10 states where APPs outnumber physicians

 Physician assistants and nurse practitioners outnumber physicians in 10 states: Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming. 

Becker’s calculated the total physicians and surgeons in every state between 2024 and 2025. This includes the following Bureau of Labor Statistics categories: anesthesiologists, cardiologists, dermatologists, emergency medicine physicians, family medicine physicians, general internal medicine physicians, OB-GYNs, general pediatricians, physicians all other, ophthalmologists, orthopedic surgeons and surgeons all other. Becker’s also collected the total nurse practitioners and physician associates in every state from 2024 and 2025. Becker’s used the total number of employed individuals in these positions to calculate the percent change.

Here are trends to know:

1. In Montana, NPs outnumber physicians, with 1,260 employed NPs compared to 1,090 physicians. NP employment grew 20% from 2024 to 2025 while physician employment fell 10.7%. 

2. In New Jersey, PA employment more than doubled, going from roughly 2,370 to 4,790, while physician employment fell 4.5%. NP employment grew 3.8%.

3. In Missouri, PA and NP employment increased 39.4% and 13%, respectively, while physician employment fell 6.9%. 

4. In Alabama, PA and NP employment rose 20.8% and 19.2%, respectively, and physician employment dropped 9.9%.

5. In Oregon, physician employment dropped 10.9%, but PA employment rose 16.6% and NP employment rose 16%.

6. Largely rural states Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho and Montana all have NP-to-physician ratios above 0.6, meaning there are at least six NPs per every 10 physicians. 

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/10-states-where-apps-outnumber-physicians-6-notes/

Here are the states with their total physicians, PAs and NPs, along with the percent change in each position. 

State	Physicians		Physician assistants		Nurse practitioners
	Total employed 2025	% change 2024-2025	Total employed 2025	% change 2024-2025	Total employed 2025	% change 2024-2025
Alabama	5,260	-9.9%	930	20.8%	5,640	19.2%
Alaska	1,460	22.7%	700	4.5%	710	24.6%
Arizona	14,170	8.1%	3,750	5.9%	7,220	-4.2%
Arkansas	5,960	38.9%	850	-12.4%	3,970	18.5%
California	44,170	-33.8%	13,600	0.2%	25,120	19.7%
Colorado	7,610	-3.5%	3,270	2.8%	4,270	3.4%
Connecticut	8,870	6.4%	3,570	-3.5%	3,750	1.9%
Delaware	2,580	5.7%	860	24.6%	1,430	18.2%
District of Columbia	2,910	-19.4%	470	-24.2%	680	-13.9%
Florida	35,340	-11%	9,310	-11.9%	21,790	-11.7%
Georgia	21,330	9.2%	5,610	27.5%	10,460	-1.1%
Hawaii	3,550	13.8%	530	20.5%	550	17%
Idaho	2,810	17.1%	1,320	12.8%	1,750	11.5%
Illinois	29,670	9.1%	3,790	-3.6%	9,270	-3%
Indiana	15,230	18.1%	2,110	-1.9%	7,450	-0.3%
Iowa	4,460	8.5%	1,200	0%	3,240	15.3%
Kansas	6,210	16.9%	890	-11.9%	3,780	24.8%
Kentucky	7,790	8.3%	1,360	8.8%	4,770	1.3%
Louisiana	6,310	2.9%	1,360	-23.2%	5,380	20.1%
Maine	3,300	6.8%	1,030	10.8%	1,650	1.2%
Maryland	16,350	-0.5%	2,950	1%	6,710	1.1%
Massachusetts	19,420	-6.7%	4,470	3.7%	8,070	-9.5%
Michigan	23,740	-6.9%	6,310	14.9%	8,290	4.9%
Minnesota	14,590	12.1%	3,660	-3.4%	7,780	-10.5%
Mississippi	1,290	-50.4%	320	-13.5%	4,690	12.5%
Missouri	8,700	-6.9%	2,300	39.4%	7,710	13%
Montana	1,090	-10.7%	600	-1.6%	1,260	20%
Nebraska	4,270	12.7%	1,330	6.4%	2,340	8.8%
Nevada	3,220	-16.1%	1,090	-8.4%	1,930	-34.4%
New Hampshire	3,140	1%	1,060	0%	1,770	-1.1%
New Jersey	19,400	-4.5%	4,790	102.1%	9,950	3.8%
New Mexico	3,250	-1.5%	700	9.4%	1,770	-5.3%
New York	57,650	17%	19,140	-1.3%	22,890	12%
North Carolina	22,090	3.7%	7,490	-12.1%	9,800	22.2%
North Dakota	1,680	12.8%	510	-1.9%	1,290	2.4%
Ohio	31,040	-5.3%	4,900	8.2%	15,400	5.8%
Oklahoma	5,760	6.5%	1,770	-0.6%	3,620	19.9%
Oregon	8,440	-10.9%	2,250	16.6%	2,820	16%
Pennsylvania	32,170	8.5%	9,020	16.2%	10,670	-1.7%
Rhode Island	2,330	4%	810	35%	1,180	-1.7%
South Carolina	9,360	-0.5%	2,250	9.8%	5,670	-3.1%
South Dakota	1,530	-1.3%	680	4.6%	1,020	7.4%
Tennessee	12,470	-4.7%	2,240	-5.9%	12,150	-15%
Texas	54,320	2.6%	10,110	0.8%	25,970	19.7%
Utah	5,220	-9.8%	1,610	-3.6%	2,740	-4.2%
Vermont	1,480	-7.5%	410	0%	700	2.9%
Virginia	14,370	0.3%	4,340	22.9%	7,110	9.9%
Washington	12,370	5.3%	3,540	6.9%	6,700	39.9%
West Virginia	3,580	0.3%	1,080	12.5%	2,550	11.8%
Wisconsin	12,440	8.7%	3,580	17.8%	5,160	4.2%
Wyoming	730	-17%	330	-19.5%	440	0%

