: me. Inevitably somebody would turn and ask me if I’d make them a cup of coffee. Things have changed. There were no women lawyers portrayed on TV at that time. Now we have women lawyers on TV. They’re all a size 4 and perfectly coiffed with makeup and all that stuff. That’s just the light version of who we are. But hopefully that will change, too.

MC: What would you say when people would ask you to get a cup of coffee?

JM: I’d say, “I’m sorry, I’m here on my own credentials. I’m a District Attorney.”

MC: What was your most memorable moment on the campaign trail?

JM: Two weeks before the election, my youngest stepdaughter gave birth. To see a little baby girl being born in the middle of a campaign where I’m trying to be the first woman governor—it was a pretty neat moment. I just kept thinking, “How is her life going to be different from mine? What kind of opportunities will she have?” Hopefully so many more than we had before.

MC: Do you think the Democrats should nominate a woman for president in 2020?

JM: I think there’s some qualified people from both genders, and I’m sure that there’ll be people coming out of the Senate and the governorships who will be interested in running as well. I can’t say who the most credible candidates are going to be because it’s just too early and I don’t know them all. Should you should put a woman in because she’s a woman? If it comes to a qualified man and a qualified woman, I would support the qualified woman.

Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (D-TX)

MC: Tell me why you decided to run and why this year.

Lizzie Fletcher: I was not someone who had always planned on running for Congress, but I have been practicing law for about a dozen years. I had gotten very comfortable that there were thoughtful, smart grown-ups making decisions for us in the Obama administration. After 2016, when I was watching the transition and the beginning of this administration and this Congress—that really failed to hold this administration to account—I found myself asking over and over: Where are all the grown ups? Then I realized I was one of them. All this work and all this training that I had and all of my experience representing people from our community was something we really needed in Washington, so I decided to take on a nine-term incumbent because I felt like he really wasn’t representing our district, and that I could do a better job.

MC: How did you defeat your incumbent in this very competitive race? How did you win?

LF: I got into the race because I felt our community was not getting the representation that we deserved. I believed that the incumbent’s hardline, right-wing stances were inconsistent with the values of our community. I’ve lived in this community nearly all of my life and I’ve been representing people [as a lawyer] from this community from all walks of life for a decade. I think that resonated with a lot of people who lived here who knew that the kinds of positions—or frankly, lack of positions and lack of leadership—was inconsistent with who were are in this community. I think the reason that we won and how we defeated the nine-term incumbent was both making sure that we turned out every single Democratic voter that we could—that was a huge part of our effort—and making sure that our message to everyone was about shared values that appealed to people throughout the community.

MC: What women’s issues specifically will you take on?

LF: I’m a long time Planned Parenthood volunteer. We need to protect women’s access to affordable healthcare. We need to protect quality, nonjudgmental providers like Planned Parenthood and get them out of this political maelstrom. We need to ensure that we are prioritizing women’s reproductive healthcare and access to healthcare and that kind of funding at a federal level. Reproductive healthcare and reproductive rights are central to women’s ability to control their destiny, to maintain their economic independence, and their family life. We absolutely have to protect it and it’s one of my top priorities.

Kendra Horn (D-OK)

MC: Before you became a candidate, you spent the last few years training women to run for office. Why did you do that work?

Kendra Horn: Oklahoma is 49th in the nation in terms of women serving in elected office. Having women’s voices at the table is critical for a number of reasons. One, because we see over and over again that when women are serving in elected office, they have a tendency to reach across the aisle and pass more legislation. But the reason that representation matters so much is because it results in better policy and better outcomes when we have elected officials who look more like our communities, who can reflect the diversity of experiences inside and understand the unique challenges that working women, mothers, and different kinds of families face.

MC: Why do you think it is that Oklahoma has such as abysmal rate of female representation?

KH: I think it is a combination of reasons. It’s hard to see yourself in a place when you don’t see anybody that looks like you, and that’s one of the reasons that representation matters. It’s not that we don’t want the people that have been in leadership to be in leadership, but it’s a whole lot easier to see yourself some place if there are people that you can relate to, and it requires effort and intention to change things. There’s also the factor that women are less likely to self-nominate than men. They have to be asked more often to run than men do, and we place higher hurdles for women running for public office than we do for men. So, it takes more work, but having a class with this many women, and having more women elected across the country, that really, I think, will make a difference going forward in terms of our representation and balance.

MC: Your race was the biggest upset of the midterms: The Republican incumbent won in 2016 by 20 points, and polls showed him with a double-digit lead just days before the election. How did you win as a Democrat in this deep red state?

KH: The district is changing. We’ve seen a significant amount of growth and development over the last few years, but at the same time, the voter turnout had been dropping pretty significantly. I think that’s in large part due to the idea that if someone didn’t feel like they fit into a particular box—if they weren’t a Republican, if they were an independent, or had some other opinion—they felt their vote didn’t matter and their voice didn’t count. We went out there and talked to everybody. We talked to Republicans, we talked to Democrats, we talked to Independents, and we brought more people to the table. So we saw a big increase in voter turnout. It was people in this district that were ready for something new who really pushed us over the edge.

Lauren Underwood (D-IL)

MC: How does your background as a nurse prepare you for Congress?

Lauren Underwood: In nursing school, you have to learn how to walk into a patient’s room and quickly establish trust. Usually you get five minutes, max. You’re talking to the patient or their family and building that rapport so that they know that the advice that you’re giving, and the only reason why you’re there, is to help them get better. You look into their eyes and you make that connection. It’s the same thing you do on the campaign trail every day. People share their most intimate vulnerabilities. Seriously. And you build that trust. I was not expecting to draw upon my skill set in that way, but at its core it's the same thing.

MC: You are the youngest black woman ever elected to Congress. Why is that significant, and what does that distinction mean to you?

LU: Going back to colonial America, who serves in Congress? White, wealthy landowners. And traditionally, this has been a very, very, very elite institution, and folks like me did not have a voice in that elite institution. Now, we have a small caucus. We’re able to do this work on behalf of yes, our constituents—like the 520,000 people in the Illinois Fourteenth—but also the other young women of color around the country who are affected by the policies coming out of the Congress every day. We see it in the policies they pass, like this continual assault on women’s reproductive health care, which would never happen if the Congress was representative of the American people. That’s why representation matters.

The rising American electorate is younger and more diverse than we have ever seen before. Millennials certainly make up a huge voting bloc within our electorate, but also people of color. Our representation in federal policy making is not at all in proportion to the population. That means our tax policy and social safety net policies, health care, climate change, all these things affect communities of color and young people in ways that we have not discussed within the halls of Congress, and certainly have not had the opportunities to hear from those communities directly in hearings and testimonies. Having representatives that have the lived experience that we can offer, perspective that we can share, is so crucially important.

MC: What’s your advice to other young women who are thinking about running for office?

LU: Girlfriend, we need you to run! Please do it. There is nothing about it that’s convenient, nothing about that is easy. But it is 100-percent worthwhile. If it’s not Congress, there’s a school board or country commission. There are library boards and water boards and all these different positions in local and state government. The Marie Claire reader is smart and talented and certainly has a lot to offer, and I think that she needs to run. And honestly, I’m ready to help. For real. I’m not just playing.

A version of this article will appear in the forthcoming March 2019 issue of Marie Claire.

READ THE CURRENT ISSUE HERE

While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was busy getting sworn into the 116th Congress on January 3—becoming the youngest woman in U.S. history to serve in Congress at 29—the internet could not stop talking about a video of her that surfaced during her time at Boston College gloriously dancing on the roof of a building.

Yes, the government has been partially shut down for 13 days, there is still no clean water in Flint, and Donald Trump is still president, but here we are! Analyzing a video of AOC looking incredibly happy! It was distributed by now-deleted Twitter account @AnonymousQ1776 in a weird attempt to humiliate her, but the only one here who's humiliated is me—wishing I could dance as well as Ocasio-Cortez.

Per usual, the internet decided to share its thoughts on Twitter about the viral 30-second clip, defending Ocasio-Cortez and her Breakfast Club-style dance movies. Enjoy the best, below.

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

SUBSCRIBE HERE

The glass ceiling-shattering 116th class of Congress has been changing the game even before they were sworn in, and today, they proved that everything —yes, even fashion choices—can be a political statement.

Newly sworn in Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Madeleine Dean, and Ilhan Omar wore white ensembles to the ceremony this afternoon, and it's not just a rebellion against the No White After Labor Day rule—it's a reference to the long history of women’s suffrage. Why white? White is one of the official colors of the the women’s movement, along with green, gold and purple. In the early 1900s, the suffragettes wore white to attend marches.

“White has connotations in the west of purity and virtue, this idea of being the good guy,” Valerie Steele, director of the Museum at FIT in New York City, told The Guardian. “Certainly the suffragettes were aware of that when they wore white–they were good people too, why shouldn’t they have the right to vote?”

