Current legislation a mixed bag for advocates of Arkansas' children, nonprofit leader says
Across Arkansas' political spectrum, children are often a focus of proposed legislation. But without the ability to vote themselves, advocates and parents often voice what they think is best for kids' growing brains and bodies.
On Monday, Arkansas Advocates for Childrens and Families opened the floor for 10-year-old Olivia Stallings to share her thoughts on state government, and the dozens of visitors present for a rally in the Capitol rotunda were silent for the four-and-a-half-foot tall girl with her purple tablet.
Bill to prohibit discrimination passes split Arkansas House panel after much public opposition
'Even though we don't get to vote, it's still important to know what's going on,' Olivia said while standing on a stool. 'For instance, a couple of weeks ago, newly elected Sen. Jamie Scott spoke to the Senate about how getting rid of affirmative action would harm a lot of working people as well as some of the unique experiences of African Americans in Arkansas.'
The 'anti-affirmative action' bill is one that AACF executive director Keesa Smith-Brantley said the organization considers 'problematic.' Supporters of Senate Bill 3 say it would prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment; opponents are concerned about the repercussions for minority populations.
Sponsor Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, has said the bill would prompt the state to focus on merit in hiring and procurement practices.
The bill has been extensively debated in committee. Last week it was amended and re-referred to the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs committee. The bill's amendment is at the top of Tuesday's committee agenda.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
One may not immediately think the bill would affect children, but Smith-Brantley said it addresses a number of programs in Arkansas for young girls.
'It has a negative influence when you don't see women in industries, like in medicine, like in engineering, which are all industries that Arkansas critically needs,' Smith-Brantley said.
Olivia spoke during AACF's annual Kids Count Day at the Capitol Monday, which Smith-Brantley said the fourth grader previously attended and was the only child to complete the organization's scavenger hunt.
'[It] isn't just a day to miss school, it's a day for us to learn outside the classroom and experience new things and get real world knowledge,' Olivia said. 'Believe me, we aren't learning about legislation in school, are we?'
Other speakers Monday highlighted the importance of fixing infrastructure that regularly causes problems, Arkansas' high rate of child poverty and hunger, increased wages for teachers and their reasons for becoming an advocate.
Lindsey Russell, a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program coordinator with the Northwest Arkansas Food Bank, spoke about the state's high rate of food insecurity among children. When she was a kid, she said, she dreamed about becoming a famous singer or overseas missionary, but Arkansas' children today see their future without enough food.
'It is their reality now that they don't have the safety to dream of what their future could be because they are worried about what food will fill their bellies,' Russell said.
Approximately 168,000 Arkansas children don't have a reliable source of adequate food, Russell said. Current investments in 'nutritious legislation' related to SNAP, Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and universal free breakfast and lunch are an investment in the future workforce, she said.
Smith-Brantley had a mixed reaction to proposed legislation currently making its way through the 95th General Assembly. While a bill that would offer free breakfast to public school students has earned AACF's support, a recently filed maternal health bill has the organization's leadership conflicted.
Last week, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced the 'Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies Act,' and Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, and Rep. Aaron Pilkington, R-Knoxville, filed the legislation in their respective chambers.
Identical proposals, Senate Bill 213 and House Bill 1427, vow to prioritize improved maternal health for the lowest-income Arkansans under a $45 million annual price tag. The bills would establish presumptive Medicaid eligibility for pregnant Arkansans, offer reimbursements for doulas and community health workers and establish pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage for specific treatments.
Smith-Brantley said the bill's promise to invest and reinvest in maternal health is important, but she's disappointed that it didn't expand Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers from 60 days to 12 months after birth.
Arkansas is the only state to not take action on the 12-month coverage, and Sanders has repeatedly said the state provides other health insurance options. House Bill 1004, filed by Republican Rep. Aaron Pilkington of Knoxville, would expand the coverage to 12 months, but hasn't been heard yet.
'The commitment to not only pass this bill, but to continue to invest in maternal health going forward is the only way that we're going to get out of a crisis,' Smith-Brantley said.
