Postpartum Depression is a "Gift"
![]() July 24, 2025 Howdy, Meteor readers, I spent half my day in the waiting room of an auto shop watching reruns of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. The things Olivia Benson has been through are insane; no wonder this show is such effective copaganda. ![]() In today’s newsletter, we’ve got babies on the brain. Nona Willis Aronowitz, whose own baby is due any day now, explains the latest MAHA tomfoolery on postpartum depression and then asks three very important questions about baby sleep. Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONMAHA targets mamas: Earlier this week, an FDA panel discussing the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy made waves in the medical community–and not the good kind. It was so chock-full of misinformation and “MAHA talking points” that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) felt compelled to put out a statement calling the panel “alarmingly unbalanced” and accusing it of ignoring “the harms of untreated perinatal [before, during, and after birth] mood disorders in pregnancy.” A quick review of the accepted scientific facts here: Postpartum depression affects one in eight women; mental health conditions, including suicides and overdoses, are a leading cause of death in pregnant women; and maternal mental health has taken a nosedive in the last few years. Meanwhile, there’s medical consensus that the small risks of taking SSRIs during pregnancy are far outweighed by the serious risks of untreated depression. Yet the vast majority of panel participants repeated widely debunked lies about the dangers of taking SSRIs while pregnant, claiming that the medications pose an increased risk of autism (they don’t), as well as preterm birth, pre-eclampsia, and postpartum hemorrhage (the effects are negligible). Even more enragingly, as Mother Jones’ Julianne McShane pointed out, several of these “experts” seemed to deny the gravity and even existence of the reason many patients might choose antidepressants to begin with: perinatal depression itself. Dr. Roger McFillin, a psychologist and anti-vaccine advocate, suggested that women are “naturally experiencing their emotions more intensely, and those are gifts,” not “symptoms of a disease.” FDA Chief Dr. Martin Makary opted to discuss the “root causes” of perinatal depression, like the lack of “healthy relationships” and “natural light exposure,” rather than the immediate solutions patients need. And a third male panelist, Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring, who runs a clinic that helps people wean off psychiatric medications, claimed that symptoms of depression “are not things to be fixed with medical intervention.” As a very pregnant person who’s intimately aware of the havoc hormones can wreak, these words make my blood boil–no, incinerate. With my first child, I had clinical anxiety, both during and after my pregnancy. It cost me a lot: sleep, relaxation, closeness with my partner, peace with my baby. I’m a white, educated woman who’s squarely in the demographic of people who take SSRIs most frequently, yet the stigma was still too strong for me to seriously consider the drugs. I gutted it out for far too long, and it was tough to claw my way back. But halfway through this pregnancy, as the memory of those dark times loomed, I gingerly asked my midwife whether she thought a low dose of SSRIs would prevent a disastrous redo. It was only after she reassured me it was safe and effective, sending me links to several studies, that I started taking a prophylactic dose of Zoloft in preparation for birth. Among the FDA panel’s proposed solutions was to slap a black-box warning about the use of SSRIs during pregnancy. This kind of warning might very well have deterred me–someone with a lot of access to information. I can only imagine how many more suffering women it could discourage. Like many issues the MAHA movement focuses on, this one dovetails with legitimate concerns about the overprescribing of SSRIs and the lack of holistic support for people struggling with their mental health. Those are real problems. But steering new moms away from evidence-based help can only lead to harm. “So many women I see feel guilty about taking medications,” Dr. Nancy Byatt, a perinatal psychiatrist at the UMass Chan Medical School, told The New York Times after she watched the FDA panel. “They think they should ignore their needs for their babies. And I think it could make their decisions a lot harder … because it could cause unnecessary alarm.” The Department of Health and Human Services has refused to comment on future policy decisions, but in the meantime, you can still get accurate pregnancy information from ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. —Nona Willis Aronowitz AND:
![]() WHAT ALL THE AI CHATBOTS ARE GOING TO START SOUNDING LIKE ONCE THEY BECOME UNWOKED.
![]() THE UNINSURED ICON. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
![]() Three Questions About...Baby SleepWe spoke with Dr. Harvey Karp, inventor of the SNOO, about soothing the ills of modern parenthood.BY NONA WILLIS ARONOWITZ ![]() DR. KARP, BABY WHISPERER. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Whether or not you know Dr. Harvey Karp by name, you’ve probably absorbed his influence on baby sleep and soothing. The resurgence of the swaddle? The ubiquity of white noise in babies’ rooms? Cribbed (no pun intended) from Dr. Karp’s bestselling book The Happiest Baby on the Block. And he’s probably best known for SNOO, a pricey “smart bassinet” that rocks and jiggles a strapped-in baby all night long. In my ninth month of pregnancy, I spoke with Dr. Karp about the evolution of his signature product, what nuclear families are missing, and why sleep is a feminist issue. When SNOO first came out in 2016, it was a signifier of luxury–Beyoncé and Jay Z reportedly owned several. Now, it’s used in hospitals, including to soothe babies who were born dependent on opiates, and you’re working to have SNOO covered by Medicaid. That seems like quite a shift–how did that come about? Yes, SNOO was really known as this bougie baby bed in the beginning, but the goal was always to make it accessible to everyone. We built the bed to be reused over and over again. It’s sort of the way breast pumps started out: There were these industrial breast pumps and they were too expensive for people to buy, but you could rent them. And so, our goal was always to have SNOO be either rented or for free, and not to be purchased and owned. We have a project going on in Wisconsin right now, where hundreds of [SNOOs] are being given to families who have premature infants, mostly Medicaid recipients. Our job is to develop the science to convince Medicaid payers that we can save money and improve outcomes. We’ve also had a lot of success with companies offering SNOO as an employee benefit. Now, tens of thousands of people get a free SNOO rental from their employer, from big companies like Dunkin' Donuts to the largest duck farm in America. You often say that SNOO can help replenish what we’ve lost in terms of the extended family and support for new parents. But I think some people still feel a little funny about swapping out human cuddles for a machine. What do you say to that? Yes, a hundred years ago, and for the entire history of humanity, we had extended families, and people lived right next door to their grandmother, their aunt, their sister, and everybody shared the work. Then we moved to the city or moved hours away from our family, and women got more work responsibilities outside the home. This became pretty crushing on parents, especially single parents. So the SNOO goal is to be a helper. It's there in the home when you're cooking dinner, when you’re taking a shower, when you're playing with your three-year-old, when you are getting some sleep. It’s not set it and forget it, but it can give you 20 to 30 minutes here and there, as well as giving an extra hour or even up to two hours of extra sleep. In the womb, the baby is being held 24/7. Then they’re born, and 12 hours a day we put them in a dark quiet room. That’s sensory deprivation compared to what they had before they were born. So why, because you only have a few people in your family, should the baby miss out? SNOO…doesn’t replace what the parents would be doing, because no one can rock them all night long. It just gives the baby a little extra. When I had my first baby, sleep was a locus of inequality in my relationship–my male partner was obviously getting more of it, especially because I was riddled with anxiety about whether my baby was safe. Sleep became a feminist issue in my mind. How do you see SNOO responding to these gender dynamics, which seem to be common? We’ve definitely moved in the direction of gender equality, but we’re still far from it. Even when the baby is sleeping, sometimes moms are awake and anxious knowing that they have to get up in three hours. SNOO can help with that: There have been studies reporting that SNOO reduces maternal depression and maternal stress. There are five things that trigger depression and anxiety that SNOO improves: up to 41 minutes more sleep for mothers per night, reduced infant crying, less anxiety that the baby is in danger, the feeling that you have a support system, and [the fact that it] makes you feel like you’ve gotten things managed better. Also, men very often take on the role of being the sleep experts when they have a SNOO in the house. Men want to manage this gadget. That takes a burden off the shoulders of the mom. This conversation was made possible by Happiest Baby, a sponsor of UNDISTRACTED with Brittany Packnett Cunningham. ![]() WEEKEND READING 📚On the boys: Everyone’s worried about young men, but are we maybe blowing the “boy crisis” out of proportion? (The New York Times) On boobs: We’re all thinking about them. And apparently so is American Eagle. (TCF Emails) On the genius invested in women’s sports: The WNBA is in the midst of negotiations for a better bargaining agreement. They’ve got a Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences on their side. (Sports Illustrated) ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
An "Unwed" Woman Denied Prenatal Care
![]() ![]() July 23, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, Some personal news: Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham announced a reissue of Buckingham Nicks in the middle of Mercury retrograde in Leo, and I have been UNWELL all day. Making up with your ex during the celestial season of exes resurfacing?? Stevie, the white witch that you are! ![]() In earthly news, we take a look at an unbelievable story out of Tennessee. Plus, the continuation of the one scandal to rule them all. Your silver spring, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONMawwaige is necessawy: Thanks to the efforts of conservatives in Tennessee, a woman with a wanted pregnancy was denied prenatal care on the grounds that her “unwed” status was in conflict with a medical provider's religious beliefs. No, this is not a throwback anecdote from the ‘50s, a time when unwed women couldn’t get birth control or credit cards. This occurred just weeks ago. It was enabled by Tennessee’s new Medical Ethics Defense Act, passed in April, which allows medical providers to deny care based on their religious, ethical, or moral beliefs. At the time, Nona Willis Aronowitz identified the “innocuous-sounding” act as part of the right’s war on birth control, writing that “the sneakiness can reach the point of absurdity.” Last week, it became clear that she was right. Independent journalist Rachel Wells broke the story of an unnamed Tennessee woman who explained during a town hall meeting in Jonesborough that she had been denied prenatal care because she was unmarried—a condition that apparently went against her provider’s “Christian values.” (In case you were wondering, marital status is not a protected class under federal civil rights law.) She is now traveling out of state to receive care and has filed complaints with the Department of Commerce and Insurance and the American Medical Association. According to Wells, this is the first reported case (at least in recent history) of an American woman being denied prenatal care for being unmarried. But the funny thing—and yes, there’s always a funny thing—is that some of the most important theological figures were born out of wedlock. Ishmael was the son of Abraham and his servant Hagar. Mary became pregnant with Jesus before she was married to Joseph. Cain and Abel? Their parents couldn’t be married because the concept didn’t even exist in the first half of Genesis. What has always existed within Christian ideology is kindness and the love of Christ to all, even those you disagree with, just like it says in those He Gets Us commercials (which, again, is something the Christian right doesn’t even follow). Maybe the Tennessee legislature missed that day of Sunday school. Or perhaps this has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with laying the groundwork for the white, Judeo-Christian, heterosexual nation of JD Vance’s wet dreams. My money’s on the latter. AND:
![]() WARNER AND HIS INCREDIBLE SMILE AT A TELEVISION FESTIVAL A FEW YEARS AGO. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
Who Will Care for Your Children?
![]() July 17, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, Ya girl has had a particularly difficult week, but it’s all going to turn around because tomorrow I am getting sushi and pie with my bestie. That may not sound like a classic mix, but trust me, they go together like ramma-lamma-lamma-ka-dingity-da-dinga-dong. (Name that musical!) In today’s newsletter, we’re connecting the dots on childcare and immigration policy. Plus, remembering John Lewis, and your weekend reading list. Did you guess correctly, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONIf ICE comes knocking, will you still have childcare?: In 2015, when our now-president was campaigning on the promise that he would remove “illegal aliens” from the United States, daytime talk show host Kelly Osbourne asked, “If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilets, Donald Trump?” The rebuke was swift for Osbourne’s offensive wording, but there was a larger point buried under the casual racism. And in the era of Trump 2.0, with its brutal immigration policies, the question is: Who will be left to care for our children? The United States has a long history of outsourcing childcare, dating back to enslavement, and continuing through Reconstruction and into the 21st century. As Angela Garbes explained to The Meteor in 2022, the survival of American capitalism is dependent on “ignored” domestic labor. That labor is now largely being performed by immigrants, and if they’re removed from the country, “our care infrastructure will crumble,” warns the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). Research shows that immigrants comprise up to 26 percent of not just the daycare but also the early-education workforce. In cities like New York and Los Angeles, nearly half of all female educators are immigrants. But with ICE raids expanding in immigrant communities, and the administration allowing agents to enter child-care centers for the first time since 2011, immigrant providers are under heavy threat. Their livelihoods, already tenuous, are being undermined in other ways, too: The administration is now barring undocumented immigrants from putting their children in Head Start programs—which have long served as a crucial support for the families of care workers—and recent changes to Medicare, SNAP, and child tax credits all make it harder for immigrant workers to make ends meet. And when child-care workers suffer, everyone suffers. Take the case of Nicolle Orozco Forero, a Colombian immigrant in Washington state who cared for children with disabilities. In June, after a routine monthly immigration meeting, she was detained by ICE and eventually deported. (Her young children, one of whom is gravely ill, were also deported.) The 19th’s Chabeli Carrazana spoke to the families who relied on Orozco Forero for care and writes that they “are now in a free fall…[Nicolle] was the connective tissue that kept families employed. Her loss has rippled across industries.” One mother was forced to quit her job after Orozco Forero was detained because she couldn’t find anyone else to care for her daughter, who has autism and is non-verbal. Meanwhile, the administration is patting itself on the back for being “pro-family.” After all, it increased both the child tax credit and the child care tax credit via the Big Beautiful Bill; what more could anyone want? A lot: As we’ve written, the BBB does more harm than good to the limited social safety net in America, especially for lower-income families. As Andrea Palus of Child Care for Every Family Network put it to USA Today, “I think the reconciliation bill did almost nothing for child care. And for sure, almost nothing related to the scale of the need.” There is almost nothing in this country that exists that wasn’t molded by immigrant hands, and that includes our children. And many Americans who assume that their citizenship will shield them from the fallout of anti-immigrant policies may be about to find out that the impact is as close to home as it gets. AND:
![]() LEWIS IN 1964 AT A PROTEST WHEN HE WAS NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE STUDENT NON-VIOLENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
![]() A FAN TAKES IN THE VIEW WITH A SICK T-SHIRT DURING THIS MONTH'S PORTLAND FIRE LAUNCH EVENT IN OREGON. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
![]() WEEKEND READING 📚On island life: Huda has spoken. (Call Her Daddy) On being eternally hot: Millennials are redefining what it looks like to enter midlife. Spoiler: we’re making midlife sexy again. (Elle) On centering victims: It’s been a long week of Epstein news, but Julie K. Brown, who broke many of the big Epstein stories, is keeping her focus on what matters: the women at the heart of the case. (Radio Atlantic; listen to the very end) ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
The Other Epstein List
![]() July 15, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, I finally took some time to listen to Justin Bieber’s new album, “Swag,” and here’s my takeaway: It’s JB’s “The Tortured Poets Department.” I will not be elaborating any further. Thank you for your time. In today’s newsletter, we’re thinking about the Epstein list…the other list. Plus, a huge blow to the Board of Education, and some bisexual erasure. Unerasable, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONDon’t forget about them: For the last few weeks, the hot argument on the block is what to do about the so-called Epstein files, which, depending on who you ask, may or may not include a “celebrity client list.” Politicians have been waiting breathlessly for the Justice Department to release the files, but it all came to naught when U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi released a report filled with almost no new information and definitely no client list. Some are already calling for her to be fired, while others point the finger at FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, for not doing enough to release the findings. Meantime, one demand is uniting the Republicans and the Democrats: They all want to see the client list. But here’s the list that we’re paying attention to: ![]() For too long, the story of Jeffrey Epstein has centered on the network of powerful men said to have benefited from his alleged crimes—which include abusing and trafficking young girls for sex acts with the help of his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. Men like Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Kevin Spacey, and, of course, Donald Trump himself are all suspected “clients” of Epstein’s services (and all have denied participating in any criminal activity). One civil lawsuit filed in 2014 alleged that Epstein brokered sex with “American politicians, powerful business executives,” and other world leaders. Some of the named men have seen minimal repercussions—Prince Andrew was stripped of his royal duties, although he continued to conduct business in the private sector—while others have made it out scot-free. For her part, Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence after a jury found her guilty of five counts of sex trafficking of a minor and conspiracy. But largely missing from the discourse around the Epstein files is what politicians actually plan to do with the information in them, besides shame their political enemies. Are they thinking about how to help the victims, some as young as 11 years old at the time, who were allegedly exploited, sexually assaulted, and held captive by Epstein and his associates? There have been financial settlements over the years: In 2021, the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Fund finished paying out $121 million to more than 135 people, and some of Epstein’s victims settled with JPMorgan Chase Bank for $290 million after suing the institution for facilitating abuse. But financial restitution is not full justice, and for some women, like the late Virginia Giuffre, there may never be a full, honest accounting of just how much damage was done. So while the client list is important to politicians as a prop in political theater, for the women who were abused, it may very well be meaningful in a different way: as a tool that makes it harder for doubters to say This never happened to you. That may not be the thing on the mind of most lawmakers right now; for too many, the victims are an afterthought. But to us, right now, they are the only thought. AND:
![]()
![]() GIBSON AND FALLEY AT THE SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL EARLIER THIS YEAR. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
How Much Is Your Kid Worth?
![]() July 10, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, This weekend my child is attending her first day of soccer camp, and I’m so nervous and excited you’d think we were attending the NWSL draft. But save this email because one day we might be! In today’s newsletter, we cover a sensitive subject: money. Plus, fun news for movie lovers and your weekend reading list. From your newly minted hot soccer mom, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONTell your toddler to get a job: We need to talk about taxes. Don’t scroll away from me, this is important! As part of the new tax package passed last week in the “Big Beautiful Bill,” a number of permanent changes have been made to the child tax credit. And for millions of children, those changes are bad. Here’s how it breaks down: For some, the dollar amount will actually increase; if you qualify for the full credit, you get $2,200, up from $2,000. But under the new changes, 2.7 million fewer children qualify than did last year. Unsurprisingly, non-citizens are targeted; to receive the full amount, one parent in the household must have a Social Security number—which was not the case in previous years. The child must have one as well and have lived six months or more in the U.S. with their parent or guardian. (A family headed by an undocumented single parent would not receive the credit at all, even if the child is a citizen.) In failing to write any new protections around eligibility–a dire oversight if you’re actually trying to help more families–the bill inadvertently raised income requirements. A two-parent household with two children has to earn a minimum income of $41,500 to qualify. (This minimum basically didn’t exist in 2024.) If your household earns less than the qualifying income, you may get around $1,700 per child or, in some cases, no money at all. (There is still a maximum, where joint filers making more than $400,000 receive less of the credit.) These numbers change based on other filing factors, but the bottom line is this: Ultimately, about 19 million children are now blocked from receiving the full amount because their family's income is too low. The Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University found that 60 percent of children of single mothers will not be able to receive the full credit for the 2026 tax season. (That number goes down to 41 percent for children of single fathers. Hm.) When you pair these changes with the cuts to SNAP, early childhood education, and Medicaid, the picture of just how much the government hates low-income families becomes clear. “They don’t give a fuck about us, man” was the first text I received when the BBB passed. Quite a few of my friends and family members are single parents, and while $2,000 once a year didn’t fix all of their problems, it had been a life raft that they looked forward to and depended on. Without it, they’ll be scrambling to cover things like school supplies or daycare payments. I couldn’t even consider having a second child (and just to be clear, Mom, I’m not) because the financial strain would be so great and the safety net so small. Republicans love to tell everyone to have more children, but they’re passing policies that ensure only certain kinds of families will have the financial means to do so. There is, surprisingly, a sliver of hope in all this: state lawmakers. States can still tailor their tax codes to provide more robust child tax credit programs, which already exist in some states. If you don’t know your state’s policy or how to advocate for better, the Coalition on Human Needs has a ton of guides. AND:
![]() WEEKEND READING 📚On bloodsuckers: Are we headed for a recession? Only Nelini Stamp and the vampires know the answer. (World Builders Club) On pointe: When a ballerina gets pregnant, it often means a huge loss of income. But now dancers are working to change an industry built on their bodies. (Elle) On sportsmen: There are no openly gay or bisexual men competing in America’s professional sports leagues. Why not? (Uncloseted Media)
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
We All Have a Climate Disaster Story
![]() July 8, 2025 Howdy, Meteor readers, It’s Amazon Prime Day, and in case you’ve been adding to cart, remember: it’s just a week-long scam to line Bezos’ pockets without providing meaningful discounts. There are other stores. In today’s newsletter, we’re grieving with the people of central Texas as they navigate an unbearable tragedy. Plus, a glimmer of hope for Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid patients. Thinking of Silvana and María, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONUnforgiving waters: On Friday, a devastating flash flood struck central Texas, washing away homes, vehicles, and much of an all-girls’ summer camp, Camp Mystic. The death toll is over 100 but is expected to rise as rescuers continue searching the Guadalupe River for remains of the deceased. As is often the case when a tragedy of this size occurs, many are wondering what, if anything, could have been done differently to preserve life. According to a timeline compiled by NPR, the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Texas Division of Emergency Management issued warnings of imminent flooding in the area, with alerts upgrading in severity hours before the river started to swell. But some Texas officials are blaming the NWS—an organization that lost 600 workers this year because of Trump’s federal restructuring and funding cuts to its parent, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—for inadequate warnings. Trump denied the correlation, saying, “This is a 100-year catastrophe.” Well, yes and no. This kind of flooding used to be a 100-year catastrophe, but human behavior and government failures have quite literally changed the game. While there will need to be an investigation to determine if the shortages at NWS (including the fact that a key manager in charge of local warnings reportedly left after cuts this spring) exacerbated the situation, one thing is certain: extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and this flood’s severity was impacted by worsening climate change. “With a warmer atmosphere, there is no doubt that we have seen an increase in the frequency and the magnitude of flash flooding events globally,” meteorologist Jonathan Porter told the L.A. Times. “The key question is, what did people do with those warnings…What was their weather safety plan, and then what actions did they take based upon those timely warnings, in order to ensure that people’s lives were saved?” Perhaps the loss of life could have been minimized with more evacuations from the area, nicknamed Flash Flood Alley, but it is an inescapable fact that more and more people will die as the Earth continues to warm. And as we’ve seen from the number of young girls swept away by flood waters, it will be the most vulnerable who pay the price. Whether we realize it or not, we’ve reached a point where every single one of us has a climate disaster story. (If you just thought to yourself, I don’t, remember the last two summers were the hottest summers since 1940 and not everyone lived to tell the tale. You’ve lived through at least two climate disasters.) Maybe you lost everything fleeing Hurricane Maria—or found yourself breathing poor air in New York City as smoke from the Canadian wildfires made its way south. Either way, living through or dying from a natural disaster is becoming unremarkable. The time for climate denialism is long gone. If the government is unwilling to take the financial and political steps needed to slow climate change, the “100-year catastrophes” will continue to mount. How you can help survivors in Texas: AND:
![]() WHAT REMAINS OF A HOSPITAL INSIDE EVIN PRISON. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
![]()
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
Does America Deserve a Party?