It's not the first time this has happened on the political stage, either: Hillary Clinton wore a white pantsuit when she accepted the 2016 Democratic nomination for president as well as in the third general election debate during her run. So did Geraldine Ferraro in her 1984 acceptance speech, as she became the first female vice president candidate for a major political party. Shirley Chisholm wore white in 1969 when she became the first Black woman elected to Congress. Several democratic congresswomen chose all white looks when Trump addressed congress in February 2017. “We want a visual reminder to him that suffragettes wore white and we are not going to let him take us backward," Rep. Linda Sánchez told the LA Times at the time. "We are not going to let men dictate the choices that we have in our lives. We are not going to stand for a president that doesn’t respect us and take our perspective into account.”

Today, Congress swore in a record number of women. Omar, of Minnesota, and Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan (whose sons dabbed as she cast her first vote for Speaker of the House, a whole 2019 mood) are the first Muslim women to serve. This freshman class also includes the first Native American women with Representative Sharice Davids of Kansas and Deb Haaland of New Mexico. Haaland wore traditional Pueblo dress for the swearing-in ceremony. Ayanna Pressley is Massachusetts' first black Congresswoman, and Abby Finkenauer is Iowa's first female member of Congress. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, at 29, is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

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

SUBSCRIBE HERE

It seemed like the most natural, authentic and righteous thing for Ilhan Omar, one of the two first-ever Muslim women elected to Congress, to start off her victory speech with “As-salaam aleikum”, the Islamic phrase Muslims worldwide use to greet each other (as well as non-Muslims).

Omar, a former Somali refugee and a proud hijab-wearing first-generation Muslim immigrant, had just won in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District. She greeted her supporters in the most genuine way she knew how: with God’s blessings.

A Facebook thread started by a friend who grew up in Muslim-majority Bangladesh, which is also my parent’s homeland, showed that perhaps not all Muslims are in favor of Omar’s blatant Muslim-ness. That friend felt it was inappropriate for Omar to start her victory speech with the Islamic greeting, inserting religion in a political space.

It makes sense why she feels this way. Bangladesh, founded as a secular state, is facing a battle between secularism and Islamization, between culture and religion. In 2015, Bangladeshi atheist blogger, 22-year-old Shammi Haque fled to Germany, having received death threats when she wrote about the rising power of Islamic extremists and the negative impact these groups have on women’s rights in the country. Several other bloggers were arrested and killed during that time. Criticism against Islam continues to be condemned in Bangladesh, and last year the Ministry of Information created a program to monitor the media and bloggers which it blamed for encouraging religious conflict.

Muslims all over the world are fighting a deep, layered battle, and women are at the front lines. There are many stories like Haque’s—women who are fighting for gender equality, in Muslim-majority countries. In Saudi Arabia, women’s rights activist Samar Badawi and Nassima al-Sadah are two of over a dozen activists arrested by the Saudi authorities in their crackdown against the women’s rights movement. The same year that Saudi Arabia made headlines for finally granting women the right to drive.

But the plight of Muslim women in the West—in Europe, Australia and the U.S.—is just as miserable and dangerous, especially for women who are visibly Muslim in a hijab, headscarf, burqa or other types of Islamic dress. Of those whose appearance is identifiably Muslim, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) say they have experienced discrimination. Results from a recent survey showed that Muslim American women reported routinely bracing themselves for insults, avoiding certain social situations or places, monitoring their physical appearance, and censoring what they say or how they say it. Tell Mama, an organization that monitors Islamophobic attacks in the U.K, says 60 percent of such attacks are directed at women on the street.

Here’s the thing about the lofty ideals of the American dream: It promises the freedom to practice whatever and however we choose—atheism, Islam, or anything else. It is our choice. This is why most of us live here, this is why 3.45 million Muslims live here, despite knowing the inherent dangers of being Muslim in Trump’s America.

In the U.S., women like Omar and Tlaib are fighting for the right for Muslim women to exist and take up space in politics, which is why Omar’s decision to use the Islamic greeting is so revolutionary. In her emotionally charged victory speech, Omar told her supporters, “I stand here before you tonight, as your congresswoman-elect with many firsts behind my name. The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress. The first woman to wear a hijab. The first refugee ever elected to Congress. And one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress.”

As a Muslim-American journalist, I am invested in the rights of women like my mother, aunts and friends who are devout and observant Muslim American women. As a secular, non-practicing Muslim-American woman who frequently travels to Bangladesh to report and visit, it’s hard for me to come to terms with the way Islam is used as a misogynistic tool there. When I reveal to people I’m Muslim, which most people don’t gather from my name or the fact that I don’t wear hijab or dress modestly, they always ask me about the pressures of growing up in a Muslim family. Does my family enforce rules on me? Do they expect me to be a certain way?

Yes, I have faced that pressure. Truth be told, I might have denounced my Muslim identity altogether if it weren’t for the fact that in America, being Muslim, and a Muslim woman at that, is political. The hatred my birth country has for the faith my parents so vehemently cling to and have grown increasingly attached to—in a way that I honestly don’t think they would have, had they been living in Bangladesh and not immigrants in America—makes me probe further into the religion, the softer sides, the mandatory charity, the community aspects, the stalled history of women’s rights.

Women are suffering the most in the Muslim diaspora, and yet we are still doing the heavy lifting of fighting Islamophobia in the West and sexism within our homelands and immigrants communities. We are reimagining what it means to be Muslim—more tolerant, more kind, more fair.

Plus, the thought of Mike Pence swearing Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib in on the Quran is pure poetic justice. The Muslim ban stopped Somalis from entering the county—and here is a Somalian-American, former refugee, hijab-clad woman being sworn in on Islam’s holy book.

In an interview with the New York Times, Michigan Congress-elect Rashida Tlaib said, “Today I was being thankful, embracing how incredibly blessed I am to grow up here, to have this tremendous opportunity. Sometimes I say, ‘Thank her,’ because my Allah is She.”

Part of this interview took place in Tlaib’s community mosque—a symbolic point for Muslim women fighting sexism inside and outside the faith. In so many Muslim communities around the world, there is no women’s entrance, no space for women in the mosque. And Islam isn’t to blame. Muslim men and the patriarchy are. But that is exactly what Muslim women all over the world are working on to change. And Tlaib and Omar are leading the way.

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.

It’s pretty common knowledge that Olivia Wilde is one of the coolest celebrities: She’s an outspoken feminist activist, she takes on exciting roles as an actress, she’s now a badass director, thanks to her upcoming movie, Booksmart. And it turns out she gets it from her mama, Leslie Cockburn, an award-winning journalist running for Congress in Virginia’s 5th district.

Before running for the U.S. House of Representatives, Cockburn was in the second class of women ever allowed at Yale. As a journalist for nearly 35 years, she created documentaries (alongside her husband, Andrew Cockburn, Olivia Wilde’s dad) for PBS’ Frontline, ABC News, and 60 Minutes, on some pretty intense subjects: How the CIA encouraged drug-trafficking, the U.S.’s covert support of the Khmer Rouge, and the Taliban. And it paid off: She won a slew of journalism awards for it.

Now, she’s running as a Democrat in Virginia’s 5th district, one of the largest voting districts in the country, according to the New Yorker, and the home of Charlottesville, where hundreds of neo-Nazis marched last year at a white supremacist rally. At that event, one suspected nationalist sympathizer drove his car through a crowd of protesters, leaving one woman, Heather Heyer, dead. As a progressive Democrat running against Trump-endorsed Republican Denver Riggleman—who you may recall from his Bigfoot porn appreciation and for which we’re not going to judge him— in a state that typically swings to the right, Charlottesville looms large.

So being Olivia Wilde’s mother is really just icing on an already impressive cake for Leslie Cockburn, but Wilde has talked about how excited she is for her mom. “It’s extraordinary to watch your own mother pivot from being a journalist for 35 years to running for Congress,” Wilde told Access a few months ago. “I was already in awe of my mom and now it has been taken to another level.”

Wilde and her husband, Jason Sudeikis, hosted a rally at University of Virginia in October in order to support Cockburn’s candidacy, and Wilde has since done some Get Out the Vote events, too.

It’ll be a tough race in the Virginia 5th, but since Cockburn has focused her campaign on access to the Affordable Care Act, the environment, and reproductive freedom, she’s the modern candidate so many people (especially women-identifying voters) are clamoring for right now.

Don’t forget to vote today! If you need help finding your polling place or checking your registration, you can do so at Vote.org.

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.

Alexandra Ocasio-CortezAyanna PressleyGretchen WhitmerHeidi HeitkampSharice DavidsRashida TlaibSylvia GarciaAbby FinkenauerIlhan OmarDeb HaalandTeri JohnstonLauren UnderwoodVeronica EscobarSusan WildLeticia James

Don't call it a comeback—but do call it a night full of women-driven victories. The results of the 2018 midterm elections on Tuesday saw a number of dynamic women take Congress by storm, and if we didn't see the fabled "blue wave," we did see strong and steady progress. From Ilhan Omar in Minnesota to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts, dozens of card-carrying members of the "resistance" against President Trump were elected to the only body capable of suppressing him: Congress.

It's a victory two years in the making—and even if it isn't the blue-sweep victory some Democrats had hoped for (Beto!), make no mistake that this is a victory. If projections hold and Democrats take control of the House, Republicans no longer have the upper hand over the entire federal government. It's a far cry from Democrats taking control of both chambers, yes, but it's also light years away from the position Democrats had been in prior to Election Day.

Then there are the women who sought victory in the wake of Trump's election and finally earned it on Tuesday night—the 70-plus women who have already inched the country forward, making it a more diverse, more feminist, more heroic place to live. Like...

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

One of the brightest Democratic stars of this election cycle, Ocasio-Cortez handily defeated Republican opponent Anthony Pappas in New York with more than 75 percent of the vote. This makes Ocasio-Cortez, a Latina, the youngest woman to serve in Congress. Ever.

Ayanna Pressley

Pressley took more than half the vote in Massachusetts' 7th congressional district following her "Change Can't Wait" campaign, making her the first black women to ever represent Massachusetts in Congress.

Gretchen Whitmer

Whitmer is now the governor-elect of Michigan. She defeated Republican opponent Bill Schuette, a Trump-endorsed, fiercely anti-abortion candidate who posed cheerfully with firefighters in front of a burning fire last week. This is great news, is what I'm getting at.

Heidi Heitkamp

North Dakota incumbent Heitkamp didn't keep her seat, but I'm going to call this a moral victory. Hear me out: Heitkamp famously voted "no" against Brett Kavanaugh, which contributed to her loss. "That @SenatorHeitkamp knew voting no on Kavanaugh would seal her political fate and did it anyway makes her a hero in my book," wrote author Jessica Knoll on Twitter.

Sharice Davids

Davids breaks new ground in Congress twice over, becoming both Kansas' first gay representative in Congress and one of the first two Native American women to ever serve in Congress. For the latter, she joins Deb Haaland, who won a House seat in New Mexico Tuesday.

Rashida Tlaib

Tlaib is often mentioned in the same breath as fellow winner Ilhan Omar, both being Muslim women who were successfully elected to Congress Tuesday, but Tlaib is a winner in her own right. Once arrested for protesting a Trump rally, Tlaib claimed a congressional seat in Michigan as her own, defeating opponent Sam Johnson by a wide berth (91 percent of the vote, as of this writing).

Sylvia Garcia

In spite of its considerable Hispanic population, Texas has actually never been represented by a Hispanic woman at the federal level. Until now. Sylvia Garcia will be the first, along with Veronica Escobar, a fellow Texas Latina; both were elected to the House on Tuesday.

Abby Finkenauer

Finkenauer's victory is meaningful because it flips a district that Trump won by several percentage points in 2016: Iowa's 1st district. She beats incumbent Rob Blum.

Ilhan Omar

Omar is not only one of the first Muslim women to ever serve in Congress, but the very first Somali American woman to do so. A former refugee from Somalia, Omar beat her opponent by a mile in the solidly blue district.

Deb Haaland

Haaland made history Tuesday by winning her House race and becoming one of the first two Native American women to ever serve in Congress, along with Davids.

Teri Johnston

Florida has its first openly gay female mayor in Johnston, who on Tuesday beat her opponent, Margaret Romero, to become Key West's newest mayor.

Lauren Underwood

Underwood successfully flipped a longtime Republican district in Illinois on Tuesday night, defeating the four-time incumbent (and Trump endorsee) Randy Hultgren.

Veronica Escobar

A former judge in El Paso, Escober joins Garcia to become one of the two first-ever Latinas to represent Texas in Congress. Escobar took the seat vacated by Beto O'Rourke when he ran for Senate.

Susan Wild

Until Tuesday, Pennsylvania's entire slate of congressional representatives were male. Wild becomes the first woman to join their ranks as a congresswoman in the state's seventh district.

Leticia James

The New York attorney general's office is well-known for its opposition to President Trump, and James was voted in in a landslide Tuesday on her promise to continue rejecting the president's proposals. “He should know that we here in New York—and I, in particular—we are not scared of you,” James said in her victory speech.

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.

Update: Haaland is heading to Congress. As of 11:30 p.m. of November 6, Deb Haaland has been declared the congresswoman-elect of New Mexico's first district. Along with Sharice Davids, a member of the Ho-Chuck Nation who won in Kansas' third district, she will be the first Native American woman to serve in Congress.

This will very likely be the year Native American women finally get a voice on the national stage. After winning New Mexico’s Democratic primary in June, in a solidly blue district, Deb Haaland is poised to become the first-ever Native American woman to serve in Congress.

It’s an historic year for Native women overall, with more indigenous women than ever running for office: Ahead of the primaries, at least four were campaigning for Congress, while three ran for Governor, and at least 31 were bidding for state offices.

Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo Tribe, worked to get out the Native vote as a volunteer for President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, before serving as chair of New Mexico’s Democratic Party, where she led a successful effort to turn the state blue in 2016.

She recently stopped by Marie Claire’s offices in New York City to discuss her history-making campaign, what she wants to accomplish, and what she thinks of President Donald Trump’s using “Pocahontas” as an insult.

Marie Claire: Why did you want to run for Congress?

Deb Haaland: I was finishing up my term as Democratic State Party Chairwoman and wanted to continue to serve the people of New Mexico, and running for Congress felt like a really good way for me to continue to be a strong voice for my state. I asked myself, Would I be able to do the job effectively, and can I run a winning campaign? I called together a couple of my good friends whom I felt I could trust and we felt like the answers were yes, we could do the work.

MC: You ran for Lieutenant Governor in 2014 and lost. What did you learn from losing?

DH: I always work really hard on campaigns because I believe strongly that getting people out to vote is really the thing that you should be passionate about all the time. So we worked really hard to get people to the polls, but [the incumbent, Gov. Susana Martinez] had millions in her campaign fund and was putting out all these ads with her hugging kids and it was just hard to beat her. Sometimes it’s just hard to overcome so much money.

MC: You came back from that loss, and as party chair, went on to turn the state blue in the 2016 election. How did you do it?

DH: After the 2014 election when we lost control of the state House, the morale among Democrats was just not good at all. I felt like I knew what we needed. I wanted to unify the party, so I decided to travel to every rural community to let people know I cared about the work they were doing. We traveled all over New Mexico, including to red counties, and things started turning around. By the time Donald Trump was running for president, we honed our message and tapped into how a lot of New Mexicans were feeling about him, and that helped us a lot, too.

MC: And how were New Mexicans feeling about Trump?

DH: He wasn’t speaking for us. We felt his campaign really showed his ignorance about government and how he just didn't have the experience, but mostly, it was the women piece: Trump was degrading women and New Mexico’s First Congressional District is about 60 percent women.

MC: What do you think about President Trump calling Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Pocahontas?

DH: He’s so rude and disrespectful. It’s disrespectful to use the name Pocahontas sort of as a racial slur. And there’s the fact that President Trump doesn’t get to decide how anyone identifies themselves. On top of that, Senator Warren works really hard to make people’s lives better—she fights for tribes, for working families, for women, for people getting ripped off by big banks. When she spoke at the National Congress of American Indians, the tribal leaders gave her a standing ovation.

MC: There are a record number of Native American women running for office this year. Why this year?

DH: There have been Native women on the frontlines for centuries, fighting for things like treaty rights, fishing rights, and, most recently, against pipelines. I think Standing Rock has something to do with it. It seemed to mobilize a lot of Native American people.

MC: What would it mean to you to be the first Native American woman in Congress?

DH: Part of the reason I wanted to do this is because I want other Native women to see they can do it, too. I recently spoke with some Native interns in Washington, D.C. There were nine girls and one young man. We took photos together after my talk and they were posted on Instagram and one of the young women commented over and over: “Representation matters, representation matters,” like 10 times. Those girls have never seen themselves in Congress. If I can inspire young women like that to finish their schooling, get some experience, and then eventually think, I can run for office, I’m happy about that. When I announced New Mexico’s votes on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in 2016, I got a message from a mom who said her daughter had watched me and was now running for student body president. I was so proud to hear that.

MC: You’re a single mom. Do you have any policies in mind to pursue on behalf of women like you?

DH: Yes, absolutely. We had a paid sick leave bill that came up in the Albuquerque city council and I went and advocated for it. It’s a shame that we have to fight for those things. When I was in high school, I worked at an independently-owned bakery and my boss provided paid leave, healthcare, regular raises—it was a great place to work. We should make it easier for small businesses to be able to provide those things. Every time you talk about raising the minimum wage, small business owners get worried about it, but it shouldn’t be that way. The government is giving all the tax breaks to the biggest corporations and not enough to small businesses and there’s just so much we need to do for workers.

MC: Are you worried about reproductive rights in light of the opening on the Supreme Court?

DH: Every time you turn around, Congress is trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is so important for women—for young women, women in college, poor women. I used it when I was in law school because it was affordable and accessible. Women need healthcare so I’ll always fight for that.

MC: If elected, what do you hope to accomplish for Native American women specifically?

DH: The issue of missing and murdered Native women is not mainstream enough—not enough people know enough to care. I would work hard to make sure that’s an issue people get behind. I spoke with a woman recently who said we need a special bureau or section of the FBI to investigate these crimes. Things like that happen in Congress, so that’s something I could definitely fight for.

MC: How do you balance the work you want to do for Native Americans with the things you want to do for all New Mexicans?

DH: I will always fight for my district first, but a lot of our issues are the same. Many Native communities are rural and we have a lot of rural communities in my district. I realize there might be a lot of Indian tribes who would feel that I could champion some issues for them, and I’d be happy to do that. I know, so far, there are two Native Americans in Congress—both men from Oklahoma—so between the three of us, we can probably manage that. But I’m there first and foremost to represent my district in a state that I truly love and I will absolutely never let that fall by the wayside.

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.

Call it the year of the woman or the pink wave—either way, the 2018 midterm elections have garnered far more attention and excitement than the ho-hum, low voter turnout contests of years past. There are an historic number of women running for office, campaign spending is on pace to make this the most expensive midterms ever, and a record-setting 800,000 people signed up to vote on National Voter Registration Day earlier this month (thank you, Taylor Swift!).

With just hours to go until the polls close, voters are already reporting long lines, and nonprofits like Pizza to the Polls have sprung into action to make sure that everybody waiting is well-fed. There's a lot at stake during this election—from the health of Roe v. Wade and how things will shake out if it's overturned, to the legislation seeking to kill an anti-discrimination law and leave trans people in danger in public spaces. Long before polling places opened, celebrities and other public figures were already speaking out about who they were endorsing and urging others to vote—after all, today marks the first real electoral test of the strength of the "resistance."

And yet. With a dizzying amount of midterms coverage making the rounds on TV and social media every day, it can be hard to make sense of it all, even for the most impassioned of us. We hear you, and that’s why we’ve prepared this list of straight facts and figures on the key takeaways from the campaign season.

These numbers prove that the enthusiasm around female candidates is very real—you’ve probably heard that more women than ever before are running for Congress, but records are being set at the state level, too, where 3,379 women are running for seats in their state legislatures (that’s an increase of more than 700 women from 2016) and a history-making 16 women have been nominated for governor.

That’s just one of many milestones to come out of this race. Like...

529 vs. 312

Number of women running for Congress in 2018 vs. 2016.

235 vs. 167

Number of female nominees for the U.S. House in 2018 vs. in 2016 (the previous record).

22 vs. 18

Number of female nominees for the U.S. Senate in 2018 vs. 2012 (the previous record).

476 vs. 298

Number of women who filed to run for the U.S. House in 2018 vs. 2012 (the previous record).

53 vs. 40

Number of women who filed to run for the U.S. Senate in 2018 vs. 2016 (the previous record).

61 vs. 34

Number of women who filed to run for governor in 2018 vs. 1994 (the previous record).

44 percent

Increase in female Congressional candidates since 2012.

75 percent

Increase in women of color candidates for Congress since 2012.

13 percent

Decrease in white male candidates for Congress since 2012.

44 percent vs. 76 percent

The portion of white men who make up Democratic candidates for state legislature vs. the portion of white men who make up Republican candidates for state legislature.

71 percent

Increase in women of color candidates for state legislatures since 2012.

102

Number of women running for governor, U.S. House, or U.S. Senate who are first-time candidates.

42,000 vs. 920

Number of women who contacted EMILY’s List, an organization that helps pro-choice Democratic women run for office, to express interest in running for office since the 2016 election vs. the previous record number of women who contact the group during the entire 2016 election cycle.

22

Number of female nominees for U.S. Senate, a record. Of those, 15 are Democrats and 7 are Republicans.

235

Number of female nominees for U.S. Congress, a record. Of those, 183 are Democrats and 52 are Republicans.

32.4 percent

Portion of all major-party nominees for U.S. Senate that are women.

28.7 percent

Portion of all major-party nominees for U.S. House that are women.

50 percent

Portion of female nominees for the U.S. House who are challenging incumbents.

34 percent

Portion of female nominees for the U.S. House who are women of color.

17.4 percent

Portion of female nominees for the U.S. House who identify as black.

8.1 percent

Portion of female nominees for the U.S. House who identify as Latina.

6.8 percent

Portion of female nominees for the U.S. House who identify as Asian/Pacific Islander.

0.9 percent

Portion of female nominees for the U.S. House who identify as Native American

1

.

Number of female nominees for the U.S. Senate who are women of color.

244

Number of openly LGBTQ candidates who will appear on general election ballots.

21

Number of openly LGBTQ candidates who won Democratic primaries for U.S. Senate or House; there are zero known LGBTQ Republican nominees for U.S. Congress for the first time since 2010.

4

Number of LBGTQ nominees for governor, a record.

35

The number of seats up for election in the U.S. Senate in 2018.

26 vs. 9

Number of Democratic-held seats in the U.S. Senate that are up for election in 2018 vs. the number of Republican-held seats in the U.S. Senate that are up for election in 2018 .

10

Number of U.S. Senate held by Democrats in states President Donald Trump won in 2016 that are up for election in 2018.

2

Number of seats Democrats need to net to take control of the U.S. Senate (while holding on to the 49 seats they currently have).

435

The number of seats up for election in the U.S. House in 2018.

23

Number of Republican-held seats Democrats need to win to take control of the U.S. House.

68

Number of U.S. House districts that are considered competitive.

16 percent

Portion of Americans living in one of the U.S. House districts that are considered competitive.

11

Number of states without a woman currently serving in Congress. (Pennsylvania and South Carolina are on track to elect a woman this year.)

16

Number of female nominees for governor, a record. (Of those, 12 are Democrats and 4 are Republican.)

3,379

Number of female nominees for state legislative offices, a record (up from 2,649 in 2016).

$624.7 million

Amount spent by all Democrats running for the U.S. House.

$471.6 million

Amount spent by all Republicans running for the U.S. House.

$368.6 million

Amount spent by all Democrats running for the U.S. Senate.

$233.9 million

Amount spent by all Republicans running for the U.S. Senate.

$24.8 million

Amount spent by incumbent Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, and his Democratic challenger, Beto O’Rourke, in the race for the U.S. Senate in Texas. The contest is the most expensive race this election cycle.

$55.7 million

Amount contributed by Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate, and his wife, Miriam. The Adelsons are the biggest spenders of the midterms, and 100 percent of their donations went to Republicans.

$42.2 million

Amount contributed by Tom Steyer, the hedge fund manager turned environmentalist, and his wife, Kathryn Fahr. Steyer and Fahr are the largest Democratic donors this cycle.

32.3 percent vs. 12.9 percent

Portion of money raised by Senate Republican candidates that came from political action committees (or PACs) vs. the portion of money raised by Senate Democratic candidates that came from PACs.

$2.47 million vs. $1.82 million

Amount spent by gun rights groups vs. the amount spent by gun control groups.

$368 million

Amount contributed by residents of California alone; Californians gave more money to campaigns than any other state.

33

Number of women vs. women races in the general election.

45 percent

Portion of women running for the U.S. House or Senate who won their primaries (41 winners out of 92 female candidates).

29

Age of the youngest member of the U.S. House of Representatives if Abby Finkenauer wins her race for Iowa’s First Congressional District.

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.

It was November 8, 2016, and I was walking out of Hillary Clinton's headquarters. I had been just 30 feet from the podium where I'd hoped to see her accept the presidency. Now, I was trying to come to grips with a Donald Trump America.

At the hotel, a Muslim woman walked into the elevator beside me. We made eye contact, and we burst into tears. Nothing needed to be said. The next day brought cold, colorless rain in New York. I told my husband I needed to quit my job and run for United States Congress.


I was not alone. In his farewell speech, President Obama said, “If you're disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for office yourself.” More than twice as many women as usual ran for the 2018 elections. America was looking for a hero, and women stepped into the telephone booth and put on our capes.

There’s a common misconception about running for office. People think it’s dreadful, morally compromising work. But I’ve found the opposite is true. It made a better person and a better feminist. It forced me to take a hard look at my shortcomings.

Before I ran for office, I ran a game studio. There’s a common personality type to software developers—one I certainly fall into. We’re more comfortable staring at a screen than staring into someone’s eyes. Engineers can be brilliant in the workplace, and something less-than-brilliant everywhere else. If I was going to run for Congress, I knew I'd have to level up my people skills.

The first thing to go were the headphones, the social armor that was so safe and comforting. Instead of reading books on OpenGL, I found myself reading books on psychology and charisma. Maybe these skills come naturally to some people, but I had to study hard.

Did you know humans only have a single facial expression that signifies delight across gender and cultures? Raising our eyebrows in surprise. It seems silly, but when you meet someone and express delight to see them for a fraction of a second, it puts them at ease. The crow’s feet at the corners of my eyes used to embarrass me—but I learned that crinkle was the difference in a fake smile and a real smile. It was no longer a flaw, but a weapon for making friends. 



The strangest thing is, having to do this made me a happier person. When I saw someone walking their dog, I smiled. When I noticed kids playing a game, I smiled. In my 20s, cynicism had been my armor, and it was now a liability. In its place, openness and kindness had to take its place.

Here in New England, I got to know almost 100 other women that had decided to run for office, many through the Emerge program for training Democratic women. We were running for mayor, running for state senate, running for Congress. Like me, most of my peers were first-time candidates. We were starting to figure out this alien life of being a political candidate.

