Tag: nanny state

New Restrictions On SNAP Purchases To Take Effect In More States In April

Food stamp recipients in Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will face restrictions on buying certain kinds of less nutritious items such as soda and candy, some starting in April.

West Virginia’s restrictions became effective on Jan. 1, but retailers have until April 1 to be fully compliant.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved Colorado’s restrictions waiver, but the state has delayed implementation of restrictions on certain items for food stamp recipients until after April 30 and stated that it would have a final vote on April 3 on the program.

The Trump administration is clamping down on soda and candy being charged to food stamps, as 22 states now have been approved to restrict certain purchases under the program. The restrictions still require state approval before taking effect.

Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming were the latest states to receive USDA approval for food and beverage restrictions.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, had 40.7 million people participating nationwide at a monthly cost of $7.97 billion as of November 2025.

“The Trump Administration is leading bold reform to strengthen integrity and restore nutritional value within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the USDA stated on its website. “USDA is empowering states with greater flexibility to manage their programs by approving SNAP Food Restriction Waivers that restrict the purchase of non-nutritious items like soda and candy. These waivers are a key step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes within SNAP.”

For example, starting on April 1, Texas residents will not be able to buy candy or sweetened drinks on their SNAP-provided Lone Star Cards. Those restrictions will ban such purchases as candy bars, gum, and taffy, as well as nuts, raisins, or fruits that have been “candied, crystallized, glazed or coated with chocolate, yogurt or caramel.”

Texas also will ban sweetened non-alcoholic beverages made with water that contain 5 or more grams of sugar or artificial sweetener, according to Texas Health and Human Services.

Keep reading

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

Many traditions throughout history have come to view the prenatal period and childbirth as one of the most important moments in a human’s life as it sets the stage for all that follows. Unfortunately, much in the same way we desecrate the death process by over-medicalizing it (to the point research has found doctors are less likely to seek end of life care at a medical facility), the same issue also exists with childbirth. Many physicians I know who are familiar with the hospital birthing process chose to skip it and give birth at home (along with many more doctors featured in a 2016 documentary).

Conversely, a minority of childbirths do need advanced medical care, and for those mothers, access to a hospital greatly benefits them, particularly if actions are taken to mitigate the most dangerous aspects of hospital birth. As such, childbirth occupies a similar place as many other medical controversies; neither side of the issue is entirely correct. However, the discussion remains perpetually polarized because advocates on either side will not acknowledge the valid points raised by the other side for fear of weakening their own position. Since I feel strongly about the dangers of hospital birth, it is my hope in this article that I will be able to portray both sides of the issue fairly.

Keep reading

Politicians Want To Ban Gambling Ads To Stop Youth Addiction. What Do the Data Say About Teens and Betting?

Are young boys everywhere on the verge of being pulled down into the abyss of online gambling? 

If you’ve been reading the news lately, you might be tempted to think so. Young men are all addicted to sports betting, and now the industry’s incessant advertising is luring in kids, so say some media outlets. If something isn’t done to limit ads for gambling apps, some argue, kids will continue to be taken advantage of. 

These dire predictions have reached Colorado lawmakers, who are now considering Senate Bill 26-131, which would place major restrictions on sports betting in the state. In addition to barring adults from making more than five separate deposits with an individual betting operator within a 24-hour period, the bill would also make it illegal to broadcast an ad “for a sports betting operation from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. or during a live broadcast of an athletic competition.” . 

The bill’s supporters defend this prohibition by saying it’s necessary to protect kids. In reality, gambling ads pose very little threat to children. Even for those who find ways around age restrictions, the data show that they make bets only occasionally (similar to most adults). While gambling can and does ruin lives for the small fraction of adults who become addicted to it, it’s a relatively harmless form of entertainment for the vast majority of users. And for those who do have a genuine gambling problem, advertisements for legitimate betting apps can help direct them toward well-regulated companies and steer them away from dangerous, illegal gambling operations. 

The moral panic over online sports betting has made some people wildly overestimate the power of TV commercials. State Sen. Matt Ball (D–Denver), one of the bill’s sponsors, compared sports betting ads to those for cigarettes. “The whole point is we try to restrict that advertising from getting to kids,” he told Denver 7, a local ABC News affiliate. “At the end of the day, gambling is an addiction. It’s like alcoholism. It’s like substance abuse.” The theory seems to be that, if kids see ads for gambling apps, they’ll start gambling themselves and immediately develop an addiction that will destroy their lives. 

A recent survey by Common Sense Media on gambling amongst minors is helping to fuel those concerns. The survey found that 36 percent of boys aged 11 to 17 said they gambled online within the past year.    

Keep reading

The Feds Are Investing in Wearable Health Trackers. That Could Put Your Private Data at Risk.

By gathering continuous data about sleep, heart rate, and physical activity, biowearable devices can give individuals more control over their well-being. But they also create a detailed digital record of our daily lives—one that the federal government may soon be able to access readily.

Consider this scenario.

You’ve recently received a government-subsidized biowearable. Accordingly, the authorities now know when you’re sleeping, because the device reports your sleep cycle, location, and daily movements in real time to a cloud server accessible through a legal process. It knows when you’re home. It knows when you leave.

Those data are then obtained by an FBI field office (either through direct purchase or, if necessary, a legal process), because a federal prosecutor has decided that your criticism of immigration enforcement operations and your social media posts supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters constitute “incitement to violence” against federal agents. Under the Trump administration’s elastic (and legally dubious) domestic terrorism definitions and designations, that is enough to open a criminal investigation.

And because the government has known for weeks when you’re at home sleeping, it knows exactly when to break down your door.

That scenario may sound far-fetched, but it is getting closer to reality. In March, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) would begin investing in new biowearable technologies through a program it called Delphi, after the ancient Greek sanctuary where the maxim “know thyself” was inscribed. It’s a fitting name for a program designed to help people understand their bodies, but it also raises an uncomfortable question: Who else might come to know them just as well?

The program aims to develop biosensors capable of continuously monitoring cytokines (cellular inflammation markers) and hormone levels, going substantially beyond what current wearables can detect. Funding will be determined on a competitive basis as private-sector stakeholders submit proposals; no specific appropriation has been announced.

It remains unclear why this taxpayer funding is necessary in a field that is already thriving. The global wearables market was valued at roughly $43 billion in 2024 and is projected to exceed $168 billion by 2030.

Devices worn on the wrist, finger, or skin can already monitor heart rates, blood oxygen levels, sleep patterns, physical activity, and—in the case of continuous glucose monitors—blood sugar levels in real time. Some smartwatches can even conduct electrocardiograms capable of detecting irregular heart rhythms, such as atrial fibrillation.

Until recently, people could access most of this information only during periodic visits to a clinic or hospital. Biowearables now enable people to monitor many of these signals continuously in everyday life.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Virginia’s One-Hour Social Media Limit for Minors as Unconstitutional

A federal judge has blocked Virginia’s attempt to limit minors to one hour of social media per day, ruling the law violates the First Amendment. The decision is a significant check on a growing wave of state legislation that treats time spent reading, watching, and communicating online as something the government can ration.

Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles issued the preliminary injunction Friday, finding that Virginia “does not have the legal authority to block minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech until their parents give their consent by overriding a government-imposed default limit.”

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The ruling halts enforcement of Senate Bill 854, which carried fines of $7,500 per violation and required platforms to use “commercially reasonable methods” to verify user ages.

The law’s problem wasn’t just the one-hour cap. It was how the cap worked. The state set the default, and parents could ask to change it. That structure puts the government, not families, in control of baseline access to speech. Parental consent here overrides a government restriction that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

Giles found the law over-inclusive in a way that illustrates exactly how blunt these restrictions are. “A minor would be barred from watching an online church service if it exceeded an hour on YouTube,” she wrote, “yet, that same minor is allowed to watch provider-selected religious programming exceeding an hour in length on a streaming platform.”

The law doesn’t regulate harm. It regulates platforms, which means it catches protected speech indiscriminately.

NetChoice, the trade association whose members include Meta, YouTube, Snap, Reddit, and TikTok, sued to stop the law. In November, NetChoice argued that “Virginia has with one broad stroke restricted access to valuable sources for speaking and listening, learning about current events and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” The judge agreed they had standing to pursue a permanent block and found they were likely to succeed on the merits.

Virginia’s attorney general is defending the law alongside 29 other states from both parties. A spokesperson said: “We look forward to continuing to enforce laws that empower parents to protect their children from the proven harms that can come through social media.” The new Democratic attorney-general Jay Jones, who took office in January, had announced he intended to fully enforce the law signed by his Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin.