45-hospital network in Texas to end UnitedHealthcare contracts

 A rural Texas hospital organization has notified UnitedHealthcare of its intent to end all participation agreements over alleged unsustainable reimbursement rates.

Six things to know:

1. Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals Clinically Integrated Network, representing primary care clinics and 45 rural and community hospitals across Texas, plans to terminate its agreements with UnitedHealthcare, including its provider organization participation agreement and accountable care organization agreement, according to a June 9 network news release shared with Becker’s.

2. The terminations will be effective no earlier than June 6, 2027, for the primary network agreement and Dec. 31, 2026, for the accountable care organization and Medicaid shared savings program, the release said.

3. The organization said member hospitals for years have absorbed reimbursement rates that do not reflect the cost of delivering care in rural communities and have not kept pace with rising labor costs and supply chain disruptions. TORCH CIN also alleged UnitedHealthcare has not seriously engaged in negotiations, claiming that its most recent counterproposal was submitted Jan. 9 and had gone unanswered for 150 days.

4. A UnitedHealthcare spokesperson said in a June 17 statement shared with Becker’s that TORCH CIN’s actions were a negotiation tactic and pointed to recent prior authorization reforms as part of its effort to support rural hospitals. The spokesperson also said UnitedHealthcare has supported the development of TORCH CIN through a multimillion-dollar investment and has been actively engaged in negotiations, with the two groups continuing to exchange proposals.

“UnitedHealthcare is committed to strengthening access to rural healthcare by investing in the long-term stability of local providers across the country,” the spokesperson said. “… While we are disappointed in TORCH’s recent actions, we remain committed to using the time left on our contract to reach an agreement that maintains long-term access to quality, affordable care for the families we serve throughout rural Texas communities.”

5. TORCH CIN Executive Director Paul Aslin said the organization did not arrive at its decision lightly.

“Our hospitals are lifelines for the people they serve — many of whom have no other option within a reasonable distance,” he said in the release. “But we cannot continue operating under contract terms that make it financially impossible to keep the lights on, staff our emergency rooms, and provide the care our communities need.” 

6. According to data from the Texas A&M Health Rural & Community Health Institute and Turquoise Health cited in the release, rural hospitals are paid up to 53% less than metropolitan hospitals for emergency department visits under commercial contracts, and up to 44% less for maternity and obstetrical delivery services.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/45-hospital-network-in-texas-to-end-unitedhealthcare-contracts/

24 health systems dropping Medicare Advantage plans | 2026

 Hospitals and health systems continue to sever ties with certain Medicare Advantage plans in 2026, citing persistent frustrations with prior authorization denials and slow reimbursement from insurers.