AACF is neutral on a bill to ban students' cell phone usage at public schools, Smith-Brantley said, but she would prefer to see legislation that addressed mental and behavioral health issues in conjunction with the existing proposal.
'We understand the importance of children being able to focus and teachers not having to spend a significant amount of time trying to police behaviors,' she said. 'But we also don't want it to be a burden on the school districts.'
Other areas lacking legislative focus include investments in early childhood education and after-school programs, Smith-Brantley said.
'We know that when children don't have access to programs out of school, that they are more likely to — to touch the juvenile justice system,' she said. 'So we want to make sure that those kids have something to do.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Paxton's lead over Cornyn nearly cut in half: Poll
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's (R) lead over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the state's Senate primary is narrowing, according to a new survey from Texas Southern University's Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center survey. The poll showed Paxton holding a 5-point lead among likely primary voters, 44 percent to 39 percent, in a two-way race with Cornyn. Another 17 percent said they were undecided. The last Texas Southern University poll released in May showed Paxton with a 9-point lead over Cornyn. The 5-point gap between Paxton and Cornyn remains the same in a hypothetical three-way race with Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), who has been considering a primary run. Paxton leads with 35 percent, while Cornyn trails at 30 percent. Hunt comes in with 22 percent support, and another 13 percent said they were unsure. Wednesday's poll comes after an Emerson College survey released last week showed the incumbent senator and attorney general locked in a dead heat. That poll showed Cornyn leading Paxton 30 percent to 29 percent, with 5 percent saying they prefer another candidate and 37 percent saying they were undecided. Most polls released before last week's Emerson College poll showed Paxton with a double-digit lead over Cornyn, leading to questions about the incumbent senator's electability in a primary. Cornyn's allies have pulled out all of the stops in an effort to boost him. According to The Texas Tribune, the Senate GOP leadership-affiliated One Nation has spent more than $4 million in advertising, while Texans for a Conservative Majority, another pro-Cornyn group, has spent $3.2 million. The pro-Cornyn Conservative Majority Project has spent roughly $500,000. The latest poll from Texas Southern University's Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center was conducted from Aug. 6-12 among 1,500 likely Texas Republican primary voters and had a margin of error of 2.53 percentage points. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why many Black Americans are boycotting big-box retail stores: ‘using my money to resist'
Rebecca Renard-Wilson has stopped shopping at Target and all things Amazon including Whole Foods and Amazon Fresh. These days, the mother of two shops for the things she needs at farmer's markets and small mom-and-pop stores, or she goes directly to the websites of products she wants to purchase. 'I have options of where I put my money,' Renard-Wilson, 49, said. 'Yes, Target's convenient. Yes, Amazon Fresh is on my drive to my kids' school. The options that I have discovered have opened up new relationships. I feel more connected to my community because I'm not shopping at those big-box places. I'm able to now use my money not only to resist places that don't align with my values, but I'm able to now support places that do align with my values. To me, that's a win-win.' Renard-Wilson is among a growing group of African Americans who are ditching corporate big-box retail stores that rolled back their DEI programs and instead are shopping at small and minority- and women-owned businesses they believe value their dollars more. In February, more than 250,000 people signed a pledge to boycott Target after the Rev Jamal Bryant, pastor of New Birth Baptist church outside of Georgia, called for a 40-day 'Target Fast' that started at the beginning of the Lenten season. Related: Trump is terrified of Black culture. But not for the reasons you think The boycott has become a movement across social media and within neighborhoods nationwide with the shared goal of rejecting systems that do not value the African American community, and it has already affected Target. In the first quarter of the year, the company reported a $500m loss in year-over-year sales, citing reaction to the boycott and lower foot traffic. 'Righteous indignation against racism' Shortly after taking office in January, Donald Trump eliminated DEI programs across offices in the federal government. Retailers, including Target, Walmart and Amazon, followed the president's lead in eliminating their DEI programs and initiatives. In 2020, following the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, millions marched in the streets in protest of police violence – and tech giants, retailers, Fortune 500 companies and industries pledged their commitment to diversity practices. Target specifically committed to invest $2bn in Black-owned businesses. It increased the amount it spent with Black-owned suppliers by more than 50% and doubled the number of Black-owned brands on its shelves. Customers found Black-owned hair products such as TGIN (Thank God It's Natural), Camille Rose and Pattern (by actor Tracee Ellis Ross); beauty brands Black Opal and TLB (The Lip Bar); and lifestyle merchandise such as Be Rooted and Tabitha Brown's products including mugs, stationary, tote bags, home decor and kitchen essentials. Some considered it to be a 'racial reckoning'. By 2024, the reckoning had soured as racial justice fatigue set in with the re-election of Trump. 'We are standing in righteous indignation against racism and sexism in this nation,' Bryant told his congregation. Target, he said, 'made a commitment after the death of George Floyd that you would invest $2bn into the Black community before December 2025'. When Target dropped its DEI programs and initiatives in January, Bryant said the company was 'reneging on the financial commitment you made to our people'. Bryant partnered with the US Black Chamber of Commerce to provide a digital directory of more than 150,000 Black-owned businesses across the US and asked the more than 250,000 people who registered to buy directly from their online platforms and not from Target. And during the Easter weekend, Bryant said that five mega-churches turned their spaces into retail malls so congregants could support Black-owned businesses. It wasn't an easy decision to boycott Target, Renard-Wilson said. She has friends who have products on Target shelves and she liked supporting their businesses. When she learned about the boycott on social media, she was conflicted. 'Some people were saying if you boycott Target, then you are basically crippling those Black, queer or Latino creatives who have had to put so much capital, so much time and so much resources just to get their stuff on the Target shelves,' Renard-Wilson said. 'I was like, 'Damn, now this is complicated.'' The retailers' decisions to eliminate their DEI initiatives, Renard-Wilson said, demonstrated that they 'don't really care about' minority communities. There was a time, she said, when she shopped at Target and Amazon Fresh pretty regularly, because they were convenient. Sometimes she visited Amazon Fresh two or three times a week, because it was on the way to her kids' schools. Renard-Wilson, who lives with her husband and two young children in Los Angeles, gets many of the goods that she used to purchase at Target or Amazon from Costco now, which doubled down on its commitment to DEI. 'We didn't really mess with Costco that much because it was a headache to get to and the parking was always crazy,' said Renard-Wilson. 'But when Target was like, 'Forget DEI,' and Costco was like, 'We value diversity,' I was like, 'I'm going to spend my money in a place that's aligned with my values.'' And when Renard-Wilson can't find what she needs at Costco, she'll go to small local mom-and-pop stores or buy directly online from the source. She found a deodorant she likes produced by a Black woman-owned company. Renard-Wilson is also part of a Facebook group where people share where to get certain items. The financial cost of not shopping at Target or Amazon has been minimal, Renard-Wilson said. In fact, when she compared one of her pre-boycott credit card bills with her credit card bill during the boycott, she had spent $2,000 less by not shopping at the big-box retailers. She points out the one time her husband, a teacher, paid more than double for workshop supplies that he could have gotten much cheaper at Amazon. Other than that, Renard-Wilson said most products have only been a few bucks more along with the cost of shipping sometimes. 'Thankfully, prayerfully, we're in a financial position to be able to pay a little bit more,' said Renard-Wilson, who acknowledges that her family is currently in a privileged financial position to be able to explore options outside of big-box corporate retail stores. 'A privilege to be able to protest' But there are families in smaller rural areas who do not have the retail options of big cities, technology access or the financial means to fully participate in the retail boycott. Karmen Jones's 82-year-old grandmother lives in the rural south. The closest grocery store to her grandmother is a Walmart, Jones said, 30 to 40 minutes away. There is no Instacart or Uber Eats in her area, and her elderly grandmother is not going to go online to purchase items, Jones said. There's also the transportation issue. Jones often has to take her grandmother grocery shopping when she visits. 