And I would love to tell you that we all won. In the movies, the underdog always wins. The Death Star always explodes. Carrie always walks into the sunset with Mr. Big. But reality has somewhat different odds than Hollywood. In a congressional race, the person spending less money wins only 9 percent of the time. You have less than 15 percent chance of beating an incumbent—and those odds are way worse if you’re running for the first time.


The rules of probability cannot bend, and many excellent women candidates lost this year. In California, volcanologist Jess Phoenix lost her bid for Congress. Former intelligence analyst Alexandra Chandler lost in Massachusetts as well as research administrator Sabrina Heisey. And always being one for good company, I lost my race too.

For a first-time candidate who raised under $200,000, I did a fantastic job. I got almost 25 percent of the electorate, with over 17,000 people voting for me. I sometimes try to imagine 1000 people telling me they believe in me enough to be their congresswoman, and it’s overwhelming. 17,000 people believing in you isn’t a loss, it’s an excellent start to a career. The guy I was running against has a 20-year head start.

Why did I lose? It’s a question I’ve had to ask myself honestly. The truth is, you cannot run a political campaign like a tech startup. Technology is a field that fetishizes disruption. The old ways are suspect, and we place an almost irrational trust on new tools. That’s fine for developing games, but it was a failing playbook for politics.

There’s no way to “disrupt” the shoe-leather work of shaking hands and listening to people. I was more comfortable in the digital world, but I needed to spend my time in the real one. As the candidate, I could hire someone to produce ads, but only I could raise the money to pay for them. I needed to spend more time raising money and more time spending it. 



I find all this energizing rather than discouraging. Running a campaign isn’t just more complicated than I expected, it’s delightfully more complicated. I come from engineering, and failure is an expected state. For 2020, I know what went wrong, and now I know how to fix it. 


And make no mistake, every woman that ran this year had successes that can be built upon. Now, I know organizers at every Democratic Town Committee. I know how to get on the ballot. I know how to file an FEC report. I know how to canvas neighborhoods.


If women are looking to replace men at the top levels of leadership, we can expect politics in all its glory, loss and heartbreak included. Careers are not built in a day. One political loss is not the end, and even wins are ephemeral. Creating an equal world for women was never going to be a one-election task.

Make no mistake. There are massive networks of women candidates forming, supporting and teaching each other. And these networks won’t disappear after a single election. Losing any single battle is not losing the war. Studies show if a first-time candidate loses, our odds skyrocket is we run a second time.

Perhaps the biggest lesson I’ve learned from running is that there are no perfect candidates in politics, just candidates. In this field, the only heroes are the ones that do not give up. I plan to persist.

We all know Taylor Swift is powerful, but after her Instagram post yesterday in which she (finally) spoke out about her politics, it emerges she may have even more clout than we thought. If you missed it, on Sunday night, Swift posted a political note to Instagram in which she endorsed Phil Bredesen for Tennessee Senator and Jim Cooper for Representative.

In the post, she talked to her 112 million Instagram followers and 83.6 million Twitter followers about Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn’s congressional voting record, which Swift said “appalls and terrifies me.” She went on:

“I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country. I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent.”

She then sent her followers to vote.org to register, and urged them to get educated on the candidates running in their areas.

You can read more about the post and who she endorsed here—but suffice to say, this was a pretty big reversal from Taylor, who’s been notably mum on politics for a long time. Remember during the 2016 election when she told her followers to simply “vote” without endorsing any particular candidate? That was weak.

But better late than never for Swift, because she just made her voice really count. According to Vote.org’s Director of Communications Kamari Guthrie, who was interviewed by Buzzfeed News, Taylor’s endorsement created a massive uptick in voter registration since it was posted. “We are up to 65,000 registrations in a single 24-hour period since T. Swift’s post,” Guthrie told BuzzFeed, and added, “Thank God for Taylor Swift.”

Not everyone was as thrilled about her sudden activist awakening. President Donald Trump told reporters he likes her “music about 25 percent less” since she endorsed Democratic candidates. Former Arkansas Governor and Republican TV host Mike Huckabee, who now presumably resides under a rock, tweeted that her endorsement “won’t impact the election unless we allow 13 year old girls to vote.”

Is it just me, or do those guys seem a little scared?

Here's the full post:

The Best Political Swag to Buy for 2020

On Sunday evening, the term “Bigfoot erotica” began trending and, because it’s 2018, if your money was on “this has to do with our current political climate,” you were the night’s big winner. It started when Leslie Cockburn, a congressional candidate for Virginia’s 5th district, tweeted the following about her opponent, the GOP pick Denver Riggleman

"My opponent Denver Riggleman, running mate of Corey Stewart, was caught on camera campaigning with a white supremacist. Now he has been exposed as a devotee of Bigfoot erotica. This is not what we need on Capitol Hill."

Honestly, none of this is that surprising: The GOP is totally fine being the party of white supremacy, and with a name like Denver Riggleman I feel like “is into Bigfoot porn” would be one of the first things anyone assumed about him.

But within minutes, the differing opinions came and came (just like Bigfoot would if—you get the idea):

From my perspective, anyone who is white supremacist-adjacent should not be listened to ever again, but being into niche erotica shouldn’t be a disqualifying factor in public life. As such, MarieClaire.com would be remiss not to take advantage of this teachable moment and go deep on the subject.

Here are some commonly-asked questions (...I assume) about Bigfoot erotica:

What is Bigfoot erotica?

Probably self-explanatory, but it’s erotica (often written, though I did find some live-action films on Pornhub that I don’t want to link to on my work computer) involving the mythical North American woodland ape known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch. In the most popular Bigfoot scenarios, the creature in question is larger than a human and typically nonverbal. That means Bigfoot porn falls under the “non-human” fetish umbrella, though there's also kind of a dominance element to banging Bigfoot that shows up in a lot of scenarios. Dominance can be super hot, regardless of genus.

Does Harry and the Hendersons count as Bigfoot erotica?

I think so, but it probably depends on how you feel about John Lithgow.

Is Bigfoot real?

Well, that show Finding Bigfoot has been on for like seven years. If they had anything conclusive don’t you think it’d be bigger news?

But the Sasquatch Research Association (they’re a dot-org!!) is dedicated to searching for the truth and even has a whole page where you can report sightings. The most recent encounter is dated 2009, and comes from a self-described skeptic who became a believer when he came face-to-face with a ‘Squatch named Big Phil.

The story itself isn’t sexy, but the name Big Phil is a great option should the real Bigfoot decide to get into porn.

Why would someone theoretically be attracted to Bigfoot?

To answer this question, I turned to prolific author Chuck Tingle, creator of such titles as Seduced by Doctor Bigfoot: Attorney at Law and Bigfoot Pirates Haunt My Balls. He's basically the John Nash of Sasquatch erotica.

“I think it is because Bigfoot is a bad boy who walks between worlds,” Tingle told me, by way of explaining why people get horny for mythical woodland apes. “Sometimes he’s creeping along in the forest and you think, ‘Wow, that is dang mysterious. I hope he picks me up on his motorcycle and takes me on a fast ride that would be dangerous and fun.’” (Yes, Bigfoot drives a motorcycle in this scenario. Try to keep up.)

He continued, “But there is another side to Bigfoot that is kind and gentle, where he can teach you about the ways of the woods and show you which flowers to pick if you want to make a nice bundle to take home and put in a vase. So Bigfeet are sensitive in this way and I think that is very important for getting hard as a rock.”

I asked Dr. Kristie Overstreet, clinical sexologist and psychotherapist, about where Bigfoot fetishes fit. "Monster erotica, which includes sexual behavior between humans and monsters or creatures, is very popular," she tells MarieClaire.com. "Mythical creatures are based on our imagination and creation in our minds, which makes them even more stimulating. Whether it's Bigfoot, a merman, or the fish creature from The Shape of Water, many people find the thought of sex with these creatures highly erotic." She also says that wanting to do it with Sasquatch is a normal fantasy, and not something you should be ashamed of. "Bestiality is the act of a human having sex with a nonhuman animal," she says. "Monster erotica isn't the same thing."

Ultimately, says Dr. Overstreet, "There is nothing wrong with having a fetish. Start by accepting that you know what you like and what turns you on. Don't beat yourself up or feel guilty about it."

But do feel guilty if you're cool with white supremacy.

What does Chuck Tingle think about this news story?

Tingle says: “I would like to live in a timeline where preferred pound is not part of a political campaign discussion; where we can look at a candidate and say, ‘I do not think voting for them is appropriate because they are racist or homophobic’—not because they have a unique pound. I do not think we should talk about what gets people hard in a political way because that is not fair to equate.”

Let this be the final word on the subject.

Of course! Like any fetish, the key to enjoying it is to find ways to express it that make you feel good without causing harm. Reading erotica is a great way to do this, so might I recommend Chuck Tingle's Amazon page?

According to certified sex coach and writer Gigi Engle, you could also incorporate this fantasy into your actual sex life. "Have your partner wear a gorilla mask, if they're up for it," she says. "They can pretend not to speak a language and do a whole Bigfoot role-play."

There are also plenty of Bigfoot toys out there. Bad Dragon (links NSFW throughout) has a whole range of custom fantasy toys, including dildos, that would be amazing stand-ins for the real Bigfoot. (Unrelatedly, my birthday is coming up.) Fleshlight also makes a toy that’s actually called the Bigfoot Dildo, and it’s quite lifelike!