MA now covers more than half of the nation’s older adults, making these contract terminations increasingly consequential for patient access. Becker’s has tracked these decisions since 2023; our 2025 coverage is here.

24 health systems dropping Medicare Advantage plans:
Editor’s note: This is not an exhaustive list and includes contract breaks effective in or announced in 2026. It will continue to be updated this year.

1. Fairview Health Services will stop scheduling patients with UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plans effective Jan. 1, 2027. 
   
   
2. Providence, R.I.-based Brown University Health physicians are slated to go out of network with UnitedHealthcare MA on July 1. Brown’s hospitals went out of network with the insurer’s MA plans in July 2025.
   
   
3. Greenville, N.C.-based ECU Health is going out of network with UnitedHealthcare MA in phases, with Vidant Medical Group physicians out as of April 29 and the system’s hospitals slated to follow July 15.
   
   
4. Radnor, Pa.-based Main Line Health will be out of network with UnitedHealthcare MA on July 1.
   
   
5. Tampa, Fla.-based Moffitt Cancer Center went out of network with Aetna MA in December 2025 and will go out of network with Humana MA in July 2026.
   
   
6. NewYork-Presbyterian and UnitedHealthcare MA will go out of network on June 30 without a new agreement in place, following an extension of the original January deadline.
   
   
7. Spartanburg (S.C.) Regional went out of network with Aetna MA on April 15.
   
   
8. Portland, Ore.-based Legacy Health went out of network with Regence BCBS MA on April 1. Legacy hospital services remain accessible at in-network rates through March 2027, but clinic and provider services are out of network.
   
   
9. Tacoma, Wash.-based MultiCare no longer contracts with any nongroup MA PPO plans in the Puget Sound region.
   
   
10. Rochester, Minn.-based Mayo Clinic went out-of-network with most MA plans from UnitedHealthcare and Humana, per the Star Tribune.
    
    
11. Irvine, Calif.-based Providence Clinical Network, which includes 15 hospitals across California, went out of network with UnitedHealthcare MA in January.
    
    
12. New York City-based Mount Sinai went out of network with Anthem MA in January.
    
    
13. Chapel Hill, N.C.-based UNC Health went out of network with Humana, WellCare (Centene), and Health Care Service Corp. (formerly Cigna) MA plans in January.
    
    
14. Houston-based Memorial Hermann and BCBS Texas MA went out of network in January.
    
    
15. Allentown, Pa.-based Lehigh Valley Health Network went out of network with UnitedHealthcare MA on Jan. 25, 2026.
    
    
16. Lynchburg, Va.-based Centra Health dropped Humana MA in January.
    
    
17. Most primary care providers at Somerville, Mass.-based Mass General Brigham are no longer in network with MA plans from UnitedHealthcare or BCBS Massachusetts.
    
    
18. Boise, Idaho-based St. Luke’s Health System no longer accepts Humana MA.
    
    
19. Montrose (Colo.) Regional Health ended its contract with Humana MA in 2026.
    
    
20. Kettering (Ohio) Health no longer contracts with Humana and Devoted Health MA in 2026.
    
    
21. Clarion-based Iowa Specialty Hospitals and Clinics dropped all MA plans in 2026, except for Aetna, Medigold, UnitedHealthcare, and Wellmark BCBS.
    
    
22. Batesville, Ark.-based White River Health went out of network with Aetna MA in February.
    
    
23. Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Avera Health is no longer in-network with Aetna MA in 2026.
    
    
24. South Kingstown, R.I.-based South County Hospital is out of network with Aetna MA.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/16-health-systems-dropping-medicare-advantage-plans-2026/

Blacks dance across social media, stab the air with kitchen knives, call it ‘Austin Bop’ (for Austin Metcalf)

 by Olivia Murray

Ihave now written two essays in which the blacks introduced new social media trends to protest the Karmelo Anthony verdict. The first was where they would randomly attack and violently assault unwitting white people and accuse them of being involved with the “jury” or “jury selection.” The second involved them using AI to photoshop themselves into a picture of Austin Metcalf’s grave, making it look like they were urinating all over it. Now, for the third time in two weeks, they’ve got a new one, and this one is called the “Austin Bop”—it features them dancing to some unintelligible “rap” soundbite, and stabbing the air with kitchen knives, reenacting the stabbing of Austin Metcalf. Here are the lyrics, at least the ones I can make out:

Austin bop, knife had blood on the tip when he dropped

How the f–k he gon’ [?] niggas going out bad free my [Karme]lo out the box [?]

