Push for social media safeguards to protect children derails in Washington House
A bill that gained bipartisan support in the Washington state Senate to strengthen online safety for children has failed to move forward in the House.
Senate Bill 5708 came at the request of Attorney General Nick Brown's office and would have prevented social media companies from pushing addictive feeds and sending notification alerts during certain hours to children under age 18. Gov. Bob Ferguson also backed the bill.
It passed the Senate with bipartisan support, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, but failed to receive a hearing in the House Consumer Protection and Business Committee.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, said she knew the bill needed more work, but was disappointed it didn't receive a public hearing in the House.
'It felt like a pretty abrupt end,' she said, adding that supporters had 'already compromised quite a bit' on the bill.
Likewise, Brown said he was disappointed the bill didn't get a House hearing, calling the proposal a 'commonsense' step to improve youth mental health.
'Compulsive social media use has demonstrably harmful impacts on young people. It's disappointing not everyone is treating this crisis with the urgency it deserves,' he said.
The bill was also backed by the Washington Children's Alliance, an advocacy organization, after conversations with educators and health officials raised alarm about how social media can negatively affect children.
Since the pandemic, there's been an increase in depression and anxiety among children. In a 2023 advisory, the U.S. Surgeon General recommended that policymakers pursue policies to limit children's access to social media to reduce the risk of harm.
'The root cause of so much of the depression and anxiety that we see all across the nation for kids is because they all have access to phones and are getting pumped with all of these really harmful feeds that are coming at all hours of the day and night,' said Stephan Blanford, executive director of the Children's Alliance.
The lack of federal legislation has led to states taking action to address online safety for children and the behavioral problems it poses. California approved laws along these lines in 2022 and 2024 that industry-backed lawsuits have tied up in court.
Frame's bill contains similar provisions to the California legislation. However, she said that many of the criticisms around the bill were distractions and that the attorney general was aware of the lawsuits and that the bill was designed to avoid traps seen in other states.
'It's a complicated bill,' she said, adding it was easy for the tech industry to highlight the flaws the bill initially had.
Blanford said the Children's Alliance worked with the attorney general's office to draft the legislation and ensure it was constitutional and that the bill was designed to address some of the patterns that can leave children addicted to social media feeds.
'Technology companies have a huge incentive, financial incentive, to addict our children to their products,' Blanford said.
Rep. Amy Walen, D-Kirkland, the chair of the Consumer Protection and Business Committee, said concerns about the constitutionality of the bill and privacy violations for youth led to her decision not to hear it this session.
'It felt like it wasn't ready and that's what I kept hearing from people,' Walen said.
Walen rejected suggestions that her decision had to do with Microsoft being located in her district.
'I work for the people,' Walen said. 'The 48th legislative district, that's who I work for.'
Instead, Walen said she hoped to explore the issue further and work with technology companies to see how to refine the bill ahead of the next session.
Sen. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro Wooley, one of the cosponsors, said he supported the intent of the bill but still thinks it needs more work and that lawmakers need to engage further on it with tech companies and wait until the California litigation is resolved.
Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, was the only Democrat who voted against the bill when it passed the Senate. She said Tuesday that regulating technology can be a challenge.
'I actually think it needs to wait a year or wait until some of those other states have resolved it so we have more clear direction on where we need to go,' Dhingra said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
NSC Applauds Senate Appropriations Committee Passage of Bill Keeping OSHA, NIOSH Funding Steady
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the National Safety Council issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee's passage of legislation that keeps funding steady for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which passed out of committee by a vote of 26-3, maintains FY2026 funding for OSHA at the FY2025 level and slightly increases FY2026 funding for NIOSH over the FY2025 level. The bill now moves to the full Senate. "The National Safety Council applauds the Senate Appropriations Committee on its decisive vote to keep funding steady for OSHA and NIOSH," said Lorraine Martin, CEO of NSC. "We urge the House and full Senate to approve these funding levels, which are necessary to keep America safe at work." The committee's report language accompanying the bill shines a spotlight on several safety issues, including opioid use in the workplace and heat-related injuries. In expressing concern over the prevalence of opioid use in the workplace, the committee cited NSC data showing that while 75% of employers reported seeing opioid use impact their workplace, only 17% reported being well-prepared to address it. The committee encourages the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance to employers on providing opioid overdose reversal medication and training in the workplace. Learn more about workplace unintentional overdose deaths here: Uncertainty over NIOSH's budget in particular has swirled for months, with an 80% budget cut proposed in June by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In the report, the committee recognized the vital role NIOSH plays in protecting American workers as "the only Federal agency responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related illness and injury" and directed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "to ensure work continues in NIOSH research centers nationwide." About the National Safety CouncilThe National Safety Council is America's leading nonprofit safety advocate – and has been for over 110 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our efforts on the workplace and roadways. We create a culture of safety to not only keep people safer at work, but also beyond the workplace so they can live their fullest lives. Connect with NSC:Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube Instagram ©2025 National Safety Council View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE National Safety Council
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Researchers forecast what Trump's bill will mean for patients: Debt and delayed care
About 2.5 million people may no longer have a personal doctor. About 1.6 million patients will take on medical debt. The lack of care may cause nearly 22,000 deaths annually. 'There's really no questioning the basic reality that you can't take health care away from 10 million people without causing many preventable deaths,' said Dr. Adam Gaffney, lead researcher on a team that explored the new law's impact. Here's a deeper look at the research and challenges that could develop. Advertisement How the law may affect coverage It will become harder for many people to enroll in Medicaid or individual insurance plans and then stay covered. Medicaid is a state and federally funded program that covers care for people with low incomes. States will have to verify every six months whether someone remains eligible for Medicaid. That could cause coverage lapses for people with incomes that fluctuate or for those who move and miss renewal paperwork. Many also are expected to lose coverage as states require Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or go to school unless exempted. Related : Enrollment in Medicaid has swelled in recent years. Republicans are cutting back in part to help fund tax breaks and pay for other priorities like border security. They also say they are trying to root out waste and fraud by rightsizing Medicaid for the population it was initially designed to serve — mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children. Advertisement People covered through the Affordable Care Act's individual insurance marketplaces also will see shorter enrollment windows and no more automatic renewals. About the research Gaffney, of Harvard Medical School, and other researchers looked to past studies to measure how many people would experience detrimental effects, like going without prescriptions, from the upcoming changes. Gaffney updated the published analysis, which was originally based on the House version of the bill, at the AP's request. One study in particular was critical for their work: In 2008, Oregon offered a rare opportunity to compare groups of people enrolled in Medicaid with those who were not. The price for a bottle of 60 tablets of Amanda Schlesier's prescription chemotherapy pill, Calquence, printed on a pharmacy statement. Paul Sancya/Associated Press After a four-year period of frozen enrollment due to budget limitations, the state determined it could enroll 10,000 more people in Medicaid. It used a lottery system to make the selection amid high demand. That gave researchers a chance to follow people who got coverage and those who did not, similar to how scientists testing a new drug might compare patients taking it to those given a placebo. 'This is a gold standard research design because it replicates a randomized-controlled trial,' said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at RAND Corp. who was not involved in the study. Related : Applying results from that study and other research to the recent CBO estimate allowed Gaffney and other researchers to estimate specific effects of losing coverage. 'By taking coverage away, we are putting patients in a terrible position,' said Gaffney, a former president of Physicians for a National Health Program. Care could grow complicated Amanda Schlesier went four days without her cancer treatment Calquence this spring and wound up in a local emergency room, delirious with pain. Advertisement The leukemia patient worries about what might happen if she stops treatment again for a longer stretch because she's lost Medicaid. 