Monday, October 01, 2018

Cosmo editor says women have been sold a lie

GLOSSY magazines sell a “lie” that women can have it all, says Farrah Storr, editor of women’s title Cosmopolitan.

The 37-year-old revealed she gave up on having kids to land her dream job as the editor of the monthly women’s magazine.

In an interview with The Times magazine, Storr explained she and her husband abandoned IVF after admitting “her ovarian ache” was not strong enough to make the necessary sacrifices.

Storr - who also edited Women’s Health - explained that the idea of raising a family and having a successful career was — ironically — sold to her by former editor of Cosmo, Helen Gurley Brown who was known for inventing the term “having it all” in her famous book.

“In life you have to choose and choosing is uncomfortable,” Storr explained.

“It means opening the gate to one path but closing the gate to the other.”

“Few get to walk both paths,” she continued.

“Perhaps, like me, [Helen Gurley Brown] knew deep down the truth: you can’t have it all.

“Along the way, I had been forced to make uncomfortable choices.

“The notion that I could have or indeed would want it all was a lie. A lie sold to me by the very magazine I edited.”

“It hadn’t worked out that way,” she continued.

“The irony of choosing not to fulfil an ideal the very magazine I edited had created was not lost on me.”

Storr revealed how climbing to the top of her career had “stretched [her] to capacity”.

“Almost overnight, our lives became very full,” she explained.  “Getting to the top, I quickly discovered, was not so much about ambition and talent but more about hard graft.

“With two big careers and a marriage to nurture, the fabric of our lives felt stretched to capacity.”

“I was 36. I knew that to be an editor of a major magazine would take everything I had,” she continued. “But then, so too would being a mother.

“I wasn’t sure my ovarian ache was enough to ask one of us to put the handbrake on our dreams. I never made the IVF appointment.

“As I headed into my 37th year, we laid to rest any notions about a family and thus ‘having it all’.

“I could, I decided, be OK with having it all-ish.”


U.S. court upholds Louisiana restriction on abortion clinics

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday upheld a Louisiana provision that requires doctors who perform abortions in the state to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

In a 2-1 ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the judges said the Louisiana provision was different than one in Texas that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 because it would not put an undue burden on women.

“There is no evidence that any of the clinics will close as a result of the Act,” the appeals court said in its ruling.

The Texas law, whose language is similar to the Louisiana law, led to the closure of the majority of the state’s abortion clinics and the number of women forced to drive over 150 miles to seek abortions increased by 350 percent, the appeals court said.

The plaintiffs in the Louisiana suit, which included abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women, were not immediately available for comment. The defendant, the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, was also not available for comment.

Abortion has been a central issue in the U.S. Senate confirmation process for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Abortion rights advocates worry that Kavanaugh, whose judicial record on abortion cases is thin, could change the balance on the court in favor of more restrictions, or even help overturn the court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Some states are passing restrictive abortion laws, which they expect could be challenged in court but hope might ultimately win favor from a conservative Supreme Court.

The admitting privileges act in Louisiana has the same language as the one in Texas, which requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 km) of their clinic. Supporters say the provision helps protect women by providing continuity of care.

Medical groups and abortion providers contend the requirement is unnecessary because complications from abortions are rare, and when they do occur, emergency room medical staff are well equipped to provide care.

They also said the provision is designed to shutter clinics, which is what happened in Texas.

In Texas, before the state’s 2013 law went into effect, there were about 40 licensed abortion facilities in the state, which has a population of about 27 million. After it went into effect, that number dropped to eight, the appeals court said.

The two judges who upheld the provision, both appointed by Republican presidents, ruled that the Louisiana law, “does not impose a substantial burden on a large fraction of women.” They said that only 30 percent of women seeking an abortion would face a potential burden of increased wait times.

In his dissent, Judge Patrick Higginbotham, also a Republican appointee, said the panel failed to meaningfully apply the undue burden test as articulated by the Supreme Court.

In a 5-3 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer in 2016, the Supreme Court concluded the Texas law violated a woman’s right to an abortion and did not offer medical benefits sufficient to justify its existence.


Powerful Banks Take Aim at Lawful Gun Trade and Advocacy

At the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Department of Financial Services has issued banks a stern warning: Dealing with the gun trade—and even gun-rights advocacy groups—may land you in legal hot water, including hefty penalties. With so much money at stake, major banks have caved to the pressure, though at least two institutions have stood their ground and been hit with fines in the millions of dollars. Others, such as Citibank and Bank of America, have jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon and driven it further, placing even more stringent restrictions on firearm-related bank transactions, explains Independent Institute Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook.

“Frustrated that democratically elected legislatures have rejected the demands of their favored interest groups, certain banks have decreed they will no longer do business with firearm manufacturers and dealers or allow others to do so,” Halbrook writes in an op-ed published in the New York Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Sacramento Bee, and elsewhere.

Some institutions have resisted the anti-gun zeitgeist, however. Wells Fargo Bank, Halbrook writes, “announced it would not get involved in political posturing and would do business with lawful companies.” Regarding New York’s penalties for banks that defy the state’s new edicts, he writes: “The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Cuomo’s policies ‘would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum.’” Expect to hear more about this issue.


Latinos Not Singing Democrats' Tune?

That coming Democrat “blue wave” maybe more the stuff of leftist daydreams than future reality, especially with reports that one of the identity groups Dems are counting on to turn out in big numbers come November might not. While Democrat voter enthusiasm has been high among women, another demographic group Dems have historically counted on is showing signs of being less enthused: Latino voters.

Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report writes, “Latino voter drop-off in midterm elections is nothing new, but the thinking was that President Trump’s rhetoric and policies around immigration, especially the issue of separating children from their parents at the border, would be a catalyst for higher Latino engagement in 2018. At this point, however, recent polling by New York Times Upshot/Siena College and Monmouth University, suggests that’s not the case.”

This should not be that surprising given the fact that Trump’s booming economy has lowered unemployment levels to record lows across all demographic groups, especially among Hispanics. So with record-high employment coupled with the fact that Latinos in general are not culturally radical leftists, what would motivate Latinos to vote against Trump?

By the way, Trump’s rhetoric on securing the border has not alienated a majority of Latinos, a fact demonstrated by a recent special election in Texas. As Texas Monthly reported, “Republican Pete Flores, backed by endorsements from [Gov. Greg] Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, [Sen. Ted] Cruz and … John Cornyn, won a stunning upset victory over well-known Democrat Pete Gallego in a San Antonio special election to capture a state Senate seat. The election was to fill the remaining term of disgraced former state Senator Carlos Uresti, who resigned his seat after being convicted in federal court of eleven felony charges. This marks the first time a Hispanic Republican has been elected to the Texas Senate and the first time the Senate has had twenty-one Republican senators.”

We’d like to think that Hispanics appreciate a president who enforces the law. Millions of Hispanics are law-abiding and don’t appreciate what 22 million illegals have done to their communities.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: