In general, ambiverts are likely to thrive in careers that involve a balance of collaboration and time spent working independently. That’s because it allows them to use both introvert and extrovert traits. An ambivert might excel in these careers:

Sales people have to be persuasive, while also considering a customer’s needs. Ambiverts have a natural ability to switch between talking and listening.

A study in the journal Psychological Science found that ambiverts are likely to sell more than introverts or extroverts.

Project managers take ownership of a project and provide guidance to the team working on it. They need to be able to both give directions and listen to the people on their team.

Producers work behind the scenes in radio, television, online media, and film to make sure the project gets organized and stays on track. The position involves collaborating with a variety of different personality types to move a project from start to finish.

Interior designers need to read their customers and offer advice based on design principles and customer preferences. They spend some time collaborating and some time alone working on presentations.

Teachers have to be flexible in order to reach students of different backgrounds and different personality types. They also need to be comfortable speaking in front of a crowd and meeting one-on-one with students and parents.

If you’re a person who feels equally fulfilled whether you’re out in a crowd or at home alone reading a book, you might be an ambivert.

Ambiverts have lots of great traits. They’re able to be flexible in a variety of situations, often knowing when to talk and when to listen. These skills can prove really valuable in different social interactions.

But no matter where you fall on the personality spectrum, taking the time to analyze the way you act and interact can be helpful in improving your personal and professional relationships."

"Can you explain what pro-choice means and pro-life means? When my family talks about abortion I think they’re saying “pro-choice” and “pro-life” wrong, but I’m not sure.

The pro-choice and pro-life labels are confusing for a reason: They force people into just two boxes for all their religious, moral, political, and practical beliefs on abortion. Still, a lot of people use these labels (like your fam). Below, we’ll nail down what most people intend when they say “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” plus our suggestions for better words to use when describing your views on abortion.

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

Generally, people who identify as pro-choice believe that everyone has the basic human right to decide when and whether to have children. When you say you’re pro-choice you’re telling people that you believe it’s OK for them to have the ability to choose abortion as an option for an unplanned pregnancy — even if you wouldn’t choose abortion for yourself.

People who oppose abortion often call themselves  pro-life. However, the only life many of them are concerned with is the life of the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus. They are much less concerned about the life of women who have unintended pregnancies or the welfare of children after they’re born. In fact, many people who call themselves “pro-life” support capital punishment (AKA the death penalty) and oppose child welfare legislation.

The black-and-white labels of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” pit people against each other, as if they’re on two different teams. But we agree more than we disagree: A majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal, and they support the right to access abortion.

We Say “Pro-Reproductive Rights” and “Anti-Abortion”

To be more clear and inclusive with our word choices, we at Planned Parenthood say “pro-reproductive rights” and “anti-abortion” to describe people’s beliefs about abortion access. The pro-reproductive rights and anti-abortion labels leave room for a variety of beliefs, while focusing on access to abortion specifically. “Accessing” abortion means having the ability to afford it, physically get to an abortion provider, and other factors that allow you to exercise your right to abortion care."

"A federal judge late Wednesday temporarily blocked enforcement of a Texas law that bans most abortions, delivering an early victory to the Biden administration in its legal challenge to the law.

In a 113-page order, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of Austin said the law is an "offensive deprivation of such an important right" and said state actors, including judges and court clerks, can no longer enforce its provisions.

"A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established," Pitman wrote. "Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, (Texas) contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that."

One hour after his ruling was released, the state notified Pitman that it planned to file an appeal with the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which previously declined to intervene and stop the law from going into effect on Sept. 1.

State officials including Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not immediately react to the ruling."

"The law prohibits most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and allows any private individual to sue abortion providers or those who aid and abet procedures that violate the law. Successful litigants can collect $10,000.

Pitman said "people seeking abortions face irreparable harm when they are unable to access abortions" and that temporarily blocking Texas' law from going into effect would allow abortions to proceed "at least for some subset of affected individuals."

Ending a pregnancy is a common decision that millions of people make – every year a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion.

And regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, people still require and regularly access abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a US-based reproductive health non-profit, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 people in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only in instances to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 people in countries that broadly allow for abortion, a difference that is not statistically significant.

When undertaken by a trained health-care provider in sanitary conditions, abortions are one of the safest medical procedures available, safer even than child birth.

But when governments restrict access to abortions, people are compelled to resort to clandestine, unsafe abortions, particularly those who cannot afford to travel or seek private care. Which brings us to the next point.