'God forbid I forget to fill out a page of documentation, and suddenly I lose access to my medication or my doctors or any of the treatment that I've been going through,' the 33-year-old Farmington Hills, Michigan, resident said. People can still receive care when they don't have coverage, but important steps often are delayed, said Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Patients may be able to visit a doctor, but they would have to line up coverage or help before they can receive expensive chemotherapy. Diagnosis also may be delayed. Meanwhile, the patient's cancer continues to grow. 'It's a ticking time bomb,' Nichols said. Preventive care may lapse The first thing patients often ditch when they lose coverage are screenings designed to catch health problems before they become serious, said Dr. Jen Brull, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. That could mean patients skip tests for high cholesterol, which can contribute to heart disease, or colonoscopies that detect cancer. Researchers forecast that a half million fewer women will have gotten a mammogram within the past year by 2034. When patients struggle financially and lose coverage, they focus on things like keeping a place to live and food on their table, said Brull, a Fort Collins, Colorado, physician. 'Seeing a doctor because you don't want to get sick feels like a much lower priority,' Brull said. Dennis Heaphy, an advocate with the Massachusetts Disability Policy Consortium, said he would likely be in a nursing home without MassHealth support, during a panel at the Cambridge Health Alliance Revere Care Center on May 27. To his left, Governor Maura Healey and Senator Elizabeth Warren. To his right, Senator Ed Markey. Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe Financial pressure can build Patients start taking financial hits at all ends of care when they lose coverage. They may have to pay up front or start a payment plan before they receive care, said Erin Bradshaw, an executive vice president with the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation, which helps people with medical bills. Advertisement Anyone with an outstanding balance will have to pay it before the next appointment. Related : Financial assistance may be available, but patients don't always know about it. Getting help also may take time and require the submission of tax returns, pay stubs or some validation that the patient no longer has coverage. Bradshaw said letters stating that a patient has lost Medicaid sometimes arrive a couple months after the fact. That can contribute to treatment delays or missed medication doses. Some patients also try to avoid financial stress by skipping care. Schlesier said she delayed seeing a doctor when she first felt symptoms of her cancer returning because she had no coverage at the time. Staying on medications If prescriptions are too expensive, patients may simply not get them or split the doses to stretch the medicine. For Thomas Harper, it's a question of priorities. 'Sometimes you have to make a choice, how well do you want to eat this week versus taking your medicine,' he said. The West Monroe, Louisiana, truck driver has around $300 a month in prescriptions as he deals with diabetes and recovers from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Harper, 57, recently returned to work. That meant he lost Medicaid, which covered more of his prescription costs. He's balancing buying his meds with shopping for healthy food that keeps his blood sugar in check and builds his immune system. 'I'll survive, but I know there's people out there that cannot survive without Medicaid,' he said. AP video journalist Laura Bargfeld contributed to this report. Advertisement
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Most adults do not plan on getting COVID-19 shot amid vaccine policy changes
More than half of American adults — 59 percent — say they do not expect to get the COVID-19 booster shot this autumn, according to new poll findings from healthcare policy group KFF. Poll results show that 23 percent of U.S. adults say they will 'probably not' get the vaccine, while 37 percent will 'definitely not' get the shot. Americans who said they will 'probably' or 'definitely' not get the shot were also more likely to say they think changes to U.S. vaccine policy are 'major' and will make people less safe. The data comes as the Trump administration makes drastic changes to the country's vaccine policy. Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced earlier this year that the COVID-19 shot will no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. Kennedy also abruptly fired all 17 members of an independent vaccine advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in June. He then replaced the panel with eight hand-picked appointees, many of whom have expressed vaccine skepticism in the past. Adults who identify as Republicans are far less likely to plan on getting the vaccine compared to those who identify as Democrats. About six out of 10 Republicans said they would 'definitely not' get the shot compared to about one out of 10 Democrats, according to the poll. White adults are the most likely to say that they are against getting the vaccine once the colder months arrive with about four out of 10 admitting they will 'definitely not' get the shot. Meanwhile, 32 percent of Black adults say they will 'definitely not' get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, along with 30 percent of adults who identify as Hispanic. Adults between the ages of 30 and 49 are the most likely to say that they do not plan on getting the vaccine, with 42 percent of that age group saying they will 'definitely not' get the shot in the fall. The U.S. appears to be experiencing another summer wave of COVID-19 cases. As of July 29, COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 40 states, including Florida, Texas, and New York, according to the CDC. The KFF poll was conducted via a national representative survey of about 1,300 people between July 8-14.