And, here they are in action:

So we aren’t to judge anyone by the color of their skin—an obviously easy demand to meet—but are we allowed to judge them by the content of their character? Because I happen to despise “character” like this.

I am also learning to never underestimate the sores of racial discontent, a reference to Saul Alinsky’s instruction to “rub raw the sores of discontent” of what he called the “Have-Nots.” I hate to have to preempt racial discussions by acknowledging that I’m speaking in generalities and not on a case-by-case basis because that much should go without saying—but I’m saying it anyway. Yes I can recognize that blacks as a whole have been whipped into an anti-white fit of envy and hate, and that sentiment is widespread in the population, but I can honestly say that reality doesn’t become the de facto assumption of every new black person I meet. As it shouldn’t. But it is still a massive problem. How am I supposed to live around people that behave like this, and lust for the murder of whites, simply because of our skin color? The Austin Bop clip is representative of black culture and attitudes. Blacks who don’t behave this way, or are willing to call it out for what it is, are too few indeed.

Where does that leave us?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/06/blacks_dance_across_social_media_and_stab_the_air_with_kitchen_knives_calling_it_the_austin_bop_for_austin_metcalf.html

Confronting the New Antisemitism

 

For many Jewish Democrats in particular, the post-10/7 period has meant progressing through the Five Stages of Grief. Those who reach acceptance will be positioned to lead American Jewry forward.

Hamas’ October 7 pogrom attack triggered ripple effects worldwide. Among them, American Jews’ long-term relationship with the American left, which had already begun fraying, deteriorated rapidly. Longtime Jewish Democrats have responded differently, but life has undeniably changed for American Jews at school, at work, and in the political sphere. Those shifts and efforts to grapple with them figured prominently at the American Jewish Committee (AJC)’s recent Global Forum.

The three-day, Washington-based conference showcased the pro-Israel, generally center-left American Jewish mainstream discussing this historical moment. Speakers addressed antizionism — that is, left-coded, socially acceptable Jew-hatred — and its related problems. And panels covered related topics, including: Jew-hatred in education, the generational divide on Israel and Zionism, the entertainment industry’s handling of Jew-hatred, and the United Nations’ bias. There was even a well-attended session entitled “Antizionism as a Hate Movement.”

Speakers acknowledged that the landscape has morphed. Dr. Laura Shaw Frank, AJC Vice President for Education, opened a plenary, “America at 250: Navigating This Moment in Jewish History,” by noting, “many Jews are experiencing a renewed sense of vulnerability. We are confronting rising antisemitism, growing hostility toward Israel, and a broader climate that raises urgent questions about belonging, security, and the future.” As author Dara Horn observed, “The problem now is that [the postwar effort “to rebrand Judaism as a religion”] has made it impossible for American Jews to understand what they are facing today, because what we are facing today is an attack on the idea of Jewish peoplehood.”  

This is a feature of Jew-hatred’s current, third era (antizionism). Earlier iterations targeted Jews as religiously wrong (antijudaism) and racial polluters (antisemitism).

At the entertainment industry panel, writer, producer, actor, and comedian Jamie Denbo described working within the system to effect change at the progressive show “Grey’s Anatomy” for a season and a half after October 7. Denbo hoped to develop a storyline about what Jews were experiencing and to educate staff about Jews, as the network regularly does for other salient issues. When those efforts failed, she left. Now unfettered, Denbo dubbed producing director Debbie Allen an “antisemite” and former “Grey’s” star and Tony winner Jesse Williams a “raging antisemite” who “started preaching some of the most vile antisemitic rhetoric out there,” including “dog rape . . . before anyone.” Denbo’s experience underscored that responses to Jew-hatred must evolve, along with the metastasizing problem.  

Writer and educator Boaz Munro raised the importance of Jews “drawing boundaries against [our enemies]” and confronting “a very obvious hate movement” at the antizionism panel. That session smashed the long-standing conventional wisdom that right-wing antisemitism is worse than antizionism. Munro contended that “antizionism is just as bad as antisemitism.”  