So that’s the deal with Bigfoot erotica! Make sure you're registered to vote in the upcoming midterms and enjoy your kinks responsibly.

Goodbye, my friends.

Senator Tammy Duckworth is used to breaking barriers. An Iraq War veteran who chose to serve as a helicopter pilot because it was one of few combat jobs open to women, she was the first female double amputee from the conflict, after her legs had to be amputated when a helicopter she was copiloting was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Duckworth went on to become the first disabled woman elected to Congress, in 2012. (She’s also the first Asian-American woman elected to Congress from Illinois and the first member of Congress from any state to have been born in Thailand.) Last year, she defeated incumbent Republican senator Mark Kirk to win a seat in the U.S. Senate, making her the second Asian-American woman in the legislative body.

And she’s not done achieving milestones. This spring, Duckworth, 50, became the first senator to give birth while in office, an occasion that forced the chamber to get with the times. On April 18, senators voted unanimously to allow infants on the floor during votes, reversing a rule that prohibited family members. That same day, in yet another historic first, Duckworth brought her 10-day-old daughter, Maile Pearl Bowlsbey, as she voted against confirming James Bridenstine as NASA’s next administrator. (He was confirmed 50–49.) This month, as Duckworth returns to work full-time, we speak with her about the buzz her pregnancy generated, paid maternity leave, and the age-old question of “having it all.”

Marie Claire: Are you surprised by how much attention your pregnancy received?

Tammy Duckworth: People have been very supportive and very kind, but what bothers me about it is that it is news. It shouldn’t be news; it should just be a snoozer of a thing: “Okay, she’s going to have a baby.” But it says something about where our country is, especially in relation to other developed industrialized nations, that this is such big news. We’ve got to get to a point where it doesn’t raise eyebrows to have someone give birth in office. Just like it shouldn’t raise eyebrows to have a woman be a senator or a woman in the cockpit or a woman in the boardroom. We’re not there yet, unfortunately.

MC: A lot of women, when they have kids, are asked how they'll balance work and motherhood—the common refrain about "having it all."

TD: The fact that I’m having a baby at 50 shows you can’t have it all. The reason [I had my kids later in life] is I made the choice early in my career that I don’t want other women to have to make. When I was in my 20s and trying to rise through the ranks of the military, I knew if I took time off to get pregnant and raise my children, it was going to affect my career. When they’re climbing the ladder in corporations or the government or the military, so many young women have to make this decision. They go on the mommy track—whether or not they want to, they’re sort of forced into it—because we don’t have the structures in place to support them. So they end up where I am. One day you wake up and you’re 40 years old and you think, Oh my gosh, what happened to my opportunity to have children? Luckily, I have the resources and have been fortunate enough to find a doctor who helped me have children in my late 40s and early 50s. But it took some time. I was 46 when I had my first child [Abigail, born in 2014], and I don’t want that for anyone else. I want people to be able to do both. But certainly, for me, I don’t have it all. I wouldn’t be in the situation I am in right now if I did.

MC: Did you do In Vitro Fertilization?

TD: I did do IVF. My husband and I ended up having to pay for IVF out of pocket because it was not covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am working to change that to make sure we cover fertility treatments there.

MC: How did you decide how much leave to take?

TD: I cannot technically take leave because if I were to be under the status of “Leave,” then I would not be able to vote. I need to represent the people of my state, so I decided to take time to be with my daughter and curtail my duties down to the minimum, which is key votes and sponsoring legislation. I chose to have my daughter in Washington, D.C., instead of back home in Illinois so that I can be here.

MC: Why was it important to change the rule to allow you to bring your daughter to the Senate floor?

TD: Because, technically, I could not otherwise bring her to the floor, which means I wouldn’t be able to vote because I have to physically be on the floor to vote. There are people who will say, “Why don’t you just leave your daughter with a caregiver?” I could do that, except there are times when we have what we call a votarama, where we’re voting for 10 to 12 hours straight. And my daughter needs to be fed.

MC: Are you planning to breastfeed on the Senate floor?

TD: I’ll do whatever I need to both do my job and take care of my daughter. That’s what most moms and dads would do. The rule change also allows a male senator to bring his newborn onto the floor if he wants to bottle-feed.

MC: The U.S. is one of the four countries that don't offer paid maternity leave, and there are several plans in place to change that. What do you think of Ivanka Trump's plan, which would allow parents to draw from social security to fund leave?

TD: I would like to see her follow up on something other than just issuing press releases. The bill I’m cosponsoring is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s [D-NY] bill. It’s based on kind of an insurance model, where you would contribute the equivalent of $2.50 a week and it would provide 12 weeks of paid family leave. And the employer would pay $3 a week. It’s very reasonable, it’s self-directed, it’s people helping themselves, and it just makes sense. Not having universal paid family leave is an economic detriment to our country. We can’t compete on a global scale for top talent because why would they stay here? Why would they not go someplace else, like Scandinavia or England, where there’s paid family leave and child-care support? And then we lose out.

MC: Are there any other policy changes you're looking at in light of your daughter's birth?

TD: One that is on the cusp of becoming a law is my Friendly Airports for Mothers (FAM) Act. That legislation came about with the birth of my first daughter, when I was traveling back and forth to Illinois every week. I found that there was no safe, clean place for me to express breast milk in airports. The FAM Act would require all medium and large airports, which would be over 90 percent of the airports in this country, to provide safe lactation rooms for moms.

MC: That makes the case for why we need more women in political office: You realized this was a problem for women—something a male legislator may not have noticed—and have the power to change it.

TD: Exactly!

This article originally appears in the July issue of Marie Claire, on newsstands now.

In a surprising turn of events, it's just been announced that Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has won a second primary. The 28-year-old—who beat out Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th Congressional District primary last month—secured the 15th district last night as a write-in candidate.

The news came as a shock to Ocasio-Cortez, who wasn't even pursuing a campaign in the neighboring district. "Shockingly—and I’m told this is not a joke—we have ALSO won a primary in the neighboring 15th Congressional District via write-in campaign on the Reform line!" she wrote on Twitter.

Since politicians are prohibited from holding two offices simultaneously, Ocasio-Cortez announced that she will continue her Democratic Socialist campaign in the 14th district. "While I am honored that so many Bronxites are excited about our campaign, I will remain the Dem nominee for NY-14," she explained.

If the Bronx-born candidate defeats Republican Anthony Pappas in November, Ocasio-Cortez will become the youngest woman elected to Congress. “Women like me aren’t supposed to run for office,” she said in her (now viral) campaign video. The daughter of a Puerto Rican mother, Ocasio-Cortez has set out to prove that women of color (who are historically underrepresented in the Unites States government) deserve a seat at the table. At this rate—she shows no signs of slowing down. And, clearly, the people of the Bronx don't want her to.

In a meeting with more than a dozen members of Congress Wednesday, President Trump brought up the looming crisis of the separation of immigrant families at the border. "Those images affect everybody," the president said of the viral photos of screaming children being torn from their families. Here's what else affects everybody: The hegemony of white, middle-aged men on the Hill, an issue perfectly illustrated by journalist Mike Knoller's photograph of Trump's meeting.

CBS correspondent Mark Knoller tweeted the image of the nearly two dozen politicians—none of whom appear to be women or people of color—sitting alongside Trump as the president discussed immigration. "We are keeping families together, but we have to keep our borders strong," the president declared, according to Knoller, surrounded completely by middle-aged white men.

It's not the first photograph taken of an all-white, all-male White House meeting—remember that infamous photo of two dozen men deciding the future of women's health care?—but immigration is an issue that disproportionately affects women and children. For example, the forced separation of families at the border leaves women of all ages especially vulnerable to sexual assault, as several experts have warned.

A close reading of the photo shows exactly one woman in the very background of the photo, and she appears to be a reporter, not a politician.

Other photos of the meeting reveal that Ivanka seems to have been present—and standing near the meeting, but not at the table.

Much like Knoller's photo, this is a telling image. Ivanka, who supposedly identifies as a moderate and has pledged to support women and children as a White House staffer, serves as senior advisor to the president. Yet, she isn't sitting at the table. This photo of her silently standing in the background is a powerful reminder of her silence on the border issue.

But back to Knoller's photo. Certainly, the halls of Congress have always been almost entirely white and male. Yet, efforts to diversify the country's leadership—efforts that have been partially successful, at least when you look at the racial demographics of those running for office this year–seem to be all but ignored by this administration. In this photo, the assembled group of politicians are just as white, male, and middle-aged as the politicians two hundred years ago.

On the bright side, everyone in this picture looks blissfully ignorant of the small army of women and individuals of color working to usurp them—and there are only five months left until November.

In the weeks since the Trump administration changed its zero-tolerance policy toward immigration—a policy that separates migrant children from their parents when coming over the the border—we've seen horrifying and heartbreaking sights, sounds, and stories coming from the detention centers where the children are being held. We’ve seen photos of the cages children are being kept in, heard audio of screaming kids begging to speak to their parents, and read witness accounts of overcrowding and lack of supplies.

