huffpost--2020-05-29--I'm An Angry Black Woman. This Is What I Want White People To Know.

I never met him .
In fact , my dad never met him either .
He passed away when my grandad was barely a teenager .
Over the past few years , I ’ ve spent some free time trying to discover as much about my family history as possible , connecting dots of information across yellowed , torn sheets of paper that contain snippets of the people who came together and thus produced me .
When it comes to matters of race , I used to focus on how to fix it .
My thoughts always consisted of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Is there something new we could try ?
If everyone did one little thing , it could create a ripple effect .
I grew exasperated at older relatives and neighbors and even peers who had grown “ jaded ” by the system , believing that they simply were choosing not to look on the bright side , insisting that their “ complaining ” and apathy was not how civil rights were “ won.
” I discovered how modern policing has its roots in slave patrols and not gun-slinging sheriffs in old Westerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Through research like the 1619 Project and the ” Mere Distinction of Color ” exhibit at Montpelier , I finally realized that Africans were enslaved long before ― hundreds of years before ― the Constitution was even written , which means , of course , that when it was “ signed , sealed and delivered , ” it was a lie .
White supremacy is just America ’ s big brother .
Although they ’ re always trying to be better than him , they learned everything they know from his example .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police on someone who ’ s done nothing illegal and who hasn ’ t harmed you could lead a white person to lose their job , take a hit in their reputation , and have people say that ’ s gone too far .
To think that threatening or harassing someone based on race or prejudice should not have consequences is ludicrous .
And it ’ s privilege .
Breonna Taylor , the 26-year-old EMT who was shot and killed by police in her apartment this March , did nothing to merit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a man who had already been arrested earlier that day .
They allegedly entered Breonna ’ s apartment without announcing themselves ( known as a no-knock warrant ) in the middle of the night and shot her eight times .
Her boyfriend ― thinking the officers were intruders ― fired back in an attempt to protect them and was charged with attempted murder .
It took weeks for those charges to be dropped .
I keep thinking about this young woman , my age , with dreams and aspirations , who probably had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally in the comfort of her own home , with the person she loved .
Who went to sleep thinking about all the things she had to do the next day , probably hoping she didn ’ t catch COVID-19 at work , but instead ended up shot dead in her own bed .
By men who are sworn to protect and serve the community .
And for what reason ?
That could ’ ve been me , a friend , a relative .
Why would that ever be OK ?
I admit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ super cool .
It really sounds amazing and yes , it ’ s a geographically and culturally influential and beautiful place .
But America isn ’ t really America .
Anyone who ’ s paid two seconds of attention to history knows America does not live up to its own standards , and its ideals of things like unalienable rights certainly don ’ t apply if you ’ re not white .
Where were the rights of all the men , women and children throughout history whose lives were taken for nothing ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or hurt .
I am angry .
And I ’ ve been thinking a lot about what to do with that anger .
I ’ ve been thinking a lot about what to say to white friends who are reaching out and to people on social media who want to be an ally .
In the past I would ’ ve thought it ’ s time to educate , but I am not in a period of my life where I feel compelled to do so .
I ’ m sharing as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support , but I know everyone has to do this work for themselves .
So if you are a white person looking at a Black person like , How do I join the fight ?
I want you to know that joining the fight is just the beginning .
There will be conflict , but it ’ s worth it .
This is a long haul .
You will need to take the mantle in spaces in which we have little influence .
You need to make this your priority .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s your turn to be dissatisfied .
You need to hate racism and inequality .
You have to take the time to understand exactly what those things are and how you play a part .
You need to pull up , read the books and check your people when opportunity arises .
I grew up surrounded by Black history .
I was homeschooled and stayed largely untouched by the more direct effects of racism and prejudice in the educational system .
I was raised by two educated , involved Black parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my race .
And I still left home with stereotypes and prejudices about Black people .
With ideas passed down to me by mainstream media and relatives and images that taught me to think a certain way about “ kinds ” of Black people , based on their hair or their name or what they listened to on their iPod , as if that somehow told me their story or correlated with their intelligence .
Thankfully , my interactions with people shattered all those assumptions .
Otherwise , we ’ ll just be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what to do around police , how to be prepared for their white friends to say something insensitive , urging them not give up on life or God or their future because of what they see on the news .
Black people will keep doing that 100 years from now and white people will keep saying , “ Oh , wow , this is still happening .
”

This a photo of my great-grandfather, Booker Howze.
The author's great-grandfather, Booker Howze, as a young man. Courtesy of Candace Howze
I never met him. In fact, my dad never met him either. He passed away when my grandad was barely a teenager. Over the past few years, I’ve spent some free time trying to discover as much about my family history as possible, connecting dots of information across yellowed, torn sheets of paper that contain snippets of the people who came together and thus produced me.
A copy of the author's great-grandfather's prison record, via Ancestry.com. Courtesy of Candace Howze
Advertisement
On one of the sheets of paper shown above is my great-grandfather’s name. A Mississippi native who went North during the Great Migration, he was arrested in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (greater Pittsburgh), at the age of 24. His crime? “Suspicious person.”
Let’s pause for a moment and take that in.
My great-grandfather, at an age where most of us have barely graduated a college or snagged a decent job, was taken to prison because somebody felt he looked like a dangerous, dishonest young man.
When it comes to matters of race, I used to focus on how to fix it. My thoughts always consisted of things like, How do we solve it? Is there something new we could try? If everyone did one little thing, it could create a ripple effect. I grew exasperated at older relatives and neighbors and even peers who had grown “jaded” by the system, believing that they simply were choosing not to look on the bright side, insisting that their “complaining” and apathy was not how civil rights were “won.”
Then Trayvon Martin’s killer was left to walk free. And then cop after cop was not arrested, or arrested but not indicted, or indicted but not convicted. And then I understood.
Advertisement
A photo the author took at the "The Mere Distinction of Colour" slavery exhibit at James Madison's Montpelier in 2018. Courtesy of Candace Howze
I discovered how modern policing has its roots in slave patrols and not gun-slinging sheriffs in old Westerns as I’d once believed. Through research like the 1619 Project and the ”Mere Distinction of Color” exhibit at Montpelier, I finally realized that Africans were enslaved long before ― hundreds of years before ― the Constitution was even written, which means, of course, that when it was “signed, sealed and delivered,” it was a lie. White supremacy is just America’s big brother. Although they’re always trying to be better than him, they learned everything they know from his example.
When I realized these things, my feelings changed.
I no longer want the system fixed. I just don’t want the system at all.
Black Americans have consequences for our actions that are almost always potentially equal to our life. Try to pay for groceries with a counterfeit bill in the middle of a pandemic that’s left half the nation economically deprived and you end up dying in the street for the world to see. Play for your music too loud with your friends and a random guy can shoot you in broad daylight.
Yet on the other hand, calling the police on someone who’s done nothing illegal and who hasn’t harmed you could lead a white person to lose their job, take a hit in their reputation, and have people say that’s gone too far. To think that threatening or harassing someone based on race or prejudice should not have consequences is ludicrous. And it’s privilege.
Advertisement
Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old EMT who was shot and killed by police in her apartment this March, did nothing to merit consequence. The police were looking for a man who had already been arrested earlier that day. They allegedly entered Breonna’s apartment without announcing themselves (known as a no-knock warrant) in the middle of the night and shot her eight times. Her boyfriend ― thinking the officers were intruders ― fired back in an attempt to protect them and was charged with attempted murder. It took weeks for those charges to be dropped.
I keep thinking about this young woman, my age, with dreams and aspirations, who probably had a long day at work and was finally in the comfort of her own home, with the person she loved. Who went to sleep thinking about all the things she had to do the next day, probably hoping she didn’t catch COVID-19 at work, but instead ended up shot dead in her own bed. By men who are sworn to protect and serve the community. And for what reason? That could’ve been me, a friend, a relative. Why would that ever be OK?
We, Black people, do the work of fighting for justice because we care about one another. We defend our humanity the way your gun-toting neighbors defend their rights at every moment’s notice. But ultimately, I now see that this is not our battle alone.
We can seek justice after the fact. We can march for integration into communities that would rather move out of their homes than live across the street from us. And yes, we might change a few words in a few laws.
Advertisement
But marching doesn’t end racism. Smiling, speaking the King’s English, getting fancy degrees, pulling our pants up ― none of it ends racism.
Racism exists because white colonists decided hundreds of years ago to dominate a land full of native people who were minding their own business and then to kidnap people from another continent to labor mercilessly without compensation for their economic gain. And every turn of events since, every snippet of progress thereafter, has been twisted to maintain the economic and social hierarchy that existed the day America became America.
I admit it, the idea of America is super cool. It really sounds amazing and yes, it’s a geographically and culturally influential and beautiful place. But America isn’t really America. Anyone who’s paid two seconds of attention to history knows America does not live up to its own standards, and its ideals of things like unalienable rights certainly don’t apply if you’re not white. Where were the rights of all the men, women and children throughout history whose lives were taken for nothing?
If America was indeed America for everyone, we wouldn’t have to beg for our life in the street only to have it taken anyway. We wouldn’t have to argue on Twitter about whether or not someone deserved to live based on what they did during a 2-minute or 10-minute video.
Today I am not tired, disappointed or hurt. I am angry. And I’ve been thinking a lot about what to do with that anger. I’ve been thinking a lot about what to say to white friends who are reaching out and to people on social media who want to be an ally. In the past I would’ve thought it’s time to educate, but I am not in a period of my life where I feel compelled to do so. I’m sharing as much love as I can, appreciating the support, but I know everyone has to do this work for themselves.
Advertisement
So if you are a white person looking at a Black person like, How do I join the fight? I want you to know that joining the fight is just the beginning. There will be conflict, but it’s worth it. This is a long haul. You will need to take the mantle in spaces in which we have little influence. You need to make this your priority. It’s your turn to be angry. It’s your turn to be dissatisfied. You need to hate racism and inequality. You have to take the time to understand exactly what those things are and how you play a part. You need to pull up, read the books and check your people when opportunity arises.
If you’re thinking, “I’m not racist, I’m not prejudiced, I’m not biased.” You are. On some spectrum. And here is how I know.
I grew up surrounded by Black history. I was homeschooled and stayed largely untouched by the more direct effects of racism and prejudice in the educational system. I was raised by two educated, involved Black parents who taught me to be proud of my race. And I still left home with stereotypes and prejudices about Black people. With ideas passed down to me by mainstream media and relatives and images that taught me to think a certain way about “kinds” of Black people, based on their hair or their name or what they listened to on their iPod, as if that somehow told me their story or correlated with their intelligence. Thankfully, my interactions with people shattered all those assumptions.
But if I thought that way about my own people, how much more does a white person in a white American family feel about my people?
The author standing next to a log that slaves cut down at a South Carolina rice plantation. Courtesy of Candace Howze
Advertisement
It’s time to dig down and open up so you can heal and help others to heal. I’m proud of everyone who’s already doing that.
If you’re Black and you’re reading this and needed to hear that too, it’s OK. You may not find yourself receiving a gold star for doing this at first, because it’s a bare minimum to advocate for human respect. But it’s appreciated.
Otherwise, we’ll just be over here telling our kids and grandkids what to do around police, how to be prepared for their white friends to say something insensitive, urging them not give up on life or God or their future because of what they see on the news. Black people will keep doing that 100 years from now and white people will keep saying, “Oh, wow, this is still happening.”
Or you can change that.
We do not live in separate worlds, although it often feels like we do. We live in the same country with the same news, it’s all a matter of whether you choose to take action.
If you want this to stop happening and you’re white, this is your fight too.
This requires your courage and conviction.
This is your demon to kill.
What you do in times of crisis reflects your truth.
Candace Howze is a North Carolina-based writer, podcaster and multimedia artist. In her spare time, you can find her listening to music, baking or online shopping. Find her on Instagram and Twitter.
Advertisement