Vanderbilt University Professor of Jewish Studies and Sociology Shaul Kelner disagreed, characterizing antizionism as “worse.” Kelner explained, “You are more likely, in your own social circles, to be encountering discrimination from antizionists, rather than from racist antisemites. So, it hits us more directly, and because it’s . . .  ‘intellectually legitimized,’ and because it hits us in the places where we work, and shop, and play, and the books that we read, and the museums that we go to, it’s systemic, and it’s institutionalized.”

Trends in Blue America indisputably affect American Jews more. Jews may experience antisemitic abuse from strangers online, but facing antizionist comments or discrimination from friends and colleagues is worse.  

The antizionism session’s focus on Jewish self-respect, along with naming and confronting antizionism, was welcome. Some other moments at the conference were disappointing, though, as they better reflected American Jews’ reassuring past than the more complicated present.

The first such moment was a revealing off-hand comment from AJC Chief Impact and Operations Officer Casey Kustin, who discussed the fall’s American and Israeli elections with journalists. Kustin asked Axios’ Barak Ravid, “What happens in the fall if the House of Representatives flips to a Democratic House — and we’ll still have a strong pro-Israel majority leader in Hakeem Jeffries — but what happens if there’s a new [Israeli] Prime Minister?”

Calling Hakeem Jeffries strongly pro-Israel is overpromising at this point. First, even if Jeffries continues to personally support Israel, he’s unlikely to introduce pro-Israel bills if his caucus opposes them, should he become House Speaker. Second, Jeffries has surely seen recent polling of his base. Gallup announced that “65% of Democrats say their sympathies lie more with the Palestinians, while 17% say they sympathize more with the Israelis.” Pew Research reported that “eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently have an unfavorable view of Israel.” The Manhattan Institute found “only 16% [of Democrats’ coalition] are willing to say that Israel is a legitimate country facing serious security threats, and that while its actions are not perfect, it is largely acting in self-defense.” If Democrats win the House in November, and Israel becomes a litmus test in a House Speaker’s race, it’s more likely that Jeffries weakens his support or sidesteps the issue as much as possible.

Jeffries is a team player. In 2024, he endorsed anti-Israel Democrats Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-MO), and Summer Lee (D-PA). This spring, Jeffries warmly welcomed the victory of Pennsylvania House candidate Chris Rabb, who’d tweeted “the Nakba never ended,” and New Jersey House candidate Adam Hamawy, who volunteered with an al-Qaeda front group and testified on behalf of the Blind Sheikh, who was tried and convicted on terrorism-related charges and sentenced to life in prison in 1996. Jeffries’ track record isn’t that of someone likely to make a principled last stand for Israel.

By contrast, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who conversed with AJC CEO Ted Deutsch and Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), has already withstood attacks for making such a stand. Asked what’s prompted his reassuring statements since October 7, Fetterman said he’s “a student of history.” Societies have repeatedly turned on Jews “when they’re under siege . . . I have always promised that I will never be one part of that, and” among Democrats, “I plan to be the last man standing.”

The second disappointment came when Deutsch asked Fetterman about Democrats’ Jew-hatred. Deutsch framed the issue as “encroaching antisemitism on the far-left,” and as a problem “in some circles within the Democratic Party” that acceptance now requires being “anti-Israel.” It’s positive that Deutsch asked, but this is not a fringe problem.  

The Manhattan Institute reported, “only 4% of [Democratic coalition] respondents describe themselves as openly antisemitic, though 18–29 year old voters (8%) are much more likely to do so than over-65 voters (1%).” (Many more respondents would presumably self-identify as antizionists.) Regardless, the majority tolerates these views. “Less than half (44%) say that such individuals are unwelcome and do not represent their views.” Another “15% say they’ve had enough of purity tests, and antisemitism should not be counted against people, and an additional 15% say it is acceptable to seek the votes of antisemites, but they should not be in positions of power and leadership.”  

Fetterman rightly addressed left-wing Jew-hatred by pointing to Democratic candidates. “You know, we’re old enough to remember that if somebody had a Nazi tattoo, they’re a Nazi sympathizer. But now, that’s okay. People will defend that.” Fetterman also cited Pennsylvania’s Rabb, who “ran on being very, very anti-Israel,” which is “not just acceptable; it’s actually [considered] a virtue.” Fetterman added, “Democrats will campaign and proudly stand with Hasan Piker,” who’s said, “Hamas is 1,000% better than Israel.” Lastly, “people in our party probably announce they will now vote against Iron Dome. You know, purely defensive [weaponry] . . . even an organization like J Street now said, ‘That’s okay.’ That’s their official view. You know, that’s political cover for people to vote against these things.”  

Fetterman sees his party and its failings on Israel and Jew-hatred clearly. His clarity was matched by current undergraduates, who recounted stories of campus Jew-hatred later that morning and asked practical questions about combating it at the antizionism panel. These young Jewish adults see the threat because they face it regularly on campus and online. They’ve also only ever known a youth culture that stigmatizes Zionists.  

For Jews of Gen X and older, who knew America as a country with minimal open Jew-hatred, this has been an unpleasant adjustment. And for many Jewish Democrats in particular, the post-10/7 period has meant progressing through the Five Stages of Grief for lost friends and political allies. It’s those Jews who reach acceptance, though, who will be positioned to lead American Jewry forward, developing the necessary, innovative solutions for this next chapter of Jewish history.

https://www.civitasoutlook.com/research/confronting-the-new-antisemitism-e16cdcf0-a6b4-4c0d-8b97-6aa7703e443d

A Social Media Ban For Minors Requires Data From Everyone

 by Luke Nelson and Mike Campbell via The Epoch Times,

In debating a social media ban for minors, it appears we face a choice between two perceived harms.

One is the reported damage that social media is doing to the mental health of children and adolescents.

The other is the normalization of mass age verification systems—most likely involving biometrics—that would apply to everyone, not just minors.

This carries real risks of privacy invasion, data breaches, and future mission creep.

There is little dispute that many Western countries have experienced a rise in youth mental health problems beginning around 2010–2012 (when Smartphones and social media exploded). Anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide rates among adolescents, particularly girls, have increased dramatically since this period. There is disagreement, however, not over whether these spikes exist, but whether they can be attributed specifically to social media. The lingering effects of the pandemic and lockdowns, and family breakdown are just some of the other factors that could be in play.

Data debates aside, most Canadians with common sense and personal experience using social media for prolonged periods of time would admit that doing so is harmful for their mental health, no matter their age. So, what should we do?

Whatever steps we take, resorting to broad government-mandated bans and mass surveillance should not be one of them.

Australia offers the clearest real-world test of such a policy. Since its under-16 social media ban took effect on Dec. 10, 2025, platforms operating in the country, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, and Kick, have been required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent users under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Platforms guilty of breaching this new law can reach up to AU$49.5 million.

Australia’s legislation “specifically prohibits platforms from compelling Australians to provide a government-issued ID or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age.” To comply with the law, platforms have implemented widespread use of behavioural analysis, device signals, and facial age estimation scans. By mid-December 2025, platforms had already removed access to approximately 4.7 million suspected under-16 accounts.

But large numbers of teenagers quickly found workarounds. Surveys conducted in early 2026 show that more than 60 percent of under-16s who had accounts before the ban continue to access at least one restricted platform. Common methods include using borrowed phones or parents’ ID, fake age declarations, VPNs, and printed mesh masks to fool facial recognition.

Without robust age verification systems, therefore, a meaningful ban doesn’t exist.

It might initially remove under 16s, but millions of ineligible minors will find a way to return to these platforms, as has taken place in Australia.

This begs an important question: What is the point of an age verification system that is only half effective?

This would create a new set of problems including the loss of privacy rights for everyone, without actually solving the underlying problem the legalization is reportedly designed to fix.

Canada is aware of this conundrum. What would Canada do, then, to both kick minors off the platforms and keep them off the platforms? There is no reason to think that parental oversight or enforcement will be any different here than across the Pacific.

One possibility is social media users must submit verification of identity every time they log in to the platform. The most obvious way to do this would be a government-mediated login system. This would essentially grant government an immense amount of metadata about who logs in to what, how often, etc.

