Reason Woman Gave Stepdaughter, 11, Painkillers Without Telling Dad Backed
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Children are often taught not to keep secrets from their parents, but the roles were reversed when a young girl confided in her stepmom instead.
In a viral Reddit post gathering more than 9,300 upvotes and shared by u/nightowlbibliophile, the stepmother wrote: "She made me promise not to tell her dad, which I agreed to."
The 11-year-old's secret was that she had started her period while her mom was on vacation and she was staying at her dad and stepmom's house. According to the CDC and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the average age at menarche (the first menstrual period) in the United States is 12 years old.
The 29-year-old woman said: "[She] was in a lot of pain, and was using toilet paper as a makeshift pad. Even with my assurances that starting your period is nothing to be embarrassed about, she still didn't want me to tell her dad."
Stock image: A teenager experiencing menstrual pain and abdominal cramps drinks herbal tea on the sofa.
Stock image: A teenager experiencing menstrual pain and abdominal cramps drinks herbal tea on the sofa.
Antonio_Diaz/iStock / Getty Images Plus
"I ran to the store to get her some different pad options, a heating pad, and some chocolate. As promised, I didn't tell her dad. I just said I was running to the store to grab some snacks for myself and his daughter," the poster wrote.
"His daughter continued to have bad cramps even with the heating pad, so I gave her two Midol tablets. About 90 minutes later she was feeling a lot better. I gave her two additional Midol tablets when she woke up the next morning with cramps."
According to the Midol website, the medication is recommended for adults and children aged 12 years or older.
When the girl's mom returned from vacation, she was immediately informed about the situation, although her reaction to the medication was not mentioned.
However, the Reddit user's partner was less understanding when he was made aware of the situation by his ex.
"He's furious with me for not telling him about what he called a 'medical condition' and for giving his daughter [over-the-counter] medications without his approval," the poster said.
"I told him I wanted his daughter to be able to trust me so she will be comfortable coming to me in the future with things that she might be embarrassed to tell her dad about.
"I also told him that if there was something going on that required medical attention, I absolutely would have told him, but this was just her starting her period. He's still p*****, mainly about me giving her the Midol."
Newsweek reached out to u/nightowlbibliophile for comment. We could not verify the details of the case.
Expert Opinion
Newsweek discussed the April 22 post with Seth Eisenberg, a licensed PAIRS Trainer and president/CEO at PAIRS Foundation. It is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting healthy relationships through education, research, and training.
Eisenberg said: "When a child trusts a stepparent enough to share something deeply personal, like starting their first period, that trust is precious—and fragile.
"Honoring their privacy in nonemergency situations can be a powerful gift," Eisenberg added. "Offering simple comfort, like a heating pad or Midol, isn't just about easing pain; it's about saying, 'You're safe. You're cared for.' In blended families, love often begins with small moments of kindness and respect."
Reddit Reacts
As of now, the post has garnered more than 3,700 comments.
One comment, with 5,600 likes, said: "His ridiculous reaction, as well as calling a period a 'medical condition' is probably why his daughter doesn't want to tell him things. She can already sense he's not emotionally safe, and she'll only close off from him more if he keeps this behavior up."
Another user added: "As the Dad who handled my daughter beginning her period without help from her mother (my ex at the time) or my gf [girlfriend] who did not live with us, I would be thankful that my daughter felt comfortable with you and you quietly helped her. Your bf [boyfriend] is being a j*** at best."
A third commenter said: "I understand a tiny bit about the Midol, however, you did what was best for his daughter in the moment. She wasn't ready to talk about this with a man and you were there and being kind. It's a good thing."