Preventing women and girls from accessing an abortion does not mean they stop needing one. That’s why attempts to ban or restrict abortions do nothing to reduce the number of abortions, it only forces people to seek out unsafe abortions.

Unsafe abortions are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not confirm to minimal medical standards, or both.”

They estimate that 25 million unsafe abortions take place each year, the vast majority of them in developing countries.

In contrast to a legal abortion that is carried out by a trained medical provider, unsafe abortions can have fatal consequences. So much so that unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide and lead to an additional five million largely preventable disabilities, according to the WHO."

"Fetal abnormality laws ban abortions in cases of fetal abnormality even if the fetus will die before or shortly after birth. Enacted in 2013, North Dakota is the only state to ban abortions in cases of fetal abnormality. [186]

“Fetal heartbeat” laws or six-week bans outlaw abortions as early as six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, when an electrical impulse, often called a “fetal heartbeat” (however, the valves of the fetus’ heart have not yet been formed at six weeks, making a heartbeat impossible), can first be detected. In Mar. 2013, North Dakota enacted a “fetal heartbeat” law. [110] A federal appeals court struck down the law in 2015, noting that the law “violates Supreme Court precedent establishing that abortion is legal until a fetus is viable outside of the womb, usually about 24 weeks into pregnancy.” [183] In 2018, the governors of Mississippi and Iowa signed into law similarly restrictive abortion laws banning abortion at 15-weeks and 6-weeks respectively; both laws were put on hold by federal judges pending appeals. [181][182] On Sep. 1, 2021, the most restrictive “fetal heartbeat” law to date went into effect in Texas after the US Supreme Court refused in a 5-4 vote to block the law. The law bars abortions after six weeks, has no exceptions for rape or incest, and has only a narrow exception for the health of the mother. Further, the law bars state officials from enforcing the law, instead deputizing private citizens who may bring a $10,000 lawsuit (plus legal fees) against anyone they suspect of performing or “aiding and abetting” an abortion, making the law more difficult to challenge in court. [224]"

"Groups representing the clinics said they hope the Biden administration action will lead some 1,300 local facilities that left in protest over Trump’s policies to return, helping to stabilize a longstanding program shaken by the coronavirus pandemic on top of ideological battles.

“I have heard that almost everywhere in the country people have made the decision that conditions will be good for them to return to the program,” Clare Coleman, president of the umbrella group National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, said in an interview. “My sense is that people have been waiting for the rule.”

Planned Parenthood, the biggest service provider, said on Twitter its health centers look forward to returning. But the group criticized part of the Biden administration rule that allows individual clinicians who object to abortion not to provide referrals. The administration said that’s “in accordance with applicable federal law.”

Known as Title X, the taxpayer-funded program makes available more than $250 million a year to clinics to provide birth control and basic health care services mainly to low-income women, many of them from minority communities. Under former President Donald Trump, clinics were barred from referring patients for abortions, prompting a mass exit by service providers affiliated with Planned Parenthood, as well as several states and other independent organizations.

Women’s groups labeled the Trump policy a “gag rule,” and medical organizations called it a violation of the clinician-patient relationship. But religious and social conservatives praised the policy for imposing a strict separation between family planning services and abortion. Under federal law, clinics could not use federal money to pay for abortions."

"Subsequently, WAS made some revisions to the Valencia Declaration and proposed a WAS Declaration of Sexual Rights which was approved by the General Assembly at the 14th World Congress of Sexology (Hong Kong, 1999). The WAS adopted the Declaration of Sexual Rights, which originally included 11 sexual rights. It was heavily revised and expanded in March 2014 by the WAS Advisory Council to include 16 sexual rights:[18]

The World Health Organization[13] defines sexual health as: "Sexual health is a state of physical, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality. It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence."

"This Declaration influenced The Yogyakarta Principles (which were launched as a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity on 26 March 2007), especially on the idea of each person's integrity, and right to sexual and reproductive health.[19]

In 2015 the U.S. government said it would begin using the term "sexual rights" in discussions of human rights and global development."

"For the next 45 years — not including the two years I was away in the Air Force — I was a practicing OB/GYN in Texas, conducting Pap smears, pelvic exams and pregnancy check-ups; delivering more than 10,000 babies; and providing abortion care at clinics I opened in Houston and San Antonio, and another in Oklahoma.

Then, this month, everything changed. A new Texas law, known as S.B. 8, virtually banned any abortion beyond about the sixth week of pregnancy. It shut down about 80 percent of the abortion services we provide. Anyone who suspects I have violated the new law can sue me for at least $10,000. They could also sue anybody who helps a person obtain an abortion past the new limit, including, apparently, the driver who brings a patient to my clinic.

For me, it is 1972 all over again.

And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care."

"Though we never ask why someone has come to our clinic, they often tell us. They’re finishing school or they already have three children, they’re in an abusive relationship, or it’s just not time. A majority are mothers. Most are between 18 and 30. Many are struggling financially — more than half qualify for some form of financial aid from us.

Several times a month, a woman confides that she is having the abortion because she has been raped. Sometimes, she reports it to the police; more often, she doesn’t.

Texas’s new law makes no exceptions for rape or incest.

Even before S.B. 8, Texas had some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. That includes a 24-hour waiting period, meaning a woman has to make at least two visits to our clinic. Ultrasound imaging is mandatory. Parental consent is required for minors, unless they obtain court approval."

"And yet, despite the restrictions, we were always able to continue providing compassionate care up to the legal limit of 22 weeks. It meant hiring more staff, everything took longer, but we managed.

Until Sept. 1.

Since then, most of our patients have been too far along in their pregnancies to qualify for abortion care. I tell them that we can offer services only if we cannot see the presence of cardiac activity on an ultrasound, which usually occurs at about six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant. The tension is unbearable as they lie there, waiting to hear their fate.

If we detect cardiac activity, we have to refer them out of state. One of the women I talked with since the law took effect is 42. She has four kids, three under 12. I advised her that she could go to Oklahoma. That’s a nine-hour drive one way. I explained we could help with the funding. She told me she couldn’t go even if we flew her in a private jet. “Who’s going to take care of my kids?” she asked me. “What about my job? I can’t miss work.”

Side notes: I am open to not living with my excellent partner if I was in a  successful relationship. Consult quality attorneys, not the loan shark type of attorneys. 

Some couples like the flexibility of cohabiting as it gives them a chance to get to know their partner and then decide if they want to move toward marriage.  And despite the many financial advantages of marriage, such as lower taxes and potentially larger retirement and Social Security benefits, people are cohabitating more than ever before.  According to the Pew Research Center, the number of cohabiting couples climbed 29% from 2007 to 2016.  There are several reasons for this.  People over 50, who are the fastest growing age group opting to live together rather than marrying, want the benefits of an intimate partnership without the legal constraints that marriage involves.  In contrast, millennials prefer living together to focus on their careers before settling down and many want to establish a strong foundation for marriage."

A cohabitation agreement is a contract between two people who are in relationship and live together but are not married.  Good cohabitation agreements are (ideally) crafted early on, and deal with issues involving property, debts, inheritances, other estate planning considerations and health care decisions.   As your lives become more intertwined, it can be more complicated (and expensive) to resolve these issues if there is a breakup or if you or your partner passes away after living together for many years.

There are several things that a cohabitation agreement should include, and those details will depend on your circumstances, age and levels of wealth.  People who are older generally have more assets and more complex financial lives and are more likely to benefit more from the protection provided by a cohabitation agreement.  The agreement needs to make detailed provisions for the property you and your partner have now, the property you might acquire in the future, and dispositions of it in the event of one of your deaths or a breakup.  It should discuss who is responsible for retirement savings and how they would be divided, health care directives and issues involving your children or children from previous relationships. It should also discuss the earning capacity of each party and the expectations surrounding financial support for one another.

Some grapple with whether they should invest time and money into a cohabitation agreement. Keep in mind that cohabitation agreements can be inexpensive compared to the potential legal fees if there is a breakup or a death with no agreement in place."

"Recently I was posed with a question- why would you choose a live-in relationship instead of a love marriage? Love marriages have been around for a long time and have come to be accepted as a normal thing. However, live-in relationships are still seen as a scandal. After a lot of thought, I realized the answer- a live-in relationship is that place between a mere relationship and a life-long commitment, and it helps you understand if you and your partner actually want to spend your lives together. So, we put together this list of the many advantages of a live-in relationship and why it might actually be essential to live together once before getting married."

"Live-in relationships were earlier (and still) considered a taboo by many. However, when you think practically, it is essential to live together at least once before you get married. It helps you figure out what it takes to make a marriage work. Marriage isn’t a walk in the park, it takes every bit of effort you have to make it work. And a live-in relationship gives you an edge while tackling a marriage. It is due to that fact that live-in relationships are gradually coming to be accepted by many across the world."