Being a parent is nonstop hard work, making it challenging to stay on top of news that impacts families in Washington state. Below are highlights and commentary on key policy updates and headlines from the week of Dec. 8-14.
Pregnancy-related deaths up in WA
A report released by the state health department shows the number of mothers who died of pregnancy-related causes jumped up in both 2021 and 2022 compared with previous years. A death is called pregnancy-related if it’s caused by a health condition contracted during pregnancy or from a previous condition exacerbated by pregnancy.
The report, issued by Washington’s Maternal Mortality Review Panel, found that 51 people died of pregnancy-related causes in those two years — either during pregnancy or within a year of giving birth. That accounts for 0.03% percent (30 of 100,000) live births in the state in those years. They also found that a majority of the deaths — 80% — could have been prevented.
The report is more evidence that better access to prenatal care, culturally competent care, doula care, home visits, and housing and food assistance plays an important role in preventing pregnancy-related death by identifying symptoms and conditions that can be treated successfully. Check out KUOW’s coverage of this important story.
2026 legislative session
Washington’s colleges and universities saw their budgets cut, their tuition hiked, and financial aid programs impacted during the 2025 legislative session as lawmakers tried to deal with a multi-billion-dollar deficit. During the 2026 session, which begins Jan. 12, Rep. Julia Reed, D-Seattle, hopes to improve all that.
Last week, Reed prefiled House Bill 2098 in preparation for the upcoming session. The bill’s title, “Adjusting higher education funding,” would include a 10% a year tuition reduction for three school years beginning Fall of 2027. It would also expand student eligibility for the Washington College Grant.
How does Reed propose the state pay for the adjustment? Reed wants to erase the cap on the advanced computing surcharge paid to the state by firms with global revenue above $25 billion. The legislation is likely to get a lot of pushback, but with the cost of higher education making it harder and harder for families to send their kids to college, it’s certainly worth a try. Read about this and other pre-session bill filings on the Washington State Standard website.
Protecting kids from online platforms
As I wrote in last week’s Roundup column, two state lawmakers from King County plan to reintroduce mirror bills in the state Senate and House of Representatives to protect kids by forcing companies to mitigate the impacts of their addictive online platforms. The bills would require companies to change their designs as well as the way in which they gather data on users, especially children, while at the same time encouraging users to engage in healthier relationships with the platforms. You can read the full story on the proposed legislation.
In the meantime …
Take action: To better understand this major issue impacting kids’ mental health, check out our story on the documentary film “Can’t Look Away: The Case Against Social Media.” The film is available to view online at Jolt.Film. Then reach out to your state legislative representatives to share your thoughts on SB5708 and HB1834. Contact members of the Washington State House of Representatives and Washington State Senate.
Should WA ban police from wearing face coverings?
You’ve seen the photos and videos of masked immigration agents, federal agents, and, in some cases, even local police when confronting people across the country. A masked police authority is terrifying for the people and kids confronted by them, and, since September, banned in California, the first state to enact a face-mask ban for law enforcement officers.
Despite the Trump administration filing a lawsuit against the California mask prohibition in November, two Washington lawmakers hope they can get a similar ban through the upcoming 2026 state legislative session.
Sen. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, and Rep. Julio Cortes, D-Everett, plan to introduce a bill that resembles California’s law and is consistent with Washington’s existing law requiring officers to be “reasonably identifiable.” Under current law in this state, officers’ uniforms are required to display names and other identifying details. The ban they propose would include exemptions — for example, face-covering protective gear like motorcycle helmets, or for officers who need them in undercover operations.
In a Washington State Standard article posted last week, Cortes said this of the effort:
“Trust is essential for crime reporting. When folks trust their local law enforcement, they are going to be reporting more crime. When we see ICE out there, when those masked agents are out in communities, they create fear and intimidation, and that discourages community members from interacting with any law enforcement, even when they need help themselves.”
While California grapples with the lawsuit against its ban, Cortes and Valdez are thinking ahead. If courts void California’s law, a law passed in Washington would stay on the books in this state and apply only to local and state law enforcement.
Is a ban on non-medically necessary, identity-obscuring masks really an issue of importance to families? Absolutely, and not only if your family belongs to any of the immigrant or racial groups targeted by the Trump administration’s policies. As a city, as a community, and as parents, we want and need our kids to trust that law enforcement officials are there to protect us, not terrorize or target us. Toward that end, all of us, adults and kids, must be able to identify authority figures who carry weapons in the name of protecting the community. Check out the full story in the Washington State Standard.
Take action: Make your voice heard on matters important to you and your family. Reach out to your state legislative representatives to share your thoughts on the use of identity-obscuring face masks by law enforcement. Contact members of the Washington State House of Representatives and Washington State Senate.
Birthright citizenship will be heard by the Supreme Court
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a watershed case disputing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship — a 14th Amendment right that has given children born to undocumented immigrants or other foreign residents automatic U.S. citizenship. Trump signed the order on his first day in office.
According to an article in the Washington State Standard, the court will likely hear the case sometime in early 2026. Other news sources say a ruling would then be expected by summer 2026.
In the meantime, a four-state, Washington-led case against Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen immigrants in the U.S. remains in play. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois filed that lawsuit on Jan. 21.
On Feb. 6, a U.S. District Court judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order. That injunction was affirmed by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
While the lower court injunctions and blocks in “Washington v. Trump” remain in effect, the court’s decision to hear the landmark constitutionality case could end up deciding the states’ case as well.
“Trump Accounts”
You may have heard about the new “Trump Accounts,” a newly created type of tax-advantaged savings and investment account designed to help American kids start building long-term financial assets. Established by President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the accounts are intended to give children a financial leg up on the future, starting at birth.
Under the law, children born in the U.S. between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, will receive a one-time $1,000 contribution from the federal government deposited into their account. Following that, parents, employers, and others can add up to $5,000 in contributions per year to the account. Access will be given when a child turns 18. To be eligible, kids must be under age 18, have a social security number, and be U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately, according to a piece in The New York Times, current planning for the accounts could result in many kids being left out. The biggest concern? Currently, the Treasury Department has the authority to automatically enroll children, but it isn’t planning to exercise this authority. Instead, parents will need to opt their kids into the program.
“That’s a very serious policy design concern,” Professor Huang said to Times reporters. “It’s highly likely we’re going to miss millions of children.” Read the full story in the New York Times.
Take action: Online enrollment should be open to parents starting in mid-2026, with seed contributions starting in July. To enroll your children, keep checking at TrumpAccounts.gov.
The Good Read: Where art is the community
What does it take to create a mural that truly represents the community? Input from the community. And gathering that is just what artists did as they began to envision ‘Beacon of Community,’ the new mural that graces the Rainier Valley Food Bank building. According to the South Seattle Emerald, the mural met its goal of capturing life in Seattle’s southend neighborhood. Read the story about art as a community connector in the South Seattle Emerald.