If you have a family dilemma, let us know via life@newsweek.com. We can ask experts for advice, and your story could be featured on Newsweek.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Natural Bodybuilders Agree: This Underrated Core Exercise Is the Secret to Finally Getting a Six-Pack
Natural Bodybuilders Agree: This Underrated Core Exercise Is the Secret to Finally Getting a Six-Pack originally appeared on Men's Fitness. Direct ab training sometimes gets a bad reputation. Some lifters argue that compound lifts already hit the core hard enough, while others swear by targeted exercises to make their six-pack finally pop. But in a recent Reddit thread, natural bodybuilders shared the one exercise for direct ab training that they think is superior: weighted decline situps. "Best ab exercises for long term progressive overload?" the original user asked in the post. "Been wanting to take my ab training more seriously but have been running into an issue regarding exercise selection. My issue comes down to the fact that a lot of ab exercises are difficult to add load and progressively overload over time." The overwhelming response everyone in the thread seemed to agree on was weighted decline situps, calling them an S-tier user shared a helpful progression. For beginners just starting with the exercise, do the exercise without a weight. For novice level, hold the weight to your chest. If you're at a more intermediate level, hold the weight with straight, vertical arms. More advanced variations can keep the weight held overhead or held in straight arms behind the body. Retired bodybuilder Jay Cutler has also sworn by decline situps for making your abs pop. "With the incline, you're allowing that stretch of the core and really get the contraction on your abs—the whole ab wall," Cutler said in a past video. Opt for higher repetitions. To do decline situps, lie on a decline bench with your feet secured, then engage your core to sit up until your torso is upright, and slowly lower back Bodybuilders Agree: This Underrated Core Exercise Is the Secret to Finally Getting a Six-Pack first appeared on Men's Fitness on Jun 13, 2025 This story was originally reported by Men's Fitness on Jun 13, 2025, where it first appeared.
Newsweek
15 hours ago
- Newsweek
Cancer Rates Rising in Americans Under 50—Three Age Groups Most at Risk
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has found that the incidence of 14 different cancer types increased among people under the age of 50. Newsweek spoke with leading oncologists about new findings published in Cancer Discovery, which revealed that between 2010 and 2019, more than two million cancer cases were diagnosed in people aged 15 to 49 in the United States. Several cancers are becoming more common in young adults, including testicular cancer, melanoma, and cervical cancer. Blood-related cancers like B-cell lymphomas and plasma cell neoplasms are also on the rise, along with rare types such as bone and joint cancers, stomach cancer and skin lymphomas. An artist's impression of a group of people of different generations and, inset, a tumor. An artist's impression of a group of people of different generations and, inset, a tumor. CIPhotos / matsu5/iStock / Getty Images Plus Dr. Steven Grossman, a clinician and researcher with expertise in gastrointestinal cancers, told Newsweek: "What is most concerning about the rise of cancers typical of older adults in younger populations is that the symptoms might be ignored until the cancer presents at a later stage, where it is more difficult to treat and cure. "This is especially worrisome for colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer, which are particularly difficult to treat if they are discovered at a more advanced stage." Cancers Typically Linked to Older Adults The study, released on May 8, found the most significant upticks were observed in cancers such as female breast, colorectal, kidney, uterine, and pancreatic—many of which are commonly associated with older adults but are now appearing more frequently in patients in their 20s, 30s and 40s. While the overall cancer death rate in younger adults has not risen in tandem, troubling increases in colorectal and uterine cancer deaths have been reported. Some cancers like melanoma, cervical, stomach, myeloma, and bone and joint cancers showed increases only in younger populations. "We don't know yet the root cause of the increasing incidence of cancer in younger adults but science points to what we would call environmental factors," said Grossman, the executive medical director of the Hoag Family Cancer Institute in Southern California. A stock image of a female patient with headscarf listening to her doctor commenting x-ray of brain while sitting on bed next to her in hospital ward. A stock image of a female patient with headscarf listening to her doctor commenting x-ray of brain while sitting on bed next to her in hospital ward. shironosov/iStock / Getty Images Plus Gender Disparities in Early-Onset Cancers The study found that 63.4 percent of early-onset cancers occurred in women. Among women, the most common types were breast, thyroid, and melanoma, while among men, the leading early-onset cancers were colorectal, testicular, and melanoma. Pashtoon Kasi, a gastrointestinal cancer specialist, told Newsweek that medics previously believed the two major factors for cancer risk were aging and a genetic predisposition. However, they are now increasingly focused on the role of lifestyle and environmental factors. The American Cancer Society (ACS) states that around 5 to 10 percent of cancers are caused by inherited genetic mutations—not the cancer itself, but an abnormal gene passed down from a parent that increases cancer risk. This includes lifestyle factors such as a lack of exercise, obesity, alcohol use, and other elements of the diet. Grossman added: "The scientific community also generally believes that exposure to environmental carcinogens, which could include air or water pollution, likely contributes at some level to this phenomenon. That research, however, is still ongoing." Lifestyle Factors and Cancer Risk The ACS states that at least 18 percent of all cancers and around 16 percent of cancer-related deaths are linked to excess body weight, lack of physical activity, alcohol use and poor diet. Many of these cases may be preventable by following a well-balanced diet consisting of plenty of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, while limiting or eliminating red and processed meats, which are classified as carcinogens. The study found that obesity is linked to seven types of cancer that are rising among younger adults: colorectal, kidney, uterine, pancreatic, stomach (cardia), cervical cancers and myeloma (a type of blood cancer). In 2019, it was estimated that obesity contributed to as few as 5.3 percent of colorectal cancer cases and as many as 53.1 percent of uterine cancer cases. A stock image of a nutritionist measuring overweight man's waist with tape in clinic. A stock image of a nutritionist measuring overweight man's waist with tape in clinic. unomat/iStock / Getty Images Plus "The obesity piece does not explain the full story since a lot of our young onset patients are very active and healthy otherwise," said Kasi, the Medical Director of GI Medical Oncology at City of Hope Orange County. Being physically fit and getting 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75–150 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity each week may decrease the chances of cancer and other health problems, along with maintaining a healthy weight. Kasi added: "We're still learning about the impact of all these factors – genetics, environment, aging, and lifestyle. One thing that is certain is that our knowledge of cancer development is evolving in the 21st century. "Particularly, how these environmental factors and diet affect the 'microbiome' of our body and how those interplays in the development of these cancers is of interest. Expanding cancer research efforts focused on younger individuals is a critical factor." Mortality Rates and Screening Concerns Cancer death rates have not significantly increased and have generally declined. From 2010 to 2020, deaths among 15–29-year-olds fell by nearly 2 percent per year, then remained stable. Rates also dropped for 30–39 and 40–49 age groups, with declines continuing until around 2018–2022, when they leveled off. This suggests better detection and treatment are saving more lives. Dr. Amy Laughlin, a medical oncologist at the Orlando Health Cancer Institute who specializes in breast cancer and cancer genetics, explained why screening age hasn't been reduced. She said: "If a group has a small chance of cancer, then when a screening test is positive, the greatest likelihood is that it is a false positive—causing anxiety, biopsies, more tests and cost for no reason. "For example, in an older, higher-risk population you may need to do 100 breast biopsies to find one breast cancer, but in a younger, lower-risk population you may have to do 400 breast biopsies to find one cancer. Imagine the cost and anxiety we put those 399 women through." Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about cancer? Let us know via health@ Reference Shiels, M. S., Haque, A. T., Berrington de González, A., Camargo, M. C., Clarke, M. A., Davis Lynn, B. C., Engels, E. A., Freedman, N. D., Gierach, G. L., Hofmann, J. N., Jones, R. R., Loftfield, E., Sinha, R., Morton, L. M., & Chanock, S. J. (2025). Trends in Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates in Early-Onset and Older-Onset Age Groups in the United States, 2010–2019. Cancer Discovery.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill Cassidy Blew It
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. It's easy to forget that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s assault on vaccines—including, most recently, his gutting of the expert committee that guides American vaccine policy—might have been avoided. Four months ago, his nomination for health secretary was in serious jeopardy. The deciding vote seemed to be in the hands of one Republican senator: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. A physician who gained prominence by vaccinating low-income kids in his home state, Cassidy was wary of the longtime vaccine conspiracist. 'I have been struggling with your nomination,' he told Kennedy during his confirmation hearings in January. Then Cassidy caved. In the speech he gave on the Senate floor explaining his decision, Cassidy said that he'd vote to confirm Kennedy only because he had extracted a number of concessions from the nominee—chief among them that he would preserve, 'without changes,' the very CDC committee Kennedy overhauled this week. Since then, Cassidy has continued to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt. On Monday, after Kennedy dismissed all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Cassidy posted on X that he was working with Kennedy to prevent the open roles from being filled with 'people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.' [Read: The doctor who let RFK Jr. through] The senator has failed, undeniably and spectacularly. One new appointee, Robert Malone, has repeatedly spread misinformation (or what he prefers to call 'scientific dissent') about vaccines. Another appointee, Vicky Pebsworth, is on the board of an anti-vax nonprofit, the National Vaccine Information Center. Cassidy may keep insisting that he is doing all he can to stand up for vaccines. But he already had his big chance to do so, and he blew it. Now, with the rest of America, he's watching the nation's vaccine future take a nosedive. So far, the senator hasn't appeared interested in any kind of mea culpa for his faith in Kennedy's promises. On Thursday, I caught Cassidy as he hurried out of a congressional hearing room. He was still reviewing the appointees, he told me and several other reporters who gathered around him. When I chased after him down the hallway to ask more questions, he told me, 'I'll be putting out statements, and I'll let those statements stand for themselves.' A member of his staff dismissed me with a curt 'Thank you, sir.' Cassidy's staff has declined repeated requests for an interview with the senator since the confirmation vote in January. With the exception of Mitch McConnell, every GOP senator voted to confirm Kennedy. They all have to own the health secretary's actions. But Cassidy seemed to be the Republican most concerned about Kennedy's nomination, and there was a good reason to think that the doctor would vote his conscience. In 2021, Cassidy was one of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump on an impeachment charge after the insurrection at the Capitol. But this time, the senator—who is up for reelection next year, facing a more MAGA-friendly challenger—ultimately fell in line. Cassidy tried to have it both ways: elevating Kennedy to his job while also vowing to constrain him. In casting his confirmation vote, Cassidy implied that the two would be in close communication, and that Kennedy had asked for his input on hiring decisions. The two reportedly had breakfast in March to discuss the health secretary's plan to dramatically reshape the department. 'Senator Cassidy speaks regularly with secretary Kennedy and believes those conversations are much more productive when they're held in private, not through press headlines,' a spokesperson for Cassidy wrote in an email. (A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) At times, it has appeared as though Cassidy's approach has had some effect on the health secretary. Amid the measles outbreak in Texas earlier this year, Kennedy baselessly questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine. In April, after two unvaccinated children died, Cassidy posted on X: 'Everyone should be vaccinated! There is no treatment for measles. No benefit to getting measles. Top health officials should say so unequivocally b/4 another child dies.' Cassidy didn't call out Kennedy by name, but the health secretary appeared to get the message. Later that day, Kennedy posted that the measles vaccine was the most effective way to stave off illness. ('Completely agree,' Cassidy responded.) All things considered, that's a small victory. Despite Kennedy's claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer, he has enacted a plainly anti-vaccine agenda. Since being confirmed, he has pushed out the FDA's top vaccine regulator, hired a fellow vaccine skeptic to investigate the purported link between autism and shots, and questioned the safety of childhood vaccinations currently recommended by the CDC. As my colleague Katherine J. Wu wrote this week, 'Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization.' [Read: RFK Jr. is barely even pretending anymore] The reality is that back channels can be only so effective. Cassidy's main power is to call Kennedy before the Senate health committee, which he chairs, and demand an explanation for Kennedy's new appointees to the CDC's vaccine-advisory committee. Cassidy might very well do that. In February, he said that Kennedy would 'come before the committee on a quarterly basis, if requested.' Kennedy did appear before Cassidy's committee last month to answer questions about his efforts to institute mass layoffs at his agency. Some Republicans (and many Democrats) pressed the secretary on those efforts, while others praised them. Cassidy, for his part, expressed concerns about Kennedy's indiscriminate cutting of research programs, but still, he was largely deferential. 'I agree with Secretary Kennedy that HHS needs reform,' Cassidy said. Even if he had disagreed, an angry exchange between a health secretary and a Senate committee doesn't guarantee any policy changes. Lawmakers may try to act like government bureaucrats report to them, but they have limited power once a nominee is already in their job. Technically, lawmakers can impeach Cabinet members, but in American history, a sitting Cabinet member has never been impeached and subsequently removed from office. The long and arduous confirmation process is supposed to be the bulwark against potentially dangerous nominees being put in positions of power. Cassidy and most of his Republican colleagues have already decided not to stop Kennedy from overseeing the largest department in the federal government by budget. Now Kennedy is free to do whatever he wants—senators be damned. Article originally published at The Atlantic