huffpost--2020-05-29--'Labor Of Love' Is A Blander, More Fertile 'Bachelorette'

Claire : “ Labor of Love ” is a dating show with a fertility twist , a romance competition that was surely dreamed up by someone whose favorite romantic comedy is “ Baby Mama.
” Our heroine , Kristy Katzmann , is shepherded by kindly hostess Kristin Davis through her courtship with 15 highly spermed men , in search of one who will give her both love and a baby immediately , if not sooner .
As I slid into the fever dream that was the first episode , I was left with one throbbing question : What ?
?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask you : What ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
But when 15 men were jacking off into cups in order to see whose “ swimmers ” were the best suited for immediate baby-making within the premiere episode ’ s first 15 minutes , I thought that we were in for a wild ( potentially highly problematic ! )
season .
Instead , the first four episodes provided a masterful crash course in how difficult it is to make compelling reality TV .
“ Labor of Love ” is far from wild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depressingly bland , full of marble Nancy Meyers-inspired interiors , men named Walker and Budge , and far too many chinos and vests .
Apparently you can ’ t just take the concept of “ The Bachelorette , ” age it up a few years , add the term “ future fathers ” and assume it ’ s going to make for good TV !
I was also left with some burning questions : Why do Kristin and Kristy look the same ?
Why does the intro say that the men are ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight to the baby-making ” when the show is literally centered on dating ?
Will we ever learn anything about Kyle , one of the show ’ s obvious front-runners , other than the fact that he ’ s tall ?
Kristin then quickly ushers Kristy out to meet her 15 suitors , who are all gathered outside enjoying cocktails .
Over the next few episodes , Kristy engages in some pseudo-spontaneous mingles with the group , a handful of low-key one-on-one dates , and group “ drills ” — tests of sperm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so on — meant to separate future dads from future deadbeats .
At the end of each episode , Kristy and Kristin huddle over an iPad and move contestants ’ avatars into a “ let ’ s keep dating ” column or a “ we need to talk ” column while the men watch avidly on a monitor next door .
Kristy then has a face-to-face chat with each man in the latter column in order to either send them home or convey some other message , such as “ I like you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasted at the next party.
” Emma : Let ’ s start with elimination night .
Beyond being completely baffled by why the men ’ s giant mansion was built so freakishly close to Kristy ’ s mansion — these men are constantly staring at Kristy through the window !
— I was reminded why reality shows usually have in-person eliminations : so they can capture the anxious , bitchy facial expressions of the contestants waiting to be called .
Because Kristy and Kristin are next door away from the men when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we lose a lot of that narrative tension .
I appreciate that the show is trying to lean into technology , but in this case it just doesn ’ t really work .
The eliminations , meanwhile , take on a bleak corporate tone thanks to the combination of remote sorting and prim in-person severance interviews .
Each episode feels like it ends with a round of layoffs , with poor sweet Kristy ushering each man into her office , one by one , to try to break the news as gently as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ d like to keep dating during one of these chats , he evinces the same surprised relief as a worker just informed they aren ’ t being let go , but actually given a small promotion .
In that sense , it ’ s unintentionally timely .
Emma : I also found myself a bit confused by the dating and activity structure .
We get very few one-on-one dates , which means that we get down to the final six men without knowing much about them .
Instead the show relies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I hate all games that are meant to test mens ’ abilities to parent , so perhaps I was primed to be less than impressed with some of the group dates on the show .
I don ’ t really know what a man ’ s ability to writhe in pain as labor is simulated , or his instinct to throw his arms around Kristy and step in front of a production assistant dressed as a bear in the wilderness , truly say about whether he ’ d be a good partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of experiential/challenge dates fell really flat for me .
( As they often do even on more successful shows like “ The Bachelor.
” ) When Men Want To Be Fathers , But Don ’ t Want To Parent In one group game , we see former wrestler Matt casually reveal that he expects his children to be solely raised by his wife with the help of their extended family .
This is , unsurprisingly , a turn-off for Kristy given that she has never expressed a desire to stop working and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the men that her career is important to her .
Some of the other “ future fathers ” reveal significantly more progressive and equitable views of parenting , though we do get the chance to see a dude tell on himself when he stresses that he really just wants a son so that the boy child can carry on his last name .
Turns out that a whole lot of men desperately want to be fathers but assume that the labor of actually raising a child won ’ t be on them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I certainly applaud that the show is modeling good pre-parental communication !
Far better for Kristy to know now that her potential husband insists ( in defiance of science ) that he must have two sons , as one candidate did , than to find out when he ’ s having a tantrum during the 20-week ultrasound .
If anything , I found it alarming that the show waited until several episodes in for her to even ask these co-parenting candidates about their most basic parenting plans and values .
On the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that millennial men — which many of her suitors are !
— are not the perfectly egalitarian cohort we were promised .
There ’ s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a parent in the context of a heterosexual marriage .
That ’ s what I wanted , and now I do indeed have the joy of combining a career with raising my son without any paid assistance ( thanks , coronavirus ) , so I would be a hypocrite to judge that .
And yet the most upsetting aspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to me , was how neatly it reproduces a hyper-conservative vision of family : A sweet , feminine woman meets a virile , successful man , they get pregnant the old-fashioned way and start a family .
It ’ s a vision that obviously isn ’ t desirable to everyone , nor is it attainable to all who want it .
I felt a little wrench whenever I saw Kristy described as “ Mother-to-Be ” in her chyron — already reduced to her role as a mom before even conceiving , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely be derailed by difficulties with conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term .
Of course , as Kristin ’ s presence on the show reminds us , there are many paths to being a mother , but much as “ The Bachelor ” does for hetero marriage , “ Labor of Love ” firmly enshrines the traditional path to child-having as the aspirational one .
So , Should You Watch It ?