If you feel like you can’t go another moment without doing something to help with the kids being separated by their families at the border, try doing one of these:

Call Your Congressperson

This takes only a few minutes, and every bit of pressure on elected representatives helps. There are currently several bills being pushed to fight the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, the most widely-circulated being the Keep Families Together Act, introduced be California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D). It’s currently supported by all Senate Democrats, but if you’re represented by a Republican, make sure they know that as your constituent, you want them to represent you and stop the zero-tolerance policy that separates children from their families.

The ACLU has a script you can follow here, and they'll even route your calls to the correct representative.

Donate Money

So much of the burden that these immigrant children and their families will face is going to be financial, and every little bit you can donate helps. If you want to take a cue from Chrissy Teigen—whose fundraiser in “honor” of Trump’s birthday garnered over $1 million—you can donate to the ACLU here.

Other organizations making an impact on this crisis are:

The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Educational and Legal Services (RAICES)

You may have seen their viral Facebook fundraiser on your feed. This organization can help put up the bond money to get parents out of detention and reunited with their children and make sure every child in Texas’s immigration system has legal representation. They’ve so far made over $2 million. You can donate to them here.

The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights

This organization advocates for separated children and is trying to launch a new initiative specifically centered around children affected by the zero-tolerance policy. You can donate to them here.

Border Angels

This nonprofit seeks to protect children and families crossing the Californian border through to the United States. Its volunteer-only model provides immigration help, as well as rescue and water stations. Donate here.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP)

A project of the Urban Justice Center, this organization helps prevent wrongful deportations and is currently looking for donations to provide legal aid, as well as volunteer attorneys and translators. Donate here.

ActBlue

Donate to ActBlue and your money will be sent to more than a dozen different organizations working to help children and families separated at the border. Donate here.

The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC)

NIJC provides representation for immigrant parents and children who have been separated or are detained near the border and throughout the U.S., as well as advise federal defenders representing asylum-seekers. You can donate to them here.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras

This organization provides shelter to immigrants and refugees, largely in the Sonoran Desert. Donate here.

CARA (a joint project of the groups CLINIC, RAICES, AILA, and the American Immigration Council)

Four separate immigration nonprofits joined forces in 2014 to form CARA, a pro bono group that connects attorneys to immigrants being held in detention centers near the border. If you're a lawyer, you can volunteer to help out, and if not, you can donate here.

Kids In Need Of Defense (KIND)

This group aims to provide support for children that have crossed the border, whether they were separated from their parents before or after the journey. It provides legal help to children in need, and simultaneously advocates for countries to recognize immigrant children's rights. Donate here.

Women's Refugee Commission

A global organization that fights for displaced women and children, the Women's Refugee Commission has turned its attention to the separation crisis at the border. Donate here.

You can also buy products like diapers to be sent directly to immigrant children through this registry at Target.

Volunteer

If you’re a lawyer, several organizations are looking for more people to represent children and families in immigration courts. ASAP is one such organization, and you can find out how to get involved here.

The Texas Civil Rights Project also put out a call for those with legal experience as well as those who can translate and help with the intake process:

Go to a Protest

So much political change is affected by optics, and a big crowd protesting a policy is a clear sign it’s unpopular. If you can’t volunteer or donate, you can still show up to protest and be counted among those who find these policies cruel, immoral, and un-American.

The nonprofit Families Belong Together has been organizing vigils and protests around the country. To see what the one nearest you is, you can go to their website here.

In the midst of the chaos, the Trump administration has unleashed a bevy of excuses, at once falsely telling reporters that separating families isn’t their policy, that it is their policy because it works as a deterrent to other potential immigrants, that it is their policy because it will persuade Democrats to fund the Border Wall, and that it’s actually what God wants.

It is completely understandable to feel helpless in this situation. The policy is almost unfathomably cruel and it can be hard to keep track of all the details. But there are some things you can do right now to help immigrant children and help shoulder the emotional and financial burdens their families face.

In today's "way to use your fame for good" news, Kourtney Kardashian, reality star and long-haired queen, is set to meet with congress to lobby for cosmetics reform. Who said celebs shouldn't get involved in politics?

Fighting alongside her will be Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), who, according to The Hill, has previously argued for updated legislation concerning beauty products, calling the current laws regulating the industry "obsolete" and "unacceptable," and urging congress to "ensure cosmetics are safe for the American people."

Kourtney, who has been a longtime supporter of natural and eco-friendly beauty products, is supposedly teaming up with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for the trip to Washington.

There's no telling what impact Kourtney's lobbying will have on current laws—or the current formulations of sisters' Kim and Kylie's makeup collections—but hopefully the possible changes will, in fact, make beauty products safer for both the people and the environment.

Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and CEO of Facebook, is currently testifying before members of Congress so that they can grill him about privacy, data, and the recent scandal involving Cambridge Analytica.

And while some of the questions have been admittedly, uh, unhelpful...

...one question was particularly welcomed. On Wednesday, Representative Billy Long asked about Facemash, one of the websites Zuckerberg made during his time at Harvard, which was used to rate the hotness of women on campus. (Facebook's rather sketchy origin story was famously canonized by Aaron Sorkin in the 2010 movie The Social Network.)

In this clip from the testimony, you can see Long ask what FaceMash is and whether it's still running. Zuckerberg, who honestly seems a little annoyed that someone has brought up his immature, sexist website, responds by saying, "No, Congressman. Facemash was a prank website that I launched in college, in my dorm room, before I started Facebook. There was a movie about this, or it said it was about this, it was of unclear truth. The claim that Facemash was somehow connected to the development of Facebook, it isn't, it wasn't... It actually has nothing to do with Facebook."

Then Long, who can clearly read the minds of every feminist woman watching, took it a step further and asked, "You put up pictures of two women and decided which one was more attractive of the two, is that right?" This caused Zuckerberg to become even more annoyed and say, "Congressman, that is an accurate description of the prank website I made when I was a sophomore."

Please watch the glorious moment on repeat below.

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.

On Sunday night, the Las Vegas strip was turned into a war zone. A lone gunman, from his hotel room window, murdered 59 innocent people and wounded more than 500. It is the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

We’re still learning how and why this madman committed this atrocity, but one thing we know for certain is that our country is failing to keep Americans safe from gun violence. We have been failing for years.

No advanced country in the world even comes close to the U.S. with regards to gun violence rates. Every day, 32 Americans are murdered with a gun. America has 42 times as many firearm homicides as England and Wales, 20 times as many as Australia, and more than six times as many as Canada. We also own more guns than any other developed nation. In fact, the United States—which accounts for just 4.4 percent of the world’s population—has almost half of all civilian-owned guns around the world.

I mourn those who were gunned down in Las Vegas, just as I did those at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, and the children and teachers who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the many other mass shooting victims we’ve lost in these events that have become all too common. It is appropriate to express our “thoughts and prayers” whenever a tragedy like this happens, but it is not enough. Without action to prevent the next massacre, these words ring hollow.

No one should have weapons like the ones the Las Vegas shooter had, enabling him to inflict that much horror and evil, to take and irreparably change so many lives. There are common-sense, widely supported gun safety reforms that we can put in place that will save lives and respect people’s rights to own firearms under the Constitution.

Nearly 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks, 84 percent support closing the gun show loophole, 68 percent support banning assault-style weapons, and 65 percent support banning high capacity magazines. As members of Congress, we are sent to the Capitol to represent the American people, our constituents. Clearly, we are not doing our jobs—and people are dying because of it.

After the passage of the 1994 assault weapons ban, we saw a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders and a 67 percent decline in the use of assault weapons in crime, yet we allowed this law to expire in 2004. We know that gun trafficking and straw purchases are some of the most common ways for criminals and other individuals who legally cannot own guns to get their hands on a firearm. Yet our federal gun trafficking laws are so weak that federal prosecutors rarely use them to bring charges. We even prohibit our federal public health researchers from studying gun violence.

There are bills before this Congress to fix these shortcomings, to make this country safer. I’ve introduced bills to strengthen our gun trafficking laws and allow federal research into gun violence. Other members have introduced bills to implement universal background checks. But time and again, the Republican-controlled Congress has refused to allow even a hearing on these bills, let alone a vote.

We all know why. The gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), has had an iron grip on our government for years. Its allies in Congress have not only blocked new gun safety reforms, but they’ve also systematically worked to weaken the protections we do have.

Americans do not want military-style assault weapons on our streets. We don’t want ammunition magazines intended for war in our hotel rooms and nightclubs. We don’t want someone who cannot buy a gun at a gun shop to be able to buy a gun at a gun show.

It’s long past time Congress stopped answering to the gun lobby and started answering to the American people.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of students travel to Washington, D.C. to learn more about how our country works and, hopefully, get inspired by it all. They tour the extraordinary museums and walk the halls of the Capitol, taking in the exhibits that showcase the courageous accomplishments of extraordinary individuals who have helped to shape our history.

But unfortunately, there are many significant pieces of our history missing. In National Statuary Hall for instance—where each of the 50 states displays two statues of notable citizens—only nine out of 100 statues are women.

And so it is with the monuments, statues, and plaques throughout the Capitol and across the nation. Historical exhibits of remarkable women and their contributions are still all too rare.

Even when the visiting students return to their classrooms, their history textbooks don't adequately recount the incredible contributions that women have made to this country in every sector of society. That's just wrong—it means we're only telling a portion of the real American story.

That's why I've been fighting to create a women's history museum on the National Mall.

Establishing a museum dedicated to half the population is long overdue. Fortunately, women are persistent. It took nearly 150 years after the country's founding for American women to win the right to vote. Almost a century later, we are still fighting for equal rights, equal pay, and equal recognition. We won't quit until equal really means equal.

To help close the history gap, I have introduced a bill with my Republican colleague Representative Ed Royce of California, the Smithsonian Women's History Museum Act, which would provide for the celebration and study of female contributions that have influenced the direction of the United States. The bill was given the number H.R. 19 in honor of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution that enshrined women's right to vote.

It is never easy to pass a bill in Congress, and it's harder now than ever to reach any kind of agreement. So I'm very proud that my bill now has the support of the majority of the House of Representatives—Republicans and Democrats alike. Just last week, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a companion bill, S.1498, in the Senate. The momentum is building, and it's just the beginning.

H.R. 19 is based on the work of the bipartisan American Museum of Women's History Congressional Commission that was created through a bill I sponsored that passed in 2014. After 18 months of studying the issue, the Commissioners submitted a unanimous recommendation to Congress that Americans want, need, and deserve a museum dedicated to women's history. Our bill reflects the Commission's recommendations that a women's museum should be part of the Smithsonian, located on the National Mall, and constructed with privately raised funds. So far, my colleagues in Congress have followed the same bipartisan spirit exhibited by the Commission. I am hopeful that with cooperation like this, we can advance the bill all the way to President Trump's desk for him to sign into law.

This effort is important for all Americans—not just for women. It is important not just today, but also for generations to come. If we don't preserve the stories of the countless remarkable women who have shaped our nation, they are in danger of being lost, and we would all be the poorer for that. Failing to tell their stories would limit the number of role models we introduce to our children to inspire them. It would create the impression that women and girls only play supporting parts in American history and in society, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Women have been front and center of every major American moment, and our telling of history should proudly reflect that.

With a new Smithsonian museum located in the center of the nation's capital, we can right a long-standing injustice and finally tell our country's full story in all its glory. If we want to empower future generations of young women and men, the achievements of both men and women must be properly recognized. Our history is not complete without herstory too.

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

Mass shootings are so commonplace in America that public reaction follows a predictable formula: "thoughts and prayers" to the victims, reminders of our nation's abysmal gun laws from the left, ire at those believed to be "politicizing" gun violence from the right.

This week, after a shooting in Virginia left four people wounded, including House majority whip Representative Steve Scalise, that formula took a bit of a turn. Republicans, who seem to have been specifically targeted by the shooter, have called on the left to tone down their anti-Trump rhetoric, claiming it stoked Wednesday's violence.

It's true that there's been a shocking increase of disturbing language in politics that needs to end. But while those on both sides of the aisle rightly condemn this week's heinous attack, we should criticize all rhetoric that contributes to real life violence—and be consistent in those denunciations.

For years, conservative lawmakers and pundits have turned a blind eye to the incendiary language used on the right and ignored related violence. When a shooter killed three people and wounded nine others at a Colorado Planned Parenthood in 2015, the attacker parroted the language of anti-choice politicians, yelling about "baby parts." But there was no reflection on how calling abortion providers "murderers" or making fantastical claims about Planned Parenthood's work might incite violence.

This month, two Democratic candidates have dropped out of local races after being inundated with death threats. Michael Treiman, who was running for mayor of Binghamton, New York, had his wife and children threatened over email and was hit with a soda container by a man who yelled "liberal scumbag." Kim Weaver, who was running for the House of Representatives in Iowa, also dropped out because of death threats—threats that her opponent Rep. Steve King claimed were "a fabrication." In response to yesterday's shooting, though, King said that "violence is appearing in the streets, and it's coming from the left."

Yesterday Newt Gingrich also said that the shooting was "part of a pattern" of "increasing intensity of hostility on the left." But in 2011, after Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, Gingrich took issue with liberals' reactions —some of which pointed out the danger of an ad Sarah Palin was running at the time using a crosshairs graphic—saying, "in a country with free speech, people occasionally use strong language."

Donald Trump, Jr. sent out a tweet yesterday connecting the shooting to a performance of Julius Caesar in which the Roman ruler resembles Trump, Sr., yet has aligned himself with white supremacists in his tweets and media appearances. Kathy Griffin was roundly and rightly criticized over a photoshoot she participated in that depicted violence against Trump, but no one seemed bothered when Trump hosted Ted Nugent at the White House—a man investigated by the Secret Service for making threatening remarks directed at President Obama.

And of course, the president himself encouraged violence at his campaign rallies, saying he'd like to "punch" a protester in the face and reminiscing for the good old days when protesters were "carried out on a stretcher." A few months before the election, Trump even suggested that perhaps "the Second Amendment folks" could stop Hillary Clinton.

And so conservative's calls for toning down violent rhetoric fall flat when they've so often eschewed that very advice.

hite supremacist killed two people and wounded another who were trying to protect two girls in Portland; racists have left nooses at an elementary school and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, among other places; an anti-Semitic sign was hung over an Oregon highway; and a candidate for Congress in Tennessee ran a billboard to "Make America White Again." In schools, kids are quoting Trump to bully their classmates with racist taunts.

It's a sign of a deep national sickness that Americans have become so accustomed to horrific violence and threats—and that our politicians have done so little to stop it.

So in part, Republicans are right: We should be having a national conversation on the way hateful rhetoric can enable violence. It's way past time. But for that that discussion to be successful, it needs to be honest. I hope people of all political persuasions are up for it.

Jessica Valenti is a contributing editor to MarieClaire.com—read her weekly column here.

President Donald Trump's sudden decision to fire missiles at a Syrian air base last night—which marks the first direct action the U.S. has taken against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad since the country's civil war began—has surprised and scrambled Washington.

It looks like Opposite Day in D.C., actually: Some of Trump's biggest critics—Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ)—came out in favor of the airstrikes. In a joint statement, they said "Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action. For that, he deserves the support of the American people."

The move also met with a positive response from several Middle Eastern countries that Trump has held tense relationships with. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey all came out in favor of the airstrikes, with a Turkish official calling them "a positive response to the Assad regime's war crimes."

And then some of Trump's biggest allies are coming out against him. Ann Coulter, a longtime supporter of The Donald and author of the book In Trump We Trust, criticized the move.

Republican Senator Rand Paul also tweeted his opposition, writing "While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked." He continued by pointing out that the president needs congressional approval for military action (which Trump neither requested nor received).

And one of Trump's most positive (if not controversial) international relationships now seems frayed: the Kremlin immediately condemned the strikes. Viktor Ozerov, head of the defense committee in Russia's Federation Council told Russian state news agency RIA that "co-operation between the Russian and U.S. militaries may be shut down after the U.S. strike." Bashar Assad is an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has since announced that Moscow is suspending a memorandum with the United States that prevents mid-air conflict with U.S. forces in Syria. This policy change could hurt U.S. troops, some of whom have credited the memorandum with keeping them safe.

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

A report out Monday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, projected that 14 million people would lose coverage next year under the House bill dismantling former President Barack Obama's health care law. The number of uninsured would grow to 24 million by 2026, the report noted.

The projections give fuel to opponents who warn the measure would toss millions of voters off insurance plans. Criticism has come from Democrats, Republicans from states that benefit from Obama's law, and many corners of the health-care industry.

President Donald Trump backs the GOP plan, despite the fact that, back in January, Trump told the Washington Post his health-care law would include "insurance for everybody." Members of his administration had sought to discredit the CBO ahead of the report. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the CBO's projections on Obamacare were "way off."

"If you're looking to the CBO for accuracy, you're looking in the wrong place," he said.

The head of the CBO, Keith Hall, is a former economist for the George W. Bush administration and was appointed to his current position by Republicans.

The White House pushed back hard on the report, saying it disagrees "strenuously." Health Secretary Tom Price said it will cover more individuals and lower costs. As for the estimate that 14 million people would lose coverage, he said, "It's just not believable is what we would suggest."

Republican leaders have said their aim is to lower health care costs. They say coverage statistics are misleading because many people covered under Obama's law have high out-of-pocket costs that make health care unaffordable.

According to the CBO's report, the first wave of people losing their insurance would come with the repeal of the individual mandate and—as a result of repealing the mandate—an increase in premiums. Under the current law, the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, many Americans without insurance are forced to pay a penalty. The Republican plan, called the American Health Care Act, rolls back those penalties. The CBO report said:

The next wave would be the result mainly in changes to Medicaid. Again, from the CBO:

An estimated 52 million people will be uninsured by 2026, the CBO report said. That's compared with 28 million who don't have insurance under the current law.

The Republican proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $337 billion, the CBO said. And average premiums for single policyholders will be 15 to 20 percent higher than under the current law until 2020, when they will "be more than offset by the combination of several factors that would decrease those premiums," according to the report.

The new bill could go up for a vote in the House of Representatives by as early as next week, according to The Hill.

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