![]() July 3, 2025 Hey there, Meteor readers, We are off tomorrow to partake in the celebration of America having cast off its oppressors, only to turn around and oppress in return. Or July 4th for short! Either way, it’s a day off to spend with your loved ones and wonder what’s up with Joey Chestnut. Or sit alone and do some fun feminist reading, Whatever’s clever, babe. ![]() But before we sign off for the long weekend and before we spend all our brain power fretting about the Big Beautiful Bill becoming a reality, we’re taking an optimistic stroll through the news to find the good happening around the country. Plus, we talk to some of our friends about patriotism. Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ON (GOOD-VIBES-ONLY VERSION)
![]() MICHIGANDERS BUILDING A WALL OF PLASTIC BOTTLES TO "WELCOME" DONALD TRUMP IN 2016. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
![]() THEY REALLY ATE IN THOSE DRESSES, THOUGH. MAYBE WE BRING THEM BACK FOR AN OLDIES NIGHT GAME. (VIA GETTY) ![]() When, If Ever, Do You Feel Patriotic?(You’re allowed to answer with a middle finger.) ![]() THOSE STRIPES DON'T RUN BECAUSE THEY ARE SECURED IN PLACE WITH AT LEAST THREE KNOTS. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) On an Independence Day only a billionaire could love, and in a time when many Americans feel less free than ever, we asked seven women their interpretation of patriotism. There is something in the American psyche that urges us towards problem-solving and exuberant creativity. We celebrate innovation and resilience, and capability in all forms. I feel pride when I see a person from my nation excel because of their indomitable spirit and resilience. But patriotism is also the bittersweet understanding that I love my place of birth and the culture that accompanied it, despite every instance of it not loving me as it should. It is a reminder that love is an unselfish end in itself. Patriotism has always been an odd concept to me. Maybe it's the Indigenous in me, but pledging loyalty to a government (which is how I view patriotism) always seemed a bit cultish. Particularly as an American, I'll never understand the desire to put my life on the line for a governing power that provides nothing in return (no healthcare, no education, no childcare, no right-to-a-life-of-dignity-or-safety, should I keep going?). I always thought that patriotism was a "if you love this place, let's make it better" type of thing, but from 2017-now, I've learned I'm on a minority-populated island on that one. How am I supposed to feel patriotism for a country that abandons, betrays, imprisons, and kills its patriots? I see patriotism through the same lens as James Baldwin—a profound love for America that requires constant critique, improvement, and accountability. But I don't feel patriotic, because I don't always trust that America will love me back. As a person who thinks in transnational feminism, patriotism is really complicated. I can't see the word outside of its roots in father/fatherland beliefs and values. Patriotism requires borders, policing, control, and exclusion….It has always been tied to supremacist ideals and patriarchal violence, even in defense of positive values, like democracy. Now more than ever, we have to recognize the critical necessity of solidarity beyond borders, of caring for the displaced and the fugitive…And we have to use new words. We've had millennia of patriotism. Maybe use, as so many have suggested before us, matriotism, a love of each other and all living things, rooted mutual care and responsibility, guided by the refusal to glorify war and violence. If the definition of patriotism is devotion to one's country, then one has to love that country even when she is on her knees. That’s when you have to be loyal the most - when she’s hurting. False patriotism waves flags and indulges in jingoistic mantras and empty pronouncements. True patriotism looks upon a nation with eyes wide open and loves her enough to “criticize her perpetually,” as James Baldwin wrote….Yet being a patriot in dark times isn’t easy. When you are born in Puerto Rico, as I was, an island invaded in 1898 by the United States, called trash by its colonial masters, and fighting for self-determination, you understand that. True patriotism doesn’t hide in a corner; it doesn’t die a coward's death. It grows strong enough to change the course of history. My patriotism is my people: It lives within each of us. It thrives when we protect one another from the violence of the state. Patriotism is not allegiance to power—it’s love for those who are targets of the state. It’s the courage to care for each other, especially when our government does not. My only childhood memory that could be categorized as patriotic is this: My grandmother—a second-generation Eastern European who voted in every election from the late 1920s to 2008, when, tired of “that fucking Bush,” she delightedly cast a vote for Obama—would drive me every summer to her home in the Catskills. And when her creaky Oldsmobile crested the hill and the mountains and fields came into view, she would break into “America the Beautiful.” (It lasted forever.) She clearly didn’t mean the government. She meant the literal place she lived: the land and its people, the community she was part of. That seems like as good a definition of patriotism as any to me: to make the place you live, where you have neighbors, live up to its promise. ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
An "Attack on Diplomacy Itself" and the Women Left Behind
![]() July 1, 2025 Hi friends— Cindi here, filling in for Nona and Shannon on what is not just a normal Tuesday in end-times America but a birthday blockbuster: Both Princess Diana (who should have been turning 64 today 💔) and Missy Elliott (blowing out 54 candles) were born on this day. Also on this day, back in 1972, the first standalone issue of Ms. magazine was published. That makes it an excellent time to shamelessly plug “Dear Ms.: A Revolution in Print,” which airs on HBO tomorrow. My fellow producers and I hope you get a chance to watch. Meanwhile, in today’s newsletter, everything from wedding-dress tariffs to a fascinating interview about the history of the word “like.” But first, an important piece about the real cost of the Trump administration’s dismantling of a lifesaving State Department office—by a woman who worked there. Xo, Cindi ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONThe U.S. is Abandoning Women’s Rights. The Women it “Honored” Are Paying the Price.BY VARINA WINDER In March 2024, Agather Atuhaire stood on the White House stage, honored for her work as a human rights lawyer and anti-corruption journalist in Uganda. A year later, she was allegedly tortured and brutally assaulted, and left at the Tanzanian border, after being arrested and prevented from attending the trial of an arbitrarily detained politician. The response from the Trump State Department? A four-line statement from the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania calling for an investigation. At the same time, back on Capitol Hill, Secretary Marco Rubio was doubling down on his intention to dismantle the very office that would normally lead the charge on helping Atuhaire—the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues. The elimination of that office, in which I proudly served for more than a decade, is scheduled to occur this very week. Along with the dismantling of USAID and the Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau, it is a clear signal that the U.S. is regressing wholesale on women’s rights. And governments like Tanzania’s have already taken note of the new latitude they have to do the same. ![]() THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HONORED WOMEN THIS SPRING, EVEN AS IT PLANNED TO SHUT DOWN THE OFFICE. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Women like Atuhaire—who trusted that American recognition meant American support—now face retaliation with no meaningful backing from the U.S. Our message to human rights leaders is now: we will honor you on our stage—as Rubio did at this year’s International Women of Courage (IWOC) Awards Ceremony—but when you need us most, we will turn our backs on you. More than 200 women from 90+ countries have received this award over the past 19 years. It’s not just a glass plaque and a ceremony; IWOC has been a living commitment to women’s rights - and has long created new opportunities to make meaningful progress, as quiet, coordinated U.S. diplomacy did together with one of Atuhaire’s fellow honorees, preventing a reversal of a ban on female genital mutilation in the Gambia. Now, human rights organizations worldwide question whether association with America makes their staff and beneficiaries targets—rather than protecting them. The very concept of American soft power—our ability to influence through shared values rather than coercion—depends on us standing by those values. The Tanzanian government's alleged willingness to torture and rape a woman the United States honored on its highest stage is a clear sign of just how much the estimation for America’s purported human- rights values has already fallen. ![]() WOMEN IN KENYA WORKING AGAINST GENITAL MUTILATION WITH THE SUPPORT OF UNICEF AND THE WOMEN'S ISSUES OFFICE. (PHOTO COURTESY OF VARINA WINDER) This institutional dismantling of my former office follows the same non-logic of the self-imposed destruction of USAID. This is not about efficiency: our tiny staff is the only dedicated, expert staff on these issues, as a mere 8 percent of State Department bureaus and offices globally have someone with “women’s rights” as a dedicated part of their job, along with an average of nine additional duties. This is not about efficiency or cost savings; our $10 million budget is spent by the Pentagon in the time it takes to watch a YouTube video. This is a coordinated, multi-front attack on women’s rights, the organizations that support them, and the leaders who believe in them. It’s also an attack on diplomacy itself. When we eliminate the infrastructure, the people, and the office that support our values, we don't just lose a dedicated office; we lose credibility and trust. As Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) said in an SFRC budget hearing with Secretary Rubio in May, “Beijing is making the case that they are a more reliable, credible partner than the U.S.” The path forward requires more than defending the Office of Global Women's Issues - which we each must be calling on the Senate and House to do. It also demands acknowledging that our retreat from human rights leadership has real victims with names and faces and bodies. Atuhaire's brutal rape and torture may have happened in Tanzania, but the failure of accountability is America’s. She trusted us; we failed her. Varina Winder is the former Chief of Staff and senior advisor in the Secretary of State’s Office of Global Women’s Issues. AND:
![]() Three Questions About...Like, Words and StuffJournalist Megan Reynolds takes up the most derided word in the dictionaryBY SHANNON MELERO ![]() IT'S JUST LIKE, A REALLY INTERESTING BOOK. (COVER IMAGE COURTESY OF HARPER COLLINS, AUTHOR PHOTO BY CHRIS BERNABEO) Megan Reynolds has always had a way with words, which I experienced firsthand when we worked together at Jezebel, and she told me I could always go to her with any questions. Big mistake, huge! I’ve been pestering her since 2019, and now I have yet another reason: Megan—who has made everything from beach chairs to a really big mall come alive with her deft use of language,—has a new book, Like: A History of, Like, the World’s Most Hated (and, Like, Misunderstood) Word. In it, she traces the word’s origins all the way back to the 1600s, and also writes a love letter to the way women, particularly teen girls, have shaped language. As is our routine, I darkened her door with my queries. So even though women are the ones making fetch happen when it comes to language, this book exists because there’s so much pushback and policing over women’s use of “like.” So I guess my question is, why can’t we just, like, talk how we please? The answer is absolutely “sexism,” but that is a pat response for a situation that is much more nuanced and complex. Sometimes the call is coming from inside the house—for all the professional men out there who write earnest LinkedIn blogs about filler words, power, and corporate communication, there are just as many professional women doing the same thing. The policing comes in many forms, [including] the voice in your own head, but I’d say that it is most evident in the aforementioned blogs on LinkedIn and op-eds in various newspapers around the world. And, if you watch the season premiere of the most recent season of The Kardashians on Hulu, you’ll find the entire family policing Kourtney for saying like, like, all the time. On the surface, any policing of women’s language looks like and definitely is sexist, but underneath, is also the issue of intelligence and whether or not saying “like” a bunch when you talk means you’re not. And yes, this is a battle that both men and women face, but women (I assume) are more concerned with not sounding stupid, whereas men will happily open their mouths and share the first thought that comes to mind. One thing I love is that you described "like" as a word that does a lot of emotional labor, and it's been doing so since before either of us was born. Have you come across a word that is taking on that same labor for the next generation? Or will "like" continue to be a timeless linguistic accessory? Language moves faster than any of us are interested in thinking about, but I think that “like” will never go out of style—and that’s actually good? It means that it’s become an inherent and natural part of speech, and for that, we are forced to stan. However, the youth of today are saying words in ways that I never could have imagined. The meaning of “literally” has changed in recent years due to young people using it in unorthodox ways, and I think a lot of people are pressed about that for reasons unbeknownst. Technically, “literally” does mean just one thing, and often, it’s used in situations that are decidedly not literal. And like “like” can function as an intensifier, “literally” does the same thing. You write about how Serious Feminists™ of the past were also a part of the anti-Like movement. Is there still a sense that we need to sound important if we want to be important? Like with most things in life, the answer depends on the person. I’ve worked with women who are younger than me but much more “professional,” hewing closer to the traditional and generally accepted definition of what that sounds like. To me, this doesn’t matter at all. And because I’m generally not that “professional” by any commonly-held, old-fashioned standard, my aim in writing this book was to communicate that we don’t need to care about this! It doesn’t matter! If someone is or isn’t going to take you seriously in the workplace or anywhere else, I’d wager that they’ve already made that decision before you even opened your mouth, anyway. ![]() ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
