Latest news with #HouseBill109
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ohio protest, riot laws to know ahead of June 14 'No Kings' protests, other rallies
Protests in Columbus this week mirror those in Los Angeles and San Francisco rallying against the Trump administration's recent immigration raids on workplaces. Rallies in Columbus include an "ICE Out!" protest against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, defying the Washington, D.C., military parade, and much more. Ohio's laws for protests have changed since the Black Lives Matter rallies after the death of George Floyd. Here's what to know. House Bill 109 passed in February 2022 created new felony offenses, including "riot assault,' 'riot vandalism,' and 'bias-motivated intimidation," according to the Columbus Dispatch. The law also increased penalties for existing offenses, including: Rioting Aggravated rioting Disorderly conduct Vandalism Additionally, House Bill 109 permits police officers to file civil lawsuits if they are injured during a riot, if their civil rights are violated while on duty, or if a false complaint is made against them. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio took issue with House Bill 109, arguing its definition of a riot was too broad and discretionary, the Dispatch reported. A second bill also passed in 2022 allows the top police officer in a jurisdiction to cordon off the area and block through traffic when attempting to suppress a riot, according to Ohio Capital Journal. That bill also allows law enforcement to prevent or prohibit the sale, dispensing or transportation of: Firearms Ammo Dynamite Other explosives Both 2022 bills passed largely along party lines. This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio protest laws have changed since George Floyd. What to know
Newsweek
19-05-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Pushing Ahead In Idaho
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. Idaho submitted a waiver request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prevent Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from purchasing soft drinks and candy, East Idaho News reported on Sunday. Governor Brad Little directed the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to pursue federal approval following his April signature on House Bill 109. The change depends on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) response to the waiver application. Newsweek has contacted Little's office for comment via email. Why It Matters Several states are either considering SNAP bans on soda and other items or have already submitted waiver requests to the USDA as part of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" initiative. In the 2024 fiscal year, SNAP served 130,900 Idaho residents—about 7 percent of the state's population. As of 2023, SNAP served about 42.1 million people monthly nationwide, or 12.6 percent of the U.S. population. What To Know House Bill 109 passed both chambers—48-20 in the House and 25-10 in the Senate—and received Governor Little's signature in April. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare then submitted a formal waiver request to the USDA on Friday, a necessary step as current federal rules require USDA approval for any state-level restrictions on what SNAP can purchase. In April, Agriculture Secretary Rollins and Health Secretary Kennedy Jr. published a joint article in USA Today calling on "all governors to submit waivers to help promote access to these critical sources of nutrition, including waivers that can limit what can be purchased with food stamps." Stock image/file photo: A person shopping in a grocery stores. Stock image/file photo: A person shopping in a grocery stores. GETTY The USDA has confirmed to Newsweek that Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Indiana have all submitted similar waivers to change what can be purchased using SNAP benefits. "States have always been the greatest laboratories of democracy, and I am confident the best ideas will come from them," USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement sent to Newsweek. "Whether demonstration pilots on allowable purchases, or newfound ways to connect work-capable adults to jobs, or even new ways to get food to communities, I will continue to encourage States to be bold and enact change." Food policy advocates are sharply divided. Supporters say the goal is to reduce preventable chronic health conditions by encouraging healthier food choices through SNAP. But critics have argued the policy is paternalistic and fails to address the fact that many low-income communities lack access to healthy, affordable food options. What People Are Saying Governor Brad Little said on the signing of House Bill 109: "Idaho welcomes the MAHA movement. It is all about looking for creative ways to improve nutrition and increase exercise, the two main factors that influence overall health. Secretary Kennedy said it so well: we need to take better care of ourselves and each other. He said it is an act of patriotism, and the future of our nation depends on it. Idaho couldn't agree more." Valerie Imbruce, the director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, previously told Newsweek: "Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients' inability to make good decisions about healthy foods, it is a problem of the price differential in choosing healthy or junk foods." What Happens Next If the waiver request is approved, Idaho's soda and candy ban for SNAP will take effect on July 1.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Idaho governor approves candy, soda SNAP ban bill
Idaho Gov. Brad Little gives a press conference after delivering his annual State of the State address on Jan. 6, 2025, in the Lincoln Auditorium in the Idaho Capitol. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) Idaho will try to ban a food assistance program from covering candy and soda. Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed into law House Bill 109, which requires the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to seek federal approval to exclude candy and soda from foods eligible for coverage by the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Idaho's bill is part of the national movement known as 'Make America Healthy Again,' or MAHA, promoted by U.S. health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the bill's cosponsor Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d'Alene has told lawmakers. 'Idaho welcomes the MAHA movement. It is all about looking for creative ways to improve nutrition and increase exercise, the two main factors that influence overall health,' Little wrote in a prepared statement Tuesday. 'Secretary Kennedy said it so well: we need to take better care of ourselves and each other. He said it is an act of patriotism, and the future of our nation depends on it. Idaho couldn't agree more.' Business industry representatives oppose the bill. Arguing the bill wouldn't be workable, Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, has said it would cause grocery stores to stop accepting SNAP. But bill cosponsor Senate Majority Caucus Chair Ben Toews, R-Coeur d'Alene, says he's skeptical the bill would be hard on retailers. He said the bill's candy definition is used in 24 other states' sales tax laws. Idaho's new law takes effect July 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX In a prepared statement, Washington, DC.-based nonprofit Food Research & Action Center SNAP Deputy Director Gina Plata-Nino critiqued SNAP restrictions, saying they 'only deepen food insecurity and strip people of their autonomy.' 'This push to restrict what Idaho households can buy is an ill-conceived, recycled attempt to shame people who need food assistance and strip them of their dignity and autonomy when data shows that their diet isn't much different from anyone else's,' Plata-Nino told the Idaho Capital Sun. Little signed the bill into law on Tuesday, the governor's office announced in a news release. The bill passed the Idaho House on a 48-20 vote, after passing the Senate on a 25-10 vote with amendments. In the Idaho governor's office news release announcing Little signed the bill, Kennedy wrote in a prepared statement, 'I urge all governors to follow Idaho's lead and submit innovative SNAP waivers to the USDA to reverse the childhood chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again.' Pushback has largely focused on the bill's broad candy definition, which critics say would also ban granola bars and power bars. The bill defines candy as 'a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings' in several forms. Under the bill, candy would not include items that contain flour or need refrigeration. The Senate amended the bill to tweak the candy definition, removing an exemption for items with more than 10% flour by weight. The bill's soda definition also appears to be broad. Under the bill, soda includes nonalcoholic beverages with sweeteners, artificial or natural. But the bill doesn't consider soda to be drinks with more than 50% juice, containing milk or milk substitutes, or that need preparation, such as powders or concentrates. About 132,000 Idahoans are enrolled in SNAP, according to Idaho Department of Health and Welfare figures, receiving an average of $177 in monthly program benefits. If the federal U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, doesn't grant Idaho's candy/soda SNAP ban waiver, the bill says Health and Welfare 'shall request such a waiver annually until such a waiver is granted.' The bill's fiscal note estimates it would not have a fiscal impact on the state budget. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement she was excited more states 'are heeding the call to Make America Healthy Again.' 'Governor Little is a true partner to USDA, and we look forward to working together on ways to use SNAP to improve health outcomes for Americans and encourage better use of taxpayer dollars,' she added. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Is SNAP doing what it was meant to do? Idaho thinks it's time to ask.
In Idaho, we don't shy away from tough questions. Right now, we're asking one that's overdue: Is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — 'SNAP,' or 'food stamps' as it was once known — still fulfilling its original purpose? Our legislature has just passed a bill that would direct Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare to seek a federal waiver to forbid food stamps from being used to buy soda and candy. This isn't about soft drinks or sweets — it's about the integrity of a public program and whether it's still delivering on its mission. Food stamps exist to help low-income families put meals on the table. That is a goal we all stand behind. But its purpose goes beyond just filling grocery bags. The federal law that established SNAP some six decades ago states clearly that the program is designed 'to alleviate … hunger and malnutrition' by enabling families to afford a more nutritious diet. That's not an optional benchmark — it's the standard. So, we need to ask: Are we meeting it? If we are, that's good news. If not, we have a responsibility to address it. This isn't about penalizing anyone. It's about accountability. Like any taxpayer-funded program, food stamps should be judged by their outcomes. If they're straying from their intent, we can't just look the other way — we have to fix it. That's basic stewardship. The data tell the whole story. Obesity has tripled since the 1960s. More than 40 percent of adults and one in five children are obese. One in three adults is diabetic or prediabetic. And sugary drinks alone account for nearly $4 billion in annual food stamp spending. These aren't criticisms of the folks using food stamps. Rather, they are signals about the program's direction. If 20 percent of food stamp dollars are going toward soda, candy and snack foods, are we truly advancing the goal of a 'more nutritious diet'? That's a question every legislator must confront. House Bill 109 is Idaho's attempt to do just that and to spark a broader