Keep reading

Carney Liberals push Bill C-16 that could criminalize normal family conversations

Mark Carney’s Liberal government wants to control everything. With Bill C-9, they seek to remove the religious exemption for prosecutable hate speech; MP Marc Miller specifically cited Bible passages as examples. With Bill C-16, they could open the door to criminalizing conversations between family members after the fact.

The new Bill C-16 (not the 2017 bill of the same name, which prohibited “hate speech” on the grounds of “gender identity and expression” and made Dr. Jordan Peterson famous) has been titled the “Protecting Victims Act,” and was introduced by the Liberals in the 45th Parliament. It has not attracted much attention, but as MP Leslyn Lewis recently highlighted, it may have far-reaching effects.

Bill C-16 creates a new offense under Criminal Code Section 264.1 for patterns of “coercive or controlling conduct” in relationships but goes far beyond abuse and lists non-violent behaviors that are subject to after-the-fact interpretation.

“Do you think the government should criminalize everyday interactions in your home with your family? If not, you should read Bill C-16,” Lewis wrote on X. “The bill creates new offences (Criminal Code Section 264.01), which are deeply concerning for normal, loving family interactions, based on a ‘pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,’ even when no violence, threats, or illegal acts occur.”

“It criminalizes a pattern of otherwise lawful and often common behaviour that may later be perceived as threatening by an intimate partner,” Lewis continued. “That means ordinary family interactions could be re-interpreted as criminal after the fact.” She cited a series of examples that should make Canadians sit up straight:

  • Asking a spouse where they are after they said they’d be home,
  • Expressing concern about excessive drinking,
  • Disagreeing about finances or spending,
  • Asking a partner not to give children junk food,
  • Raising concerns about time away from family,
  • Setting household boundaries or expectations,

Obviously, many of these cited examples, which could be interpreted as “criminal” under the Liberals’ new crime bill, are common discussions and arguments in the family context.

Keep reading

Congress Revives Kids Off Social Media Act, a “Child Safety” Bill Poised to Expand Online Digital ID Checks

Congress is once again positioning itself as the protector of children online, reviving the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) in a new round of hearings on technology and youth.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Introduced by Senators Ted Cruz and Brian Schatz, the bill surfaced again during a Senate Commerce Committee session examining the effects of screen time and social media on mental health.

Cruz warned that a “phone-based childhood” has left many kids “lost in the virtual world,” pointing to studies linking heavy screen use to anxiety, depression, and social isolation.

KOSMA’s key provisions would ban social media accounts for anyone under 13 and restrict recommendation algorithms for teens aged 13 to 17.

Pushers of the plan say it would “empower parents” and “hold Big Tech accountable,” but in reality, it shifts control away from families and toward corporate compliance systems.

The bill’s structure leaves companies legally responsible for determining users’ ages, even though it does not directly require age verification.

The legal wording is crucial. KOSMA compels platforms to delete accounts if they have “actual knowledge” or what can be “fairly implied” as knowledge that a user is under 13.

That open-ended standard puts enormous pressure on companies to avoid errors.

The most predictable outcome is a move toward mandatory age verification systems, where users must confirm their age or identity to access social platforms. In effect, KOSMA would link access to everyday online life to a form of digital ID.

That system would not only affect children. It would reach everyone. To prove compliance, companies could require users to submit documents such as driver’s licenses, facial scans, or other biometric data.

The infrastructure needed to verify ages at scale looks almost identical to the infrastructure needed for national digital identity systems. Once built, those systems rarely stay limited to a single use. A measure framed as protecting kids could easily become the foundation for a broader identity-based internet.

Keep reading

Virginia to Enforce Verification Law for Social Media on January 1, 2026, Despite Free Speech Concerns

Virginia is preparing to enforce a new online regulation that will curtail how minors access social media, setting up a direct clash between state lawmakers and advocates for digital free expression.

Beginning January 1, 2026, a law known as Senate Bill 854 will compel social media companies to confirm the ages of all users through “commercially reasonable methods” and to restrict anyone under sixteen to one hour of use per platform per day.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Parents will have the option to override those limits through what the statute calls “verifiable parental consent.”

The measure is written into the state’s Consumer Data Protection Act, and it bars companies from using any information gathered for age checks for any other purpose.

Lawmakers from both parties rallied behind the bill, portraying it as a way to reduce what they described as addictive and harmful online habits among young people.