Kristy Katzmann of Fox's "Labor of Love." FOX/Rebecca Visser for HuffPost
It was inevitable.
We live in a world in which many millennial women who lived fully formed, single adult lives for more than a decade are now entering their late 30s and early 40s and deciding whether to take the plunge into motherhood or forgo it altogether. So of course — of course! — a TV network would take that relatable experience, find a McMansion to house it in, grab a former “Sex and the City” star and birth a dating show.
This is how we ended up with Fox’s newest reality offering, “Labor of Love,” which premiered May 21. The show centers on Kristy Katzmann, a conventionally beautiful 41-year-old former “Bachelor” contestant who really wants to be a mother. She’s just missing one thing: a sperm carrier. Oh, and a partner with whom to raise a child.
Advertisement
As “The Bachelorette” — from which “Labor of Love” seems to take many of its structural cues — aims to find one deserving woman a partner by throwing a bunch of mediocre dudebros her way, “Labor of Love” does the same, except instead of a husband the goal is to find a “future father” for their children. Cue the set of Ready-To-Dad men, vast white marble interiors and Southern comfort vibes.
HuffPost reporters Claire Fallon and Emma Gray watched the first four episodes of “Labor of Love,” and ended up having ... a lot to say about them.
The Bottom Line
“Labor Of Love” sounds like insane reality television. In reality, it’s a whitewashed, Pinterest-poisoned “Bachelorette” set in a Draper James ad.
‘The Bachelorette’: Motherhood Edition?
Claire: “Labor of Love” is a dating show with a fertility twist, a romance competition that was surely dreamed up by someone whose favorite romantic comedy is “Baby Mama.” Our heroine, Kristy Katzmann, is shepherded by kindly hostess Kristin Davis through her courtship with 15 highly spermed men, in search of one who will give her both love and a baby immediately, if not sooner. As I slid into the fever dream that was the first episode, I was left with one throbbing question: What???? Emma, I have to ask you: What???????
Advertisement
Emma: Funny you should say that, Claire. I had a similar, bewildered reaction. Reading the premise, I was struck by how absurd it sounded: a woman in her 40s wants a baby and doesn’t care about dating so she… goes on a dating show? As a deranged Carrie Bradshaw might say in 2020: “I couldn’t help but wonder, why didn’t this hot lady just head to the sperm bank?”
But when 15 men were jacking off into cups in order to see whose “swimmers” were the best suited for immediate baby-making within the premiere episode’s first 15 minutes, I thought that we were in for a wild (potentially highly problematic!) season. Instead, the first four episodes provided a masterful crash course in how difficult it is to make compelling reality TV. “Labor of Love” is far from wild. In fact, it’s depressingly bland, full of marble Nancy Meyers-inspired interiors, men named Walker and Budge, and far too many chinos and vests. Apparently you can’t just take the concept of “The Bachelorette,” age it up a few years, add the term “future fathers” and assume it’s going to make for good TV!
I was also left with some burning questions: Why do Kristin and Kristy look the same? Why does the intro say that the men are ready to “skip the dating and go straight to the baby-making” when the show is literally centered on dating? Will we ever learn anything about Kyle, one of the show’s obvious front-runners, other than the fact that he’s tall?
Structure And Aesthetics
Claire: You’re right: The show is almost uncannily bland. One suspects that Fox hoped to balance out the luridness of the premise with an aesthetic and tone I can only describe as “corporate cozy,” with Kristin and Kristy as twin demure brunette HR-executives-cum-garden-party-hostesses welcoming us into their corner-office-cum-chef’s-kitchen. (Sorry about all the “cum.”)
But let’s back up a bit and talk about the structure of the show. Kristy, a former “Bachelor” contestant (Season 11), arrives at her bachelorette pad and is welcomed by Kristin, wearing a floral cocktail dress and bearing a peach pie (thanks for those tax incentives, Georgia!). Kristin commiserates with her over the struggle of trying to start a family while 40-something and single, mentioning that she personally adopted two children. This is not a path that will be discussed again, as the upcoming sequences featuring male fertility tests signal.
Advertisement
Kristin then quickly ushers Kristy out to meet her 15 suitors, who are all gathered outside enjoying cocktails. Over the next few episodes, Kristy engages in some pseudo-spontaneous mingles with the group, a handful of low-key one-on-one dates, and group “drills” — tests of sperm health, intelligence, courage, and so on — meant to separate future dads from future deadbeats. At the end of each episode, Kristy and Kristin huddle over an iPad and move contestants’ avatars into a “let’s keep dating” column or a “we need to talk” column while the men watch avidly on a monitor next door. Kristy then has a face-to-face chat with each man in the latter column in order to either send them home or convey some other message, such as “I like you but please don’t get totally wasted at the next party.”
What did you think of the mix of activities and the structure of elimination night, Emma?
Emma: Let’s start with elimination night. Beyond being completely baffled by why the men’s giant mansion was built so freakishly close to Kristy’s mansion — these men are constantly staring at Kristy through the window! — I was reminded why reality shows usually have in-person eliminations: so they can capture the anxious, bitchy facial expressions of the contestants waiting to be called. Because Kristy and Kristin are next door away from the men when they are doing most of the deciding, we lose a lot of that narrative tension. I appreciate that the show is trying to lean into technology, but in this case it just doesn’t really work.
Claire: Yes! The twin mansions! Twins are something of a motif on this show, despite the lack of literal twins; the two almost-identical mansions, which share a driveway but don’t appear to be near any other homes, seem to have been designed exclusively for a sister-wife situation. Even for a dating show, the proximity and scale is a little odd.
The eliminations, meanwhile, take on a bleak corporate tone thanks to the combination of remote sorting and prim in-person severance interviews. Each episode feels like it ends with a round of layoffs, with poor sweet Kristy ushering each man into her office, one by one, to try to break the news as gently as possible. When she tells a man she’d like to keep dating during one of these chats, he evinces the same surprised relief as a worker just informed they aren’t being let go, but actually given a small promotion. In that sense, it’s unintentionally timely.
Kristy Katzmann in the "15 First Dates" series premiere episode of "Labor of Love." FOX
Advertisement
Emma: I also found myself a bit confused by the dating and activity structure. We get very few one-on-one dates, which means that we get down to the final six men without knowing much about them. Instead the show relies heavily on group activities. I admit that I hate all games that are meant to test mens’ abilities to parent, so perhaps I was primed to be less than impressed with some of the group dates on the show. I don’t really know what a man’s ability to writhe in pain as labor is simulated, or his instinct to throw his arms around Kristy and step in front of a production assistant dressed as a bear in the wilderness, truly say about whether he’d be a good partner to this particular woman. Those sort of experiential/challenge dates fell really flat for me. (As they often do even on more successful shows like “The Bachelor.”)
Claire: In fairness, these men really must want to be instant dads if they’re not only willing to masturbate into a cup on TV, but to continue dating someone who convinced them they were being attacked by an actual bear in order to conjure a “Force Majeure”-style revelation of their cowardice. I can’t believe I watched a show that casually featured fake bear attacks and the overall effect was ... meh.
When Men Want To Be Fathers, But Don’t Want To Parent
Emma: However, where I felt like the activities landed better, were when they revealed something important about the mens’ views on partnership and child-rearing. A good portion of these single men in their late 30s and early 40s — a demographic that I agree we need to see more of on dating-based reality TV — still hold pretty retrograde ideas about what the role of a father and husband might be vs. the role of wife and mother.
In one group game, we see former wrestler Matt casually reveal that he expects his children to be solely raised by his wife with the help of their extended family. This is, unsurprisingly, a turn-off for Kristy given that she has never expressed a desire to stop working and, in fact, been quite clear to the men that her career is important to her. Some of the other “future fathers” reveal significantly more progressive and equitable views of parenting, though we do get the chance to see a dude tell on himself when he stresses that he really just wants a son so that the boy child can carry on his last name. Turns out that a whole lot of men desperately want to be fathers but assume that the labor of actually raising a child won’t be on them.
Advertisement
What did you think of the show’s gender politics? Did you feel as confused by the messaging on “Labor of Love” as I did?
Claire: On the one hand, I certainly applaud that the show is modeling good pre-parental communication! Far better for Kristy to know now that her potential husband insists (in defiance of science) that he must have two sons, as one candidate did, than to find out when he’s having a tantrum during the 20-week ultrasound. If anything, I found it alarming that the show waited until several episodes in for her to even ask these co-parenting candidates about their most basic parenting plans and values. On the other hand, it was a testament to the fact that millennial men — which many of her suitors are! — are not the perfectly egalitarian cohort we were promised.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a parent in the context of a heterosexual marriage. That’s what I wanted, and now I do indeed have the joy of combining a career with raising my son without any paid assistance (thanks, coronavirus), so I would be a hypocrite to judge that. And yet the most upsetting aspect of the show’s gender politics, to me, was how neatly it reproduces a hyper-conservative vision of family: A sweet, feminine woman meets a virile, successful man, they get pregnant the old-fashioned way and start a family. It’s a vision that obviously isn’t desirable to everyone, nor is it attainable to all who want it. I felt a little wrench whenever I saw Kristy described as “Mother-to-Be” in her chyron — already reduced to her role as a mom before even conceiving, and totally convinced about a future that can absolutely be derailed by difficulties with conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term. Of course, as Kristin’s presence on the show reminds us, there are many paths to being a mother, but much as “The Bachelor” does for hetero marriage, “Labor of Love” firmly enshrines the traditional path to child-having as the aspirational one.
I hope Kristy finds what she’s looking for. But the show, with its promise of delivering her something so profoundly intimate and so biologically impossible to promise, made me queasy, and all the more so for presenting it in such cutesy, relentlessly naive packaging.
Advertisement
So, Should You Watch It?
Emma: Look, we’re in quarantine, so desperate times call for desperate TV-watching. And I’ve watched four episodes, so I will probably watch the rest. But unless you find yourself really missing the corporate feel of your white-collar office job, or desperate to ponder how far elder millennial men haven’t come, I think you can skip this one.