Another possibility would be for social media platforms themselves to monitors users’ data, either by periodically scanning faces and matching it to submitted photo ID, or by evaluating user behaviour (i.e., what content is being accessed and predicting the age of users). This would give an immense amount of data to social media companies that, if retained, could lead to significant privacy violations. Imagine a camera monitoring you every time you use Instagram or Facebook. Think about the fact that biometric technology can already be used to predict age based on wrinkles, skin texture and elasticity, facial proportions, eye shape, hairline, and bone structure. Researchers have even found statistical correlations between typing speed, error patterns, touch pressure, and age.

In this latter possibility, Canadians would be handing highly sensitive biometric data (faces, fingerprints, typing style, etc.) to foreign corporations that are subject to foreign laws (U.S. CLOUD Act, Chinese national intelligence law, etc.). These companies can be compelled by their own governments to hand over your personal and identifiable data. This type of data is also permanent. If it gets hacked, leaked, or demanded by a foreign government, you cannot change it like a password.

Finally, a mandatory social media ban for minors under 16 would significantly restrict their ability to access information about the world. Freedom of expression under the Charter section 2(b) includes not only the right to speak, but also the right to receive information. Canadian courts have recognized this in several cases. Social media platforms have become one of the primary ways many young people receive news, public debates, educational content, and diverse viewpoints.

One doesn’t have to be an absolutist to value freedom and privacy, but the fact of the matter is we have not tried alternative strategies that would minimally impair this fundamental freedom of privacy for everyone, and freedom of speech for minors. Yes, facial recognition is already used voluntarily on some platforms (such as dating apps). And a driver’s licence is often required from gambling sites to ensure compliance with the law. But there is a profound difference between choosing to use one of these sites and being required by law to submit biometric data to participate in modern public discourse. The scale is also vastly different.

We should pursue less invasive strategies instead of choosing between an ineffective ban or a robust and draconian one. Aggressive cultural campaigns against early smartphone use, phone-free schools until at least Grade 9 or 10, and better parental control tools have all shown meaningful results for youth mental health in multiple studies. Stronger platform liability for addictive design specifically aimed at children could also be pursued.

At the end of the day, parents are responsible for their children’s social media use with or without a law that requires everyone share their digital data. In other words, even if a robust law existed, parents would still be responsible to ensure their children avoid workarounds.

The instinct to protect children is good, but we cannot protect them by quietly dismantling the privacy and freedom of the entire society. The cure must not be worse than the disease.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/social-media-ban-minors-requires-data-everyone

Inside California’s Gay-Certification Program

 Americans are used to handouts for favored groups. Affirmative action in university admissions, corporate “diversity” initiatives, and minority-owned contracting requirements direct opportunities, resources, and contracts to supposedly “oppressed” groups, such as women, Native Americans, blacks, and Hispanics.

In California, state Democrats have embraced another kind of favoritism: contracts for state-certified gay-owned businesses.

The scheme operates through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which regulates privately owned utility companies. California utilities spent more than $43 billion in 2024 on contractors—fuel suppliers, surveyors, engineers, and others—whose work helps deliver water, gas, electricity, and internet service to California’s 39 million residents.

In 1986, Governor George Deukmejian signed Assembly Bill 3678, which required certain CPUC-regulated utilities to submit annual “plans” for buying goods and services from woman- and minority-owned companies. Two years later, CPUC created its “Supplier Diversity Program,” which would enforce the law and set contracting “goals” for large utilities.

Under a series of Democratic governors, the program has expanded to include gay-owned businesses. In September 2014, then-Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring CPUC to recognize “LGBT-owned businesses” as eligible for supplier-diversity benefits. Five years later, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded the program further, “encouraging” other companies involved in the energy sector to award contracts to gay-owned firms.

In the years that followed, CPUC faced activist pressure as it implemented the gay expansion. BuildOUT California, a since-rebranded LGBT building-industry organization, sent a letter to the commission arguing that “homophobia” existed within “the ranks of the utility companies.” The state’s legislative LGBTQ caucus suggested in a 2021 letter that even considering lower gay-procurement targets was “an insult to the LGBTQ+ community.”