Delegate Wendell Walker argued that social media “is almost like a drug addiction,” while Delegate Sam Rasoul said that “people are concerned about the addiction of screen time” and accused companies of building algorithms that “keep us more and more addicted.”

Enforcement authority falls to the Office of the Attorney General, which may seek injunctions or impose civil fines reaching $7,500 per violation for noncompliance.

But this policy, framed as a health measure, has triggered strong constitutional objections from the technology industry and free speech advocates.

The trade association NetChoice filed a federal lawsuit (NetChoice v. Miyares) in November 2025, arguing that Virginia’s statute unlawfully restricts access to lawful speech online.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The complaint draws parallels to earlier moral panics over books, comic strips, rock music, and video games, warning that SB 854 “does not enforce parental authority; it imposes governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto.”

Keep reading

New York To Demand Warning Labels On Social Media Platforms

New York is requiring warning labels on social media platforms about addictive features in a bid to address a youth mental health crisis.

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the bill into law on Dec. 26, targeting infinite scrolling, auto-play videos, and algorithmic feeds that encourage prolonged use.

The law, S4505/A5346, sponsored by Democrats state Sen. Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Nily Rozic, requires social media platforms to display non-dismissible warnings when young users first encounter these features and at regular intervals during use.

As The Epoch Times’ Kimberley Hayek details below, the required warnings are based on consumer protections seen on products such as tobacco and alcohol, noting risks like increased anxiety, depression, and poor body image.

“Keeping New Yorkers safe has been my top priority since taking office, and that includes protecting our kids from the potential harms of social media features that encourage excessive use,” Hochul said in a statement.

“New Yorkers deserve transparency. With the amount of information that can be shared online, it is essential that we prioritize mental health and take the steps necessary to ensure that people are aware of any potential risks.”

Studies highlighted in the legislation suggest that teens spending more than three hours daily on social media face doubled risks of anxiety and depression symptoms. About half of adolescents report that platforms worsen their body image, and those with heavy usage are nearly twice as likely to describe their mental health as poor.

“New York families deserve honesty about how social media platforms impact mental health. By requiring warning labels based on the latest medical research, this law puts public health first and finally gives us the tools we need to make informed decisions,” Rozic said in a statement.

“I’m proud to sponsor this legislation alongside Senator Gounardes as part of our broader effort to create a safer digital environment for kids.”

In June 2024, Hochul signed the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, also sponsored by Gounardes and Rozic, mandating parental consent for minors to access addictive algorithms while also banning unsolicited nighttime notifications.

The SAFE Act aims to address how platforms exploit vulnerabilities for engagement while profiting billions in ad revenue from minors. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who helped draft the bill, sought public input on it in 2024.

Keep reading

Junk Food Bans For SNAP Users In Some States Starting 2026: What To Know

Americans using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase groceries may need to adjust their shopping habits in 2026 as some states will prohibit the use of SNAP funds to purchase certain “junk foods.”

Also starting next year, states will have to shoulder a larger portion of the cost of running the program. In addition, states could lose funds if their payment error rate is too high.

Here is what to know about the overhaul of America’s largest nutrition program.

Restrictions on Purchases in Some States

Eighteen states will restrict the purchase of certain foods lacking in nutritional value next year. The changes are being made under the banner of the Make America Healthy Again initiative launched by the Department of Health and Human Services. To institute the changes, the states had to submit and have approved a waiver of federal rules from the Department of Agriculture, which oversees the nutrition program.

The starting dates for the restrictions and the foods prohibited vary by state.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia will implement purchase restrictions on Jan. 1, 2026. Idaho, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Texas, Virginia, and Florida have starting dates from February to April. Arkansas, Tennessee, Hawaii, South Carolina, North Dakota, and Missouri will begin their bans between July and October.

Most of these states have removed candy, soda, and energy drinks from the list of SNAP-eligible items.

In Tennessee and Iowa, SNAP beneficiaries cannot use the funds to purchase processed foods. Tennessee defines a processed food as one that has been changed in any way from its natural state.

Prepared desserts, such as cakes and cookies, are restricted in Florida and Missouri.

In Iowa, foods that are prepared for consumption or come with eating utensils may not be purchased with SNAP funds. Cold, unpackaged foods without utensils, such as bread, fruit, or canned goods, are still permitted.

Keep reading