huffpost--2020-05-29--Have Federal Student Loans? Better Check Your Credit.

Amid the personal and financial turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic , people whose student loans are serviced by Great Lakes Educational Loan Services had one more headache to deal with when the company made an error and effectively reported their postponed payments due as unpaid .
While some borrowers only experienced a loss of a few credit score points or none at all , others saw significant drops in their credit scores that , if not fixed , could lead to difficulty securing housing or accessing credit in the future .
Under the CARES Act , federal student loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 , 2020 , to provide borrowers with some financial relief during the pandemic .
Even so , student loan servicers are required to continue reporting payments as “ on time , ” essentially pretending that the monthly payment is $ 0 , in order to avoid any negative impact on borrowers ’ credit score .
Once the mistake was discovered , Great Lakes issued a statement that it was “ working with credit reporting agencies ... to ensure the accuracy of the information we reported regarding COVID-19 forbearances , and we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer credit scores provided by those agencies.
” This certainly wouldn ’ t be the first time a student loan servicer came under fire for negligence .
In 2017 , for example , student loan servicer Navient was the subject of three different lawsuits by government agencies .
Last year , the state of New York sued FedLoan for failing miserably at processing student debt forgiveness applications .
“ It is not uncommon for student loan servicers to be sued for inaccurate or misleading reporting in general , ” said Clark Ovruchesky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Millions of data points are updated every month between student loan servicers and credit bureaus about consumers , so inaccurate reporting is inevitable.
” How To Check Your Credit Reports Everyone is entitled to get a free copy of their credit reports from each of the three major credit bureaus ― Experian , Equifax and TransUnion ― once per year .
In light of the coronavirus pandemic , consumers are able to pull their reports weekly for free through April 2021 .
Once you have your credit reports , examine each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is correct .
Because each credit bureau collects and reports your information independently , it ’ s possible to have an error on one report but not on another , which is why you should review all three .
Start by double-checking your personal information , such as your name , address and Social Security number .
Errors in this information could cause another person ’ s credit information to be reported as your own .
Also review all the tradelines ( accounts ) listed to make sure they ’ re accurate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the balance , credit limit , payment history and current status .
What To Do If Your Student Loan Servicer Messed Up Your Credit Dispute the error with the credit bureaus : “ The federal law that protects consumers for patently inaccurate or materially misleading reporting is the Fair Credit Reporting Act , ” Ovruchesky said .
He explained that under the FCRA , you have the right to dispute inaccurate information with the entities reporting it , and those parties have 30 days to investigate and resolve the dispute .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the credit bureaus ’ websites .
“ If they continue reporting inaccurate information , then the consumer would have a legal claim under the FCRA.
” File a dispute with your creditor : In addition to disputing the error with the credit bureaus , you also have a right to dispute the accuracy of any information on your credit report with the company that reported the information , said Tony Wahl , director of operations at Credit Sesame .
He suggested sending a letter disputing the specified information .
Whether the creditor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again has 30 days to investigate .
Consider hiring an attorney : If you ’ re struggling to resolve a credit report dispute over information you definitely know is wrong , it might be time to hire legal help .
The good news about the FCRA , Ovruchesky said , is that it allows for the recovery of attorneys ’ fees .
That means many consumer law attorneys don ’ t charge anything out of pocket for pursuing these types of cases because they know the creditors , servicers and/or credit bureaus will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuit is successful .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
When the coronavirus stimulus package, known as the CARES Act, passed, federal student loan borrowers were relieved to learn they’d get a break on payments for the next six months.
Little did millions of them know their credit scores would take a hit as a result.
Amid the personal and financial turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic, people whose student loans are serviced by Great Lakes Educational Loan Services had one more headache to deal with when the company made an error and effectively reported their postponed payments due as unpaid.
Advertisement
While some borrowers only experienced a loss of a few credit score points or none at all, others saw significant drops in their credit scores that, if not fixed, could lead to difficulty securing housing or accessing credit in the future.
Y’all I checked my credit score today and was SHOCKED to see it dropped over 50 (almost 60 points) because my student loan servicer told me my loan payment wasn’t due until September 1. 10/10 do NOT recommend My Great Lakes. — am. (@amberbraves) May 10, 2020
It’s absolutely irresponsible that Great Lakes(@MyGreatLakes) my student loan provider knocked my credit score 20 points because they reported the 4 month forebearance period to the Credit Bureaus. This is in direct violation of the C.A.R.E.S act section 3513(d). — Izzak Mireles (@izzak_mireles) May 13, 2020
I got a notification that my credit score dropped 40 (!!) points. Turns out Great Lakes, my student loan servicer, accidentally entered the wrong codes on its student loan borrowers, but "doesn't think it will harm borrowers." Excuse me??! via @politico https://t.co/Va5MtkXGsq — Caroline J Fox (@CJFoxLaw) May 22, 2020
Advertisement
If you also have federal student loans, here’s how to check if your credit took a hit and what to do if it did.
Coding Error Leads To Millions Of Inaccurate Credit Reports
Under the CARES Act, federal student loan payments have been automatically paused through Sept. 30, 2020, to provide borrowers with some financial relief during the pandemic. Even so, student loan servicers are required to continue reporting payments as “on time,” essentially pretending that the monthly payment is $0, in order to avoid any negative impact on borrowers’ credit score.
Instead, Great Lakes reported the payments as “deferred,” an indication that suggests borrowers couldn’t meet the terms of their loan agreements. That bad information was reported by all three credit bureaus, and damaged credit scores produced by the firm VantageScore. This affected an estimated 4.8 million borrowers.
Once the mistake was discovered, Great Lakes issued a statement that it was “working with credit reporting agencies ... to ensure the accuracy of the information we reported regarding COVID-19 forbearances, and we do not believe our reporting has impacted actual consumer credit scores provided by those agencies.”
“We provided an updated credit file to the credit reporting agencies on May 15, and all four agencies have processed the file,” a Great Lakes representative told HuffPost.
Advertisement
VantageScore also said in a written statement that it was making changes to its algorithm “to minimize the potential of any negative impact associated uniquely with the usage of forbearance and deferment codes.”
Though Great Lakes originally stated it did not believe that the reporting error resulted in changes to consumer credit scores, it’s clear that many borrowers experienced immediate negative changes to their credit.
As a result, the Student Borrower Protection Center filed a class-action lawsuit against Great Lakes, national consumer reporting agencies Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, and VantageScore for mishandling this relief under the CARES Act.
This certainly wouldn’t be the first time a student loan servicer came under fire for negligence. In 2017, for example, student loan servicer Navient was the subject of three different lawsuits by government agencies. Last year, the state of New York sued FedLoan for failing miserably at processing student debt forgiveness applications.
“It is not uncommon for student loan servicers to be sued for inaccurate or misleading reporting in general,” said Clark Ovruchesky, an attorney who specializes in consumer law. “Millions of data points are updated every month between student loan servicers and credit bureaus about consumers, so inaccurate reporting is inevitable.”
Advertisement
Ovruchesky said that he’s not aware of any similar cases filed against other servicers, but noted that it’s still early since this issue has just come to light.
How To Check Your Credit Reports
Whether or not you’re a Great Lakes customer, it’s a good idea to check up on your credit if you have federal student loans that were recently paused under the CARES Act.
Everyone is entitled to get a free copy of their credit reports from each of the three major credit bureaus ― Experian, Equifax and TransUnion ― once per year. In light of the coronavirus pandemic, consumers are able to pull their reports weekly for free through April 2021.
There is only one website that’s federally authorized to provide free credit reports. Visit annualcreditreport.com to find yours. Alternatively, you can call (877) 322-8228 and request them.
Once you have your credit reports, examine each one to make sure all the information is correct. Because each credit bureau collects and reports your information independently, it’s possible to have an error on one report but not on another, which is why you should review all three.
Advertisement
Start by double-checking your personal information, such as your name, address and Social Security number. Errors in this information could cause another person’s credit information to be reported as your own. Also review all the tradelines (accounts) listed to make sure they’re accurate, including the date opened and/or closed, the balance, credit limit, payment history and current status.
What To Do If Your Student Loan Servicer Messed Up Your Credit
If you reviewed your credit reports and found a problem, there are a few steps you should take to have it fixed and get your credit back in shape.
Dispute the error with the credit bureaus: “The federal law that protects consumers for patently inaccurate or materially misleading reporting is the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” Ovruchesky said. He explained that under the FCRA, you have the right to dispute inaccurate information with the entities reporting it, and those parties have 30 days to investigate and resolve the dispute. You can dispute credit report errors through each of the credit bureaus’ websites. “If they continue reporting inaccurate information, then the consumer would have a legal claim under the FCRA.”
File a dispute with your creditor: In addition to disputing the error with the credit bureaus, you also have a right to dispute the accuracy of any information on your credit report with the company that reported the information, said Tony Wahl, director of operations at Credit Sesame. He suggested sending a letter disputing the specified information. Whether the creditor is Great Lakes or another organization, it again has 30 days to investigate.
Regularly check your credit reports and scores: Once you’ve filed a dispute, it’s important to follow up and ensure your credit reports have been corrected. Plus, it’s a good idea to continually check up on your credit and make sure there aren’t any other issues. In addition to pulling your detailed reports from annualcreditreport.com, there are also a number of ways to check your FICO and VantageScore credit scores for free.
Advertisement
Consider hiring an attorney: If you’re struggling to resolve a credit report dispute over information you definitely know is wrong, it might be time to hire legal help. The good news about the FCRA, Ovruchesky said, is that it allows for the recovery of attorneys’ fees. That means many consumer law attorneys don’t charge anything out of pocket for pursuing these types of cases because they know the creditors, servicers and/or credit bureaus will be responsible for paying their fees if the lawsuit is successful.


huffpost--2020-05-06--Duncan Hunter Asks To Delay Prison Term Because Of Coronavirus

SAN DIEGO ( AP ) — Former California Rep. Duncan Hunter wants to push back the start of his prison term for stealing campaign funds until next year because of concerns over the coronavirus pandemic .
Hunter ’ s lawyers and prosecutors filed a joint motion in federal court on Tuesday and were awaiting a ruling from a judge on their request to change the surrender date from May 29 to Jan. 4 .
If granted , Hunter promised to not ask for any other changes to his term or that his home confinement be counted toward the 11-month prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic , this is not a time to be adding to the prison population unnecessarily , ” attorney Devin Burstein said in an email to The Associated Press on Wednesday .
Hunter was sentenced in March to 11 months in prison after pleading guilty to stealing campaign funds and spending the money on everything from outings with friends to his daughter ’ s birthday party .
The ex-Marine resigned from Congress in January after representing one of Southern California ’ s last solidly Republican districts .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November runoff for his seat .
Last month , another convicted former congressman from New York , Chris Collins , had his prison start date delayed until June after his lawyers told the court the 69-year-old is in a high risk category if he contracts the coronavirus .
Collins , a former Republican representative sentenced to 26 months for securities fraud , is now set to surrender June 23 .
At Hunter ’ s sentencing hearing , his lawyers had asked for most or part of his sentence yo be served in home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq and Afghanistan , and his nearly six terms in Congress .
But U.S. District Court Judge Thomas J. Whelan cited the amount of money Hunter misspent and the number of years he carried out the pilfering in rejecting the request .
Hunter and his wife Margaret , who was his campaign manager , were accused in a 60-count indictment of stealing more than $ 250,000 in campaign funds and trying to hide it on financial disclosure records , listing some personal expenses as contributions to Wounded Warriors .
Each pleaded guilty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year , and each had faced up to five years in prison .
His wife ’ s sentencing hearing is June 8 .
For most people , the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms , such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks .
For some , especially older adults and people with existing health problems , it can cause more severe illness , including pneumonia , and death .
The vast majority of people recover .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Former California Rep. Duncan Hunter wants to push back the start of his prison term for stealing campaign funds until next year because of concerns over the coronavirus pandemic.
Hunter’s lawyers and prosecutors filed a joint motion in federal court on Tuesday and were awaiting a ruling from a judge on their request to change the surrender date from May 29 to Jan. 4.
Advertisement
If granted, Hunter promised to not ask for any other changes to his term or that his home confinement be counted toward the 11-month prison stint.
”In light of the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, this is not a time to be adding to the prison population unnecessarily,” attorney Devin Burstein said in an email to The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Hunter was sentenced in March to 11 months in prison after pleading guilty to stealing campaign funds and spending the money on everything from outings with friends to his daughter’s birthday party. The ex-Marine resigned from Congress in January after representing one of Southern California’s last solidly Republican districts. A Democrat and Republican are headed to a November runoff for his seat.
Last month, another convicted former congressman from New York, Chris Collins, had his prison start date delayed until June after his lawyers told the court the 69-year-old is in a high risk category if he contracts the coronavirus. Collins, a former Republican representative sentenced to 26 months for securities fraud, is now set to surrender June 23.
Advertisement
At Hunter’s sentencing hearing, his lawyers had asked for most or part of his sentence yo be served in home confinement, citing his military service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his nearly six terms in Congress. But U.S. District Court Judge Thomas J. Whelan cited the amount of money Hunter misspent and the number of years he carried out the pilfering in rejecting the request.
Hunter and his wife Margaret, who was his campaign manager, were accused in a 60-count indictment of stealing more than $250,000 in campaign funds and trying to hide it on financial disclosure records, listing some personal expenses as contributions to Wounded Warriors.
Each pleaded guilty to a single count in separate plea agreements last year, and each had faced up to five years in prison. His wife’s sentencing hearing is June 8.
For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death. The vast majority of people recover.


huffpost--2020-05-04--The Battle Over Birth Control Reaches Trump's Supreme Court

The mandate has been credited with dramatically reducing birth control costs in the U.S .
It has also triggered a litany of lawsuits over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds .
This is the third time the mandate has reached the Supreme Court , but the first since conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench .
If the Trump rules are allowed to stand , advocates said , it will undermine people ’ s autonomy over their reproductive choices and threaten their economic security , which is directly tied to the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent pregnancies .
Nearly all women use contraception at some point in their lives .
“ Birth control is incredibly important , ” said Mara Gandal-Powers , senior counsel at the National Women ’ s Law Center .
“ The benefit , which ensures that people get coverage without out-of-pocket costs , has changed the way people are able to access birth control .
When cost isn ’ t a barrier , they can get the method that they decide is right for them.
” Under the Obama administration , houses of worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate .
Other religious nonprofits could seek a workaround so that they didn ’ t have to provide coverage , but employees could still access free contraceptive care .
In those cases , insurance companies would pay for the coverage .
Still , many religious groups were not satisfied with the accommodation , arguing that even if they weren ’ t directly paying for the contraceptive coverage , they would still be complicit in actions that violated their beliefs .
The Supreme Court considered that argument in Zubik v. Burwell , but ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lower courts .
Then Donald Trump got elected .
In 2017 , his administration pushed out expansive new rules granting an exemption to almost any employer that objected to covering contraception services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions .
It also made it optional for employers to provide an accommodation for employees seeking birth control coverage .
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the rules , arguing that their states would be forced to shoulder the costs of providing birth control to people who lost coverage , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Philadelphia federal judge blocked the federal rules in 2019 , and the two states won a nationwide injunction .
“ At the heart of this case is that the Trump administration overreached , ” said Josh Shapiro , the attorney general of Pennsylvania , whose team will argue the case on Wednesday .
“ It violated the rule of law and harmed women by denying them the guarantee that Congress gave them to the medicine that they need.
” The Trump administration has defended its decision to skip the notice and comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the public still had an opportunity to comment before the final rules were issued in 2018 .
But the final version of the rules were ” materially identical ” to the interim rules , lawyers for Pennsylvania and New Jersey countered , suggesting that the comment period was perfunctory .
Being able to plan the size of your family using contraception is considered one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century .
When people have smaller families and longer gaps between births , they and their children are healthier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost has long been a barrier for people seeking contraception .
The birth control mandate was intended to close that gap , and it has .
In 2013 , the mandate saved U.S. women more than $ 1.4 billion in out-of-pocket expenses for birth control pills , according to a report from the University of Pennsylvania .
“ Allowing employers to exclude all or certain types of contraceptive methods would compromise women ’ s ability to consistently use the methods that work best for them , thus putting them at heightened risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to time and space wanted pregnancies , ” the Guttmacher Institute wrote in its brief .
“ That , in turn , would increase the risk of detrimental health outcomes for both women and their children , and would have negative social and economic consequences by interfering with women ’ s ability to achieve their educational , professional and family goals.
” Some business leaders have also come out in opposition to the Trump rules , arguing that contraception allows people to pursue educational and professional goals and contribute to the economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of U.S. jobholders , and their labor accounted for about 40 % of the United States ’ annual gross domestic product in 2017 .

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether the Trump administration may allow almost any employer to deny workers access to free birth control by citing religious or moral objections.
Oral arguments will be presented via teleconference ― one of the first times in history ― due to the coronavirus pandemic. The public can listen to the audio in real time on C-SPAN.
Advertisement
The case, Trump v. Pennsylvania, consolidated with Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, centers on the birth control mandate, a hotly disputed regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires most private health insurance plans to cover Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of birth control without a copay.
The mandate has been credited with dramatically reducing birth control costs in the U.S. It has also triggered a litany of lawsuits over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds. This is the third time the mandate has reached the Supreme Court, but the first since conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench.
In 2017, the Trump administration undercut the Obama-era mandate with new regulations that allowed nearly any private employer, university or insurer to use religious or moral beliefs as a basis for denying contraceptive coverage. Lower courts have temporarily blocked these rules from going into effect.
The effort to roll back birth control coverage comes amid a wider conservative movement to use religious freedom to exempt businesses from laws governing nondiscrimination in hiring, public accommodation, adoption and education.
Advertisement
If the Trump rules are allowed to stand, advocates said, it will undermine people’s autonomy over their reproductive choices and threaten their economic security, which is directly tied to the ability to plan, delay, space and prevent pregnancies. Nearly all women use contraception at some point in their lives.
“Birth control is incredibly important,” said Mara Gandal-Powers, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center. “The benefit, which ensures that people get coverage without out-of-pocket costs, has changed the way people are able to access birth control. When cost isn’t a barrier, they can get the method that they decide is right for them.”
Battle Over Birth Control
Under the Obama administration, houses of worship were already exempt from the birth control mandate. Other religious nonprofits could seek a workaround so that they didn’t have to provide coverage, but employees could still access free contraceptive care. In those cases, insurance companies would pay for the coverage.
This accommodation was extended to some for-profit corporations as a result of a landmark Supreme Court decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. In the 2014 case, the court found that requiring family-owned businesses to pay for insurance coverage for birth control violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law protecting religious liberty.
Still, many religious groups were not satisfied with the accommodation, arguing that even if they weren’t directly paying for the contraceptive coverage, they would still be complicit in actions that violated their beliefs. The Supreme Court considered that argument in Zubik v. Burwell, but ultimately punted and sent the case back to the lower courts.
Advertisement
Then Donald Trump got elected. In 2017, his administration pushed out expansive new rules granting an exemption to almost any employer that objected to covering contraception services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. It also made it optional for employers to provide an accommodation for employees seeking birth control coverage.
The interim rules, which took effect immediately, were issued without public notice or the opportunity for comment as is generally required.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the rules, arguing that their states would be forced to shoulder the costs of providing birth control to people who lost coverage, as well as thousands of unplanned pregnancies. A Philadelphia federal judge blocked the federal rules in 2019, and the two states won a nationwide injunction.
“At the heart of this case is that the Trump administration overreached,” said Josh Shapiro, the attorney general of Pennsylvania, whose team will argue the case on Wednesday. “It violated the rule of law and harmed women by denying them the guarantee that Congress gave them to the medicine that they need.”
One of the key questions in front of the court is technical in nature: Are the rules invalid given that the Trump administration initially issued them without giving the public a chance to comment?
Advertisement
“This isn’t just a desire of how the process should play out,” Shapiro said. “This is how the process is legally required to play out.”
The Trump administration has defended its decision to skip the notice and comment period for the interim rules, arguing that the public still had an opportunity to comment before the final rules were issued in 2018. But the final version of the rules were ”materially identical” to the interim rules, lawyers for Pennsylvania and New Jersey countered, suggesting that the comment period was perfunctory.
“So the dispute becomes, did the agency already have a closed mind?” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “They put out notice and comment for the final rules, but did they really consider them?”
What’s At Stake
Being able to plan the size of your family using contraception is considered one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century. When people have smaller families and longer gaps between births, they and their children are healthier and their economic circumstances improve.
But cost has long been a barrier for people seeking contraception. The birth control mandate was intended to close that gap, and it has. In 2013, the mandate saved U.S. women more than $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket expenses for birth control pills, according to a report from the University of Pennsylvania.
Advertisement
A cross section of reproductive health groups have filed amicus briefs in the case, urging the justices not to undo the progress that’s been made.
“Allowing employers to exclude all or certain types of contraceptive methods would compromise women’s ability to consistently use the methods that work best for them, thus putting them at heightened risk of unintended pregnancies and interfering with their ability to time and space wanted pregnancies,” the Guttmacher Institute wrote in its brief. “That, in turn, would increase the risk of detrimental health outcomes for both women and their children, and would have negative social and economic consequences by interfering with women’s ability to achieve their educational, professional and family goals.”
Some business leaders have also come out in opposition to the Trump rules, arguing that contraception allows people to pursue educational and professional goals and contribute to the economy. Women in particular make up more than half of U.S. jobholders, and their labor accounted for about 40% of the United States’ annual gross domestic product in 2017.
“American women contribute to economic innovation, productivity, and growth,” the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Association for Female Executives wrote in an amicus brief. “These outcomes would not be possible without women’s ability to control their own reproductive health, including access to contraception.”
It’s unclear when the justices will issue a ruling, but it will likely be this summer.
The Supreme Court is also poised to rule on another case with wide implications for reproductive rights. A decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, which deals with the constitutionality of a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, is expected in June.


huffpost--2020-05-05--40 Tweets That Sum Up Being A Teacher Right Now

Wrapping up my Zoom “ office hours ” for the day .
I had one student show up .
I @ @ @ @ @ ’ office hours she goes to and how many students attend .
She replied , @ @ @ @ @ to them because I just feel like teachers are lonely.
” We are .
And @ @ @ @

Wrapping up my Zoom “office hours” for the day. I had one student show up. I asked her how many teachers’ office hours she goes to and how many students attend. She replied, “I try to go to them because I just feel like teachers are lonely.”
We are. And thanks, kid.


huffpost--2020-05-06--Win Or Lose, Trump’s Top Campaign Aides Are Raking In The Cash

When campaign senior adviser and presidential daughter-in-law Lara Trump discussed a possible salary for just-departed White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman in December 2017 , she told the former contestant on Donald Trump ’ s “ Apprentice ” reality show : “ The only thing that we have to consider , where we ’ re talking about salary as far as the campaign is concerned , is that , as you know , everything is public , ” Lara Trump said , according to a recording Manigault Newman made and later shared with NBC .
“ And all the money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly from donors , small-dollar donors for the most part.
” How many others are paid in a similarly secret manner is not publicly knowable .
For example , Trump ’ s first 2016 campaign manager , Corey Lewandowski , told HuffPost at a February campaign rally that he had rejoined the campaign last year as a senior adviser ― the same title held by both Lara Trump and Guilfoyle .
But he also does not appear in FEC records , and neither he nor the campaign would respond to HuffPost queries about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending later , Trump still unpopular

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― The bad news for President Donald Trump: He may well lose reelection later this year.
The good news for his top campaign staff: They will wind up really rich either way.
Brad Parscale, whom Trump named to run his 2020 effort in early 2018, has already collected $38.9 million through his companies from Trump’s various reelection committees between January 2017 and the end of March, according to a HuffPost analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.
Gerrit Lansing’s payment processing company, which he started while a staffer at the National Republican Congressional Committee and continued to run while he worked at the Republican National Committee, has taken in $1.7 million. Katie Walsh, briefly a Trump White House aide and a former RNC chief of staff, has received $877,424 through her firms. And Richard Walters, who at age 30 is the current chief of staff, makes $244,943 a year in salary but last year was paid an additional $135,000 through his own consulting firm. Since the Trump presidency began, he has been paid a total of $755,324.
Advertisement
For Parscale, who just a few years ago was designing websites in San Antonio for Trump’s properties, among other clients, the sudden wealth has afforded him a $2.4 million waterfront house in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a pair of million-dollar condos, a brand new $400,000 boat, and another half-million dollars in luxury cars, including a Range Rover and a Ferrari.
“This thing has been a large criminal enterprise. It’s like that scene in the ‘Goodfellas’ after the heist,” said Republican consultant Stuart Stevens, a veteran of the George W. Bush and Mitt Romney presidential campaigns. “Dishing out furs to mob bosses’ girlfriends and wives.”
Lansing, Walsh and Walters did not respond to queries from HuffPost, although RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel responded on Walters’ behalf and said he was “doing a fantastic job” and was “underpaid for his position.”
Parscale asked that detailed questions be emailed to him. HuffPost did so, but he did not respond.
Glenn McCall, an RNC member from South Carolina and chairman of the party’s budget committee, referred questions back to RNC staff. He acknowledged that his panel is technically responsible for the party’s spending but said he had no details. “We just approve a budget as a whole,” he said.
Advertisement
More broadly, the Trump reelection effort’s lavish spending highlights a singular irony: Better funded and having spent more money than any previous presidential campaign to this point in the election cycle, it has nevertheless been unable to improve Trump’s polling numbers with the election now just six months away.
“All organizations reflect the person at the top. That person’s values. And that’s the problem for the Trump campaign. Everything reflects off their sun god,” said John Weaver, a Republican consultant who worked on the presidential campaigns of John McCain and John Kasich.
“All organizations reflect the person at the top. That person’s values. And that’s the problem for the Trump campaign. Everything reflects off their sun god.” - John Weaver, Republican consultant
The Trump campaign and the RNC have, since he took office, raised a combined $889 million and spent $746 million. Despite this, Trump remains as unpopular as he ever was.
Indeed, at the time Parscale took charge in February 2018, Trump’s approval rating stood at 42%. In late January, before the severity of the coronavirus outbreak became clear to most Americans, it stood at 44% ― dangerous territory for a president seeking reelection.
Advertisement
“That is exactly the nut of the issue. They’ve exhausted vast amounts of donor resources,” said Rick Wilson, a longtime Florida Republican consultant and a prominent Trump critic. “Their advocacy effort is so bad because his record is so bad. They’re having to spend just to stay in place.”
Hiding the money
When campaign senior adviser and presidential daughter-in-law Lara Trump discussed a possible salary for just-departed White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman in December 2017, she told the former contestant on Donald Trump’s “Apprentice” reality show: “The only thing that we have to consider, where we’re talking about salary as far as the campaign is concerned, is that, as you know, everything is public,” Lara Trump said, according to a recording Manigault Newman made and later shared with NBC. “And all the money that we raise that pays salaries is directly from donors, small-dollar donors for the most part.”
Manigault Newman wound up not taking a campaign job and instead wrote a tell-all book about her time in the White House. And, as it turned out, what Lara Trump claimed regarding at least some of the campaign salaries was false.
Lara Trump, wife of Eric Trump, and Kimberly Guilfoyle, the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., are both receiving $15,000 a month of campaign money that is routed through Parscale’s companies. Parscale defended the practice to HuffPost last month ― “I can pay them however I want to pay them” ― but he declined to elaborate.
Brad Parscale, manager of President Donald Trump's reelection campaign, right, watches as Trump ends a rally April 27 in Green Bay, Wis. Andrew Harnik/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
“I think the general public would be interested to know what members of Trump’s extended family are being paid by campaign donors,” said Paul Ryan, a campaign finance legal expert at the watchdog group Common Cause.
How many others are paid in a similarly secret manner is not publicly knowable. For example, Trump’s first 2016 campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, told HuffPost at a February campaign rally that he had rejoined the campaign last year as a senior adviser ― the same title held by both Lara Trump and Guilfoyle. But he also does not appear in FEC records, and neither he nor the campaign would respond to HuffPost queries about the matter.
Of course, if he, like Lara Trump and Guilfoyle, is making money off the Trump reelection with no public disclosure, he is certainly not alone. Many tens of millions of dollars in payments have gone to consulting firms that in turn purchase internet ads, television spots and mass mailings ― but also keep undisclosed percentages for their principals.
A total of $50.5 million, for example, has been paid to direct-mail firm Communications Corp. of America. FLS Connect, run by former RNC staffers, has been paid $19.1 million for telemarketing and “data services.” Nearly $7.7 million has gone to Opn Sesame, owned by Parscale friend Gary Coby, for fundraising via text messages.
Many of the companies provide legitimate services that campaigns need, Wilson said, and there is strategic value to creating cutout firms to purchase ads to make it harder for other campaigns to discern strategy.
Advertisement
But in the case of the Trump campaign and the RNC, he said, the more important purpose is to hide from Trump’s donors how much is being kept as overhead by the various players.
And with the households of both of Trump’s adult sons profiting from the campaign ― the RNC even purchased tens of thousands of copies of Donald Trump Jr.’s book last year, helping drive it onto bestseller lists ― Wilson said he suspects the obfuscation, in this case, is being done with Trump’s complicity.
“There’s definitely something sluicing over onto the Trump side of the fence,” he said.
“It’s either done to hide it from the candidate or it’s done to hide it with the candidate,” agreed Weaver. “It certainly hides it from the donors and the FEC and the public.”
The single biggest beneficiary of Trump’s campaign, though, appears to be his campaign manager, Parscale. Up until last year, when media reports of how much money was flowing through his companies angered Trump and the RNC set up a separate shell company to route advertising dollars, Parscale’s businesses were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars per month from the various reelection committees. It was a similar arrangement to what he had in 2016, when his firm received $93.9 million for internet ads, fundraising and web design.
Exactly how much Parscale kept for himself in that election or is keeping for himself now is impossible to know using public records. He told The Washington Post in October that he had made only $400,000 up to that point in the reelection effort. The New York Times in March reported that he was keeping $700,000 to $800,000, an amount Trump had OKd.
Advertisement
Parscale did not respond to HuffPost’s specific queries on this point, but either figure seems low given the spending spree he has embarked upon over the past three years.
Annual real estate taxes on his canal-front house with 95 feet of dockage located just two miles from the Port Everglades inlet into the open Atlantic, for example, run $43,986, nearly 50% more than the per-capita income in Florida. The 32-foot Sea Ray outboard he got last year (Parscale wrote on Instagram last June: “Love boating through Fort Lauderdale. Amazing place.”) guzzles $150 an hour in gasoline at cruising speed, totaling upwards of $1,000 for a day on the water.
“There’s a lot of well-intentioned people who are giving five and 10 dollars a month, and it goes to someone like Parscale,” said Stevens. “It’s just obscene.”
$750 million in spending later, Trump still unpopular
Even if Parscale’s compensation to date has totaled in the low millions of dollars, it would still be many times more than what was earned by other presidential campaign managers.
In 2012, former President Barack Obama’s reelection chief Jim Messina was paid $123,908, while GOP counterpart Matt Rhoades on Mitt Romney’s campaign was paid $178,750.
Advertisement
Four years later, Jeb Bush’s campaign manager, Danny Diaz, was making $137,739 a year, while Hillary Clinton’s chief, Robbie Mook, was making $134,069.
And this year, Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, was being paid $156,657 annually while presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s new chief, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, is making $138,423. The head of billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s campaign, known for its extravagant salaries, was making $198,547.
“Parscale would also be the best-paid campaign manager in the history of campaign managers,” Wilson said.
Though Parscale’s earnings likely shatter previous records many times over, he is not alone in finding the president’s 2020 campaign lucrative. The Trump campaign’s salaries generally have been significantly higher for upper- and mid-level positions than that of other campaigns.
Trump’s communications director, Tim Murtaugh, is making $230,000 a year ― more than twice what his counterpart at the Biden campaign, Kate Bedingfield, is making. Murtaugh’s deputy, Erin Perrine, is paid $160,000 ― more than O’Malley Dillon or anyone else on the Biden campaign ― while Trump campaign “senior adviser” Katrina Pierson is paid $240,000 annually.
Advertisement
Stevens, who worked on the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004 and the Romney campaigns of 2008 and 2012, said consultants are accustomed to a culture of making less on a presidential run than they might working for several statewide races in a particular election year.
“A lot of people did it because they thought it was important,” he said. “The idea that you go to work as a political consultant on a presidential campaign and make more than you’ve ever made in your life ― it should be a tremendous warning sign.”
But if campaign staff and consultants are enriching themselves thanks to Trump donors, it is no different than what Trump himself has been doing since even before taking office: paying himself millions of dollars for use of his own properties.
A HuffPost analysis of FEC data shows that Trump’s campaign, the RNC and their related joint committees have spent $6.4 million at Trump hotels and resorts from January 2017 through March 31. That includes $37,542 per month in rent for space at Trump Tower in Manhattan, even though the campaign is based in a high-rise in Arlington, Virginia, and just a handful of staff use the New York office.
“The idea that you go to work as a political consultant on a presidential campaign and make more than you’ve ever made in your life ― it should be a tremendous warning sign.” - Republican consultant Stuart Stevens
Advertisement
That practice of funneling donor money into his own pocket began in 2016, right after he became the presumptive Republican nominee and began raising large amounts of GOP cash. Trump immediately quintupled the rent he was charging his campaign at Trump Tower, from $35,458 per month to $169,758. He also began billing the campaign five- and six-figure sums for use of his hotels and golf courses for hosting fundraisers.
Yet for all the reelection campaign’s spending, there remains the question of what has been achieved. Trump opened his reelection campaign literally the day he took office ― more than two years earlier than his recent predecessors began their reelection efforts.
Trump’s approval ratings, while slightly higher than they were at the lowest points of his presidency, have remained stuck in the low 40s. While they edged upward a few points after the coronavirus pandemic struck in a classic “rally ’round the flag” effect, that disappeared quickly after Trump staged nightly two-hour briefings in which he repeatedly aired his numerous grievances and unusual medical theories.
And though his campaign frequently boasts of all the internet-based events they are hosting to recruit volunteers from among their database of rally-goers, critics like Weaver are dubious that merely getting his hard-core base to the polls will be enough to win a second term.
“What would a normal campaign that won after losing the popular vote have done? They would have done everything they could to expand their base and broaden their coalition,” he said.
Advertisement
But instead, in media interview after media interview, rally speech after rally speech, Trump appealed to his core supporters among white, rural Americans without college educations and managed to alienate everyone else, Weaver said.
“What have they gotten for their money? They have a narrowing Electoral College path. They decided to see if they can draw an inside straight two elections in a row,” he said. “It’s like trying to get an inside straight on a high wire in a high wind.”