The Loss of a "Deeply Personal Freedom"
![]() June 26, 2025 ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONYou don’t get to choose: During our morning meeting, while I regaled my colleagues with Sabrina Carpenter theories, a news alert popped up. I swear a group of women hasn’t gone that quiet that fast since Huda’s last crash-out. The alert was that the Supreme Court had published its decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood. The court ruled 6-3, along ideological lines, that South Carolina’s governor, Henry McMaster, was on sound legal footing when he removed Planned Parenthood South Atlantic from the state’s Medicaid program in 2018. To be clear, South Carolina already outlaws abortions after six weeks, and the Hyde Amendment has long ensured that federal funds cannot be used to reimburse abortion costs anyway. (State funds are a different story.) This case is about punishing Planned Parenthood for its association with abortions, even though its clinics also provide STI screenings, contraception, mammograms, and a number of other vital health services. A 2021 study found that of the millions of women Medicaid recipients who had gone to Planned Parenthood for care that year, 85 percent of them received contraceptive services. That means that when McMaster removed PPSA from the Medicaid program, any Medicaid patient going to one of its clinics lost their healthcare provider, which is why PPSA and one of its patients sued McMaster for violating the “free choice of provider” clause in the Medicaid Act. The lower courts sided with the plaintiffs repeatedly. But the state’s director for the Department of Health and Human Services picked up the fight, and SCOTUS decided that losing access to your health provider is not a violation of your rights. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the dissenting opinion, characterized this decision as “stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws” and Slate points out, associated the majority with white supremacists who once sought to undermine Reconstruction. She deftly laid out what this decision will really do: “It will strip countless other Medicaid recipients around the country of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’ ” ![]() THE FACE OF A WOMAN WHO IS TIRED OF THE TOMFOOLERY IN THE COURT. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) For patients outside South Carolina, this decision could have a ripple effect. Governors nationwide now have the runway they need to essentially defund Planned Parenthood in their states by blocking the organization’s access to Medicaid funds, which account for one-third of Planned Parenthood’s revenue. At the same time, Republicans are trying to eradicate the organization via the Big Beautiful Bill, which seeks to end Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood nationally. If passed, the bill “could lead nearly 200 clinics to shutter—90% of them in states where abortion is legal,” independent journalist and Autonomy News cofounder Susan Rinkunas told The Meteor. “If the Trump administration is able to nationalize this Supreme Court decision, people even in protective states would have less access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion.” Bottom line: This decision goes beyond attacking bodily autonomy. Today, the court reaffirmed that being poor, or a woman, or Latine, or Black—the groups that make up the majority of Medicaid users—means that the freedoms and choices enjoyed by everyone else don’t apply to you. If you don’t have the money or the whiteness or the penis to pay for the doctor you want, you’re out of luck. AND:
![]() HOW'S THAT FOR A WARM VENETIAN WELCOME? (GETTY IMAGES)
![]() Three Questions About...Toni MorrisonShe had a whole other job, and she was brilliant at it. BY REBECCA CARROLL ![]() COURTESY OF HARPER COLLINS Toni Morrison wrote some of the greatest literature of all time. It is less known, though, that she also edited some of the greatest literature, and that is what makes Dana A. Williams’s new book, Toni At Random: The Iconic Writer’s Legendary Editorship, such a gift. Williams, a professor of African American literature and the Dean of Graduate School at Howard University, conducted hundreds of interviews (including a handful with Morrison while she was still living) and unearthed letters and conversations between Morrison and the authors she published—among them Toni Cade Bambara, Lucille Clifton, Gayl Jones, and Angela Davis—during her nearly 20 years as an editor at Random House. The result is a thoughtfully reverent, always engrossing, and occasionally juicy narrative that confirms Morrison’s intricate genius, as well as her deep love of Black writers, Black books, and Black language. Rebecca Carroll: What did you learn about Toni Morrison, the editor, that you did not know about Toni Morrison, the writer? Dana A. Williams: I think they intersect, but Toni Morrison as editor was fully involved in the publishing community. I think of Toni Morrison-as-writer as someone writing in isolation—someone writing at their desk, really thinking about her story and her characters. Morrison as editor was everywhere. She was at every party. She was in the design team’s face, sometimes to their dismay. She was on the street trying to find writers, because she really did have to kind of beat the bushes in those early years to identify writers who had not been signed up by other houses. Angela Davis told me that her office was always bustling. There were people in and out all the time, which is part of the reason why, when she was working on a book of her own, she would not go in the office in the same way. One of the beautiful things about this book has been rediscovering books I’ve loved forever, like Toni Cade Bambara’s Gorilla, My Love, now knowing that Morrison played such an integral role in shaping them. Were there books that you returned to in the same way during the process of writing this one? I absolutely went back and reread [Bambara’s] The Salt Eaters because I thought, Now I think I know what’s happening in this book. I love The Salt Eaters. I taught The Salt Eaters, but I never got all of it. The same thing was true of Leon Forrest, who I probably knew more about than any of the authors. All the fiction—the fiction [Morrison edited] was what I was so drawn to to begin with….But the more [Morrison and I] talked, the more she continued to ignore my questions about fiction. She was like the queen of indirection from the beginning to the end, because she never said, “This book really shouldn’t be about the fiction only.” She would drop hints like, “Have you seen Paula’s last book? Now that’s a book. If you’re going to write a book, that’s a book.” She was talking about A Sword Among Lions by Paula Giddings, which was interesting, because it is a biography of Ida B. Wells, and every time I would ask [Morrison] a question about