'It's a privilege to be able to protest,' Jones, 26, said. 'My grandmother does not have the privilege to say no to a Walmart if that's the nearest grocery store that she has.' 'I believe the elders deserve to have a break at times. They deserve to have support and to have care. That is where [my grandmother] is in her chapter in her life. She's in a place where she deserves care,' said Jones, a communications consultant. She also noted that there's a difference in the robust grocery market in larger cities versus the food deserts in the deep south. Jones said she's shopped at Kroger or Costco since the boycott. If she goes to a said rural area, she has to stop at a corner store or market for goods. But more importantly, she's noticed the big financial cost to boycotting. Most of her beauty or hair products used to be purchased from Amazon, Jones said, but now she buys items from Ulta, which has remained committed to its DEI initiatives put forth in 2020 and 2021. 'There is a price to pay for protesting,' she said. 'Invest in people who care about me and my community' Though Jones has had to pay more for products, she said she would not be going back to big retailers anytime soon, even if they reinstated their DEI initiatives. Target, especially, was a disappointment, Jones said. 'Target marketed itself prior to Trump's last election as being pro-DEI and being pro-Black creatives. Our faces were all around the store and even in the aisles,' she said. Bryant told CNN's Erin Burnett in May that the Target boycott would continue until things shift. He's taking a page out of the history books, pointing to the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott that lasted 381 days. That protest, which occurred 70 years ago, serves as a model. Most recently, Bryant called for a boycott of Dollar General stores and McDonald's. Renard-Wilson said she doesn't plan to return to the big-box retail stores, even if there is a shift to embrace DEI again. 'I do not have any desire to continue supporting capitalistic systems that put profit over people,' Renard-Wilson said. 'I'm going to use my money and try to invest in people who care about me and my community.' This story was co-published and supported by the Economic Hardship Reporting Project journalism non-profit. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
10 States That Face the Harshest SNAP Cuts Under Trump's New Bill
Millions of Americans could soon see their food assistance slashed. President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' introduced large cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that will affect families across the country. Check Out: Learn More: According to the Urban Institute, over 22 million families are expected to lose some or all of their SNAP benefits, with over 5 million affected households losing an average of $146 per month. The bill also introduces a new requirement: States must begin covering 5% to 25% of SNAP costs starting in 2028, depending on their payment error rates. This cost-sharing model means that states with higher administrative errors will face deeper cuts. A Commonwealth Fund analysis projects that by 2029, some states will see significantly reduced federal SNAP funding, noting that the bill was designed to cut funding disproportionately in certain states. Based on this analysis, these are the 10 states that are facing the deepest SNAP cuts. Also see states where people are most likely to benefit from the SALT changes in Trump's bill. New Mexico Funding loss: $479 million Relative reduction: -43.9% Also See: Explore More: West Virginia Funding loss: $262 million Relative reduction: -43.6% See More: Georgia Funding loss: $1.49 billion Relative reduction: -43% Delaware Funding loss: $112 million Relative reduction: -41.6% New Jersey Funding loss: $846 million Relative reduction: -41.4% Mississippi Funding loss: $367 million Relative reduction: -41.1% Take Our Poll: Indiana Funding loss: $603 million Relative reduction: -39.6% Michigan Funding loss: $1.29 billion Relative reduction: -39.6% Oklahoma Funding loss: $628 million Relative reduction: -39.3% Missouri Funding loss: $630 million Relative reduction: -39.3% Editor's note: Data was sourced from The Commonwealth Fund. More From GOBankingRates New Law Could Make Electricity Bills Skyrocket in These 4 States I'm a Self-Made Millionaire: 6 Ways I Use ChatGPT To Make a Lot of Money 5 Strategies High-Net-Worth Families Use To Build Generational Wealth 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value This article originally appeared on 10 States That Face the Harshest SNAP Cuts Under Trump's New Bill Solve the daily Crossword