huffpost--2020-05-05--Republicans Divided Over Additional Coronavirus Relief For States And Cities

As Congress begins tentative discussions over another coronavirus relief package , Republicans are struggling to get on the same page over the issue of providing more aid to state and local governments .
Democrats say as much as $ 1 trillion may be needed to shore up states and localities in the next coronavirus bill , but the idea has spurred stiff resistance from top Republicans who urge a slower pace on such further congressional action .
“ We think we ought to take a pause here , do a good job of evaluating what we ’ ve already done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Ky. ) told reporters on Tuesday at the Capitol .
The $ 2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act ( CARES ) that became law in late March included $ 150 billion to states , cities and other municipalities whose budgets have been pummeled amid the stalled economy caused by the pandemic .
But those funds can only be used by states and localities to cover expenses directly related to the health crisis .
“ If we don ’ t provide them with some sort of a revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re going to end up raising taxes to pay for law enforcement , emergency services , educational needs , and Medicaid , ” Sen. Mike Rounds ( R-S.D . )
, a former governor of his state , told HuffPost .
Rounds proposed making available up to 25 % of the aid states are allocated under the CARES Act to adequately fund schools and other programs and services .
Democrats say that wouldn ’ t be nearly enough , citing statements from governors of both parties warning “ catastrophic damage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t approve hundreds of billions in more funding .
“ We need flexibility but we need lots more money or the whole economy will hurt , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) told reporters on Tuesday , also at the Capitol .
Senate Republicans engaged in a lengthy discussion about the issue on Tuesday during their weekly conference lunch on Capitol Hill .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , a proponent of more state and local aid , brought several charts with him that displayed data about state budgets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Blue states aren ’ t the only ones getting screwed.
” McConnell in late April sparked controversy when he said he would rather state governments go bankrupt then get a fiscal rescue package from federal coffers , decrying what a statement from his office referred to as a “ blue state bailout.
” President Donald Trump has since said , falsely , that it ’ s only states with Democratic governors that need help and that bailing them out would be unfair to those with Republican chief executives .
Romney told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of view ” were exchanged at Tuesday ’ s lunch , but that no decision had been reached on the path forward .
Other GOP senators expressed objections to providing federal aid to states with high public employee pension costs like Illinois , New York and New Jersey .
They say that Congress shouldn ’ t borrow taxpayer dollars to fix problems states were dealing with prior to the epidemic and that would serve as a disincentive to end the shutdowns of businesses .
“ We shouldn ’ t do anything to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed .
If they want revenue coming to their state coffers , they ’ ve got ta reopen their economy , ” Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) told reporters on Tuesday .
Trump has suggested he would not approve more funding for states and cities without certain conditions , including that those that give some protections for undocumented immigrants change such policies “ Well run States should not be bailing out poorly run States , using CoronaVirus as the excuse !
The elimination of Sanctuary Cities , Payroll Taxes , and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the table , ” he tweeted Tuesday .
The issue will likely come to a head during negotiations over the next economic relief package in the coming weeks .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) said Tuesday that House Democrats will be unveiling soon a sweeping relief package with at least $ 800 billion in state and local aid .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As Congress begins tentative discussions over another coronavirus relief package, Republicans are struggling to get on the same page over the issue of providing more aid to state and local governments.
Democrats say as much as $1 trillion may be needed to shore up states and localities in the next coronavirus bill, but the idea has spurred stiff resistance from top Republicans who urge a slower pace on such further congressional action.
Advertisement
“We think we ought to take a pause here, do a good job of evaluating what we’ve already done,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters on Tuesday at the Capitol.
The $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) that became law in late March included $150 billion to states, cities and other municipalities whose budgets have been pummeled amid the stalled economy caused by the pandemic. But those funds can only be used by states and localities to cover expenses directly related to the health crisis.
Some Republicans want to give states and localities additional flexibility by allowing them to tap a portion of those funds for other critical expenditures.
“If we don’t provide them with some sort of a revenue replacement for part of the money, they’re going to end up raising taxes to pay for law enforcement, emergency services, educational needs, and Medicaid,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a former governor of his state, told HuffPost.
Advertisement
Rounds proposed making available up to 25% of the aid states are allocated under the CARES Act to adequately fund schools and other programs and services.
Democrats say that wouldn’t be nearly enough, citing statements from governors of both parties warning “catastrophic damage to state economies” if Congress doesn’t approve hundreds of billions in more funding.
“We need flexibility but we need lots more money or the whole economy will hurt,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Tuesday, also at the Capitol.
Senate Republicans engaged in a lengthy discussion about the issue on Tuesday during their weekly conference lunch on Capitol Hill. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a proponent of more state and local aid, brought several charts with him that displayed data about state budgets. The title of one chart read: “Blue states aren’t the only ones getting screwed.”
McConnell in late April sparked controversy when he said he would rather state governments go bankrupt then get a fiscal rescue package from federal coffers, decrying what a statement from his office referred to as a “blue state bailout.” President Donald Trump has since said, falsely, that it’s only states with Democratic governors that need help and that bailing them out would be unfair to those with Republican chief executives.
Advertisement
Romney told HuffPost “a lot of different points of view” were exchanged at Tuesday’s lunch, but that no decision had been reached on the path forward.
Other GOP senators expressed objections to providing federal aid to states with high public employee pension costs like Illinois, New York and New Jersey. They say that Congress shouldn’t borrow taxpayer dollars to fix problems states were dealing with prior to the epidemic and that would serve as a disincentive to end the shutdowns of businesses.
“We shouldn’t do anything to give these people incentive to keep their economy closed. If they want revenue coming to their state coffers, they’ve gotta reopen their economy,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters on Tuesday.
Trump has suggested he would not approve more funding for states and cities without certain conditions, including that those that give some protections for undocumented immigrants change such policies
“Well run States should not be bailing out poorly run States, using CoronaVirus as the excuse! The elimination of Sanctuary Cities, Payroll Taxes, and perhaps Capital Gains Taxes, must be put on the table,” he tweeted Tuesday.
Advertisement
The issue will likely come to a head during negotiations over the next economic relief package in the coming weeks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that House Democrats will be unveiling soon a sweeping relief package with at least $800 billion in state and local aid.
CORRECTION: This article misstated the figure that Democrats are seeking as $800 trillion in state and local aid; it is $800 billion.