conversation. The bill is straightforward. It defines soda and candy using our existing tax code. It then directs our health department to request a U.S. Department of Agriculture waiver excluding those items from food stamp purchases and mandates that we keep asking annually until it's approved. Critics have called this overreach. But food stamps already exclude some items — for example, alcohol, tobacco and hot prepared meals. Programs like the Women, Infants and Children program already prohibit soda and candy entirely, prioritizing nutrition over convenience. So setting limits is not novel or radical. It is already common in such programs, and in this case it is consistent with the program's roots. This should be a routine discussion. When a public program drifts from its initial aims, we owe it to those it serves — and to those who fund it — to ask why. Yet Washington has been dodging this debate for years. Lobbyists for Big Soda and Big Sugar have stifled reform, and even under administrations pledging change, the federal Department of Agriculture has refused to budge. Maine's waiver request, for instance, was drafted and rejected in 2018. That is why states like Idaho are now taking the lead. This idea isn't on the fringes anymore. A dozen states are exploring similar measures. Bipartisan voices in Congress are raising the issue of nutrition reform. Figures such as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are pressing for change from outside the system. But that momentum wouldn't exist if not for states driving it. Idaho has a chance to set an example — not just by tweaking food stamps, but by realigning them with their founding purpose. We're not here to dictate anyone's grocery list. We are here to ensure that a major federal program stays true to its goal of fighting hunger and malnutrition through better nutrition. If Congress meant what it wrote in the law — if SNAP's mission is genuinely about healthier diets — then we should measure it against that standard. And if we're falling short, we should act. House Bill 109 is one practical step toward that accountability. Government programs, like the people they serve, thrive when they stay focused. It's time we made sure SNAP stays focused, too. Jordan Redman, a Republican, represents Idaho's third legislative district in the state House of Representatives. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho Legislature approves ban on SNAP coverage for candy, soda
A "SNAP welcomed here" sign is seen at the entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland, Oregon. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal program. (Getty Images) A bill to ban a food assistance program from covering candy and soda is headed to Gov. Brad Little for consideration. Idaho also needs federal approval for the proposed ban. House Bill 109 would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to seek federal approval to exclude candy and soda from foods eligible for coverage by the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Idaho's bill is part of the national movement coined 'Make America Healthy Again,' or MAHA, promoted by U.S. health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the bill's cosponsor Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d'Alene has told lawmakers. And, he said, soda is the 'number one commodity spent on SNAP.' Business industry representatives oppose the bill. Arguing the bill wouldn't be workable, Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, has said it would cause grocery stores to stop accepting SNAP. But bill cosponsor Senate Majority Caucus Chair Ben Toews, R-Coeur d'Alene, says he's skeptical the bill would be hard on retailers. He said the bill's candy definition is used in 24 other states' sales tax laws. The Idaho House passed the bill on a 48-20 vote on Monday, after the chamber had already narrowly approved the bill. It came back to the House after the Senate amended the bill to tweak the candy definition. The Idaho Senate passed an amended version of the bill on a 25-10 vote last week. Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, critiqued the bill as another way to control poor people. Sen. Camille Blaylock, R-Caldwell, suggested it isn't likely Idaho would make the change alone. Idaho's waiver, she argued, would join other states' requests, applying pressure for a nationwide change. When the bill is transmitted to the governor, he has five days, excluding Sundays, to decide on it. He has three options: sign it into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. If passed into law, the bill would take effect July 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Pushback has largely focused on the bill's broad candy definition, which critics say would also ban granola bars and power bars. The bill defines candy as 'a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings' in several forms. Under the bill, candy would not include items that contain flour or need refrigeration. The Senate amended the bill to tweak the candy definition, removing an exemption for items with more than 10% flour by weight. The bill's soda definition also appears to be broad. Under the bill, soda includes nonalcoholic beverages with sweeteners, artificial or natural. But the bill doesn't consider soda to be drinks with more than 50% juice, contain milk or milk substitutes, or that need preparation, such as powders or concentrates. About 132,000 Idahoans are enrolled in SNAP, according to Idaho Department of Health and Welfare figures, receiving an average of $177 in monthly program benefits. If the federal U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, doesn't grant Idaho's candy/soda SNAP ban waiver, the bill says Health and Welfare 'shall request such a waiver annually until such a waiver is granted.' The bill's fiscal note estimates it would not have a fiscal impact. Republican legislators in Arizona, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming introduced similar bills, Stateline reported. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