herself, she would say, “I'm not interested in myself.” After spending over a decade on this book, do you have a strong sense now of what Toni Morrison thought made good writing? I kept asking her that question, and she said, “Well, obviously if it’s nonfiction, the argument has to be sound and it has to be compelling, and it has to make the case for the reader in a way that nobody else has made it before.” If she was editing on a topic that she didn’t know as much about, she was literally reading everything about the current conversation to make sure [the author was] moving this argument in a different direction. Editors don't have to do that. For the fiction…I think she was more drawn to experimental writers than to straight beginning, middle, and end writers. She said, “With Gayl Jones, I had to ask questions about characters: What is motivating this character?” With Bambara, she said, “I just needed to make sure that she didn't leave the reader behind, because she’s moving so fast.” I kept thinking, There has to be this kind of crystallized way of saying [what good writing is]. But it was the interrogation. I think that was her distinguishing mark—to publish what stories she wanted to be told, and to let the writer be the writer. ![]() WEEKEND READING 📚On something different: Babe, wake up, a new kind of masculinity just dropped, and it involves Pedro Pascal. (TCF Emails) On the worst trimester: Vox’s podcast, “Unexplainable,” tells the story of geneticist Marlena Fejzo, whose own torturous pregnancy led her to discover both a biological cause and potential cure for morning sickness. (Vox) On evolving the stitch and bitch: Knitting clubs were once a place to complain about your kids and mother-in law (not me I would never), but young knitters are using their craft for a greater good. (Teen Vogue) On what we eat: Food affects everything, but can it really do much about menopause, or are women being sold another fad diet? (Burnt Toast) ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
Moving Past the Shock of Dobbs
![]() June 24, 2025 Salutations, Meteor readers, Today is the third anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned nearly 50 years of federal protection for abortion rights. I wish I could say I never thought we’d see the day, but as a member of the post-Y2K, post-9/11, post-’08 recession, post-COVID, post-Roe generation, there isn’t a crisis I haven’t lived through. Honestly, just waiting for the rivers to turn to blood…oh wait. In today’s newsletter, we look at our disturbing new normal and try to move past our post-Dobbs shock. At least we have each other, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONTime has truly flown since 2022, when so many of us spent the day wondering, what do we do now? In the time since we’ve marched, donated, voted for abortion, made podcasts, and learned just how far people in power are willing to go to limit our bodily autonomy. So, how does the reality of a post-Roe America differ from what we once predicted? Let’s take a look:
Grey’s Anatomy can’t hold a candle to the high-stakes medical drama of the last three years. But, as in any good series, there have been some small wins. While abortion rights of patients in red states have been gravely curtailed, protections have actually gotten stronger in many blue states, thanks to laws codifying the right to abortion in state constitutions. And across the country, clear majorities have voted to protect reproductive rights, even in red states like Kansas and Kentucky. This political backlash has pleasantly surprised experts like Jennifer Klein, a professor at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs and the former director of the White House Gender Policy Council, who joined us on IG Live today, and said she was heartened to see that “abortion absolutely matters to voters.” “The level of resilience and ability to organize and fight back” has been surprising, she added, but it also “gives me hope.” AND:
![]() COMPOSITE IMAGE OF THE TRIFID AND LAGOON NEBULAE FORMING A SICK PINK CLOUD NEAR THE CONSTELLATION SAGITTARIUS. (SCREENSHOT VIA YOUTUBE) ![]() What Comes After Shock?Maybe something better—something steelierBY CINDI LEIVE ![]() PROTESTORS ON LAST YEAR'S DOBBS ANNIVERSARY. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) You’ve read from my colleagues Nona and Shannon, above, about the realities of life three years after Dobbs. So one more question: How are we feeling? Three years ago today, with the devastatingly blunt sentence “Roe and Casey are overruled,” Justice Samuel Alito shattered any illusion that women in this country are, at least on paper, seen as full human beings. Reading those words wasn’t surprising—a draft of the decision had been leaked seven weeks earlier and, y’know, there were far earlier signs—but it was shocking, the way losing a loved one comes as a shock no matter how sick you knew they’d been. The shocks came rapid-fire after that: When my colleagues and I spoke to a woman who was being driven into debt after being forced to continue a debilitating pregnancy—shocking. When Kaitlyn Joshua told her story of being ping-ponged, bleeding, from one Louisiana hospital to another, none willing to treat her—shocking. When a young mom in Alabama confided that she’d been passed a stickie note telling her to travel 580 miles for care—shocking. When Jessica Valenti reported that South Carolina had proposed the death penalty for abortion patients—shocking! But, as grotesque as it is to admit, I am no longer shocked, and you might not be either. The harrowing recent case of Adriana Smith, the Georgia woman declared brain-dead but kept alive by medical staff because she was pregnant, is the stuff of horror movies, and the kind of case that at a different time and under a different president would have dominated headlines for weeks. But it seemed to me it received only modest coverage—partly because we are now living in a multiplex of horror movies (from ICE to anti-LGBTQ attacks), and partly because, after 36 long months, the shock has just worn off. This is where we are. So what happens next? On one level, of course, we have to try to retain our capacity to be shocked—to remind each other that using humans as incubators (or seizing people from their workplaces) is the kind of cruelty that may be the norm but will never be normal. I’m grateful to journalists and advocates (from Valenti to the reporters at ProPublica to legislators like Rep. Jasmine Crockett) who use their voices, data and rage to startle us day after day. But maybe there’s something more effective than shock. After all, medically speaking, when you’re “in shock,” you’re confused, weakened, not playing with a full cognitive deck—and that is the last place we want to be right now. The people I admire in this fight are using their steely resolve, legal brilliance, vast compassion, medical genius and joy every day. They have long abandoned shock, well aware that the rollback of bodily autonomy in this country is part of a well-documented global autocratic playbook in countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela. They don’t need us to be stunned. They need us to be alert, and committed, and creative—and together. What are you feeling on this anniversary? Write us at hello@wearethemeteor and let us know. ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|