By 2022, CPUC had fully implemented the expansion. In practice, this meant establishing a “goal” for utility companies with annual revenues exceeding $25 million to buy things from state-certified LGBT businesses: 0.5 percent of procurement in 2022; 1 percent in 2023; and 1.5 percent in 2024 and beyond. If “large” CPUC-regulated utilities met these “goals” in 2024, they would have sent roughly $633 million to LGBT-owned firms.

This scheme raises an obvious question: How does a business qualify as officially gay? Paperwork. Supplier Clearinghouse, a group that certifies firms for the CPUC program, features a list of qualifications linked on its website. Applicants can secure certification by providing a letter from an “LGBT organization” attesting to their sexual preferences; proof that a newspaper identified them as “LGBT”; or three letters from “personal contacts” written “on company letterhead” attesting to their homosexual orientation. Corporate officials who “falsely represent” their business as gay face up to a year in county jail.

Supplier Clearinghouse also accepts gay-certification letters from the National LGBTQ+ & Allied Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has its own list of accepted documents, including human resources complaints or police records claiming LGBT discrimination. As NGLCC states on its website, “Certification is a journey, not a destination.”

Mary Ann Horton has experienced this “journey” firsthand. Horton, an early internet pioneer credited with helping develop the e-mail attachment, is a white male who “transitioned” and is now married to a woman. Horton’s company, Red Ace, is registered in California as a woman- and LGBT-owned business.

The application process, Horton told City Journal, required “a mess of documentation.” To prove that Red Ace was “lesbian-owned,” Horton sent Supplier Clearinghouse a domestic-partner affidavit. To establish that the business was woman-owned, Horton submitted a birth certificate, which had been reissued in Washington State post-“transition.” To prove transgender status, Horton filed a “therapist carry-letter,” a document from a medical professional certifying transgender identity.

These designations came with perks. After Red Ace secured these labels, Horton said, San Diego Gas & Electric brought the company on as a part-time cybersecurity contractor. During the hiring process, Horton told us, a company official said that being on the diversity list made the contract much easier to secure.

“If I was a straight, white male, I might be concerned I don’t have the same opportunity,” Horton said. “It worked out great for me.”

LGBT-owned companies in California play other roles. In 2022, SDG&E spent $8.6 million, or 0.36 percent of procurement, on LGBT businesses, apparently including one that produced a training video on supplier diversity. “Never fear when your Ambassador for Excellence is here,” an animated character says in the video. “I can show you exactly how to source diverse vendors.” Other certified LGBT businesses in California include a sign-language interpreter, a kombucha maker, and a “coaching” firm whose services include a “series” to help people “manage” their feelings about “[t]he latest election cycle.”

In California, preferential public contracting is technically illegal. In 1996, voters approved Proposition 209, which banned the state from granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, education, and contracting. More than two decades later, in 2020, they rejected an effort to repeal the ban.

CPUC’s arm-twisting regulations violate the spirit of the law. The commission lists several specific “goals” for utilities’ contracting rates: 15 percent to minority-owned firms; 5 percent to women-owned firms; 1.5 percent to disabled-veteran-owned firms; and, most recently, 1.5 percent to LGBT-owned firms. It claims that these goals are not a “requirement” or “quota.” In practice, however, the agency cajoles utilities into compliance by requiring them to collect extensive demographic data, submit detailed annual reports, list their plans for increasing procurement from favored groups, and explain “any circumstances that may have resulted in not meeting” their procurement “goals.”

Despite the commission’s efforts, however, utilities and businesses don’t seem interested in LGBT certification. Large utilities’ procurement with LGBT-owned businesses decreased by 5 percent in 2024. Supplier Clearinghouse lists 3,750 Minority Business Enterprises, but only 451 LGBT-certified firms.

CPUC did not respond to our request for comment by deadline.

The state imposed these rules based on the view that government spending should not merely purchase goods and services, but should also engineer social outcomes. Under this framework, buying a hammer from a firm owned by a black transgender lesbian has more social value than buying the same hammer from a firm owned by a straight white man.

But Californians don’t need an energy system delivered by gay contractors; they need an energy system that works. Utility regulators should be in the business of regulating utilities, not verifying contractors’ sexual preferences. Companies should award contracts based on competence, quality, and cost—not the sexuality of the business owners.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of America’s Cultural Revolution. Austen Hufford is a senior investigative reporter at City Journal.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/california-gay-business-contracts-utilities