1. United States
2. Ariz.
3. Letter

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding legislative proposals that would redefine the term "dependent child" in SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Specifically, the recent House Republican budget proposal—alongside bills introduced by Representatives Dusty Johnson, Randy Feenstra, and Warren Davidson—suggests that children over the age of seven would no longer be considered dependents for work requirement exemptions. This raises an urgent question: What work do lawmakers expect a seven-year-old to perform that justifies removing their dependent status? A second grader is entirely reliant on their caregivers for shelter, food, education, and emotional development. Adjusting this definition places undue strain on low-income families, single parents, and the children affected by these policy changes. Additionally, these proposals appear to reinforce the expectation that marriage is a prerequisite for financial stability and child-rearing. While stable family structures are undeniably important, imposing institutional frameworks through policy rather than acknowledging the realities of modern family dynamics is concerning. Caring for life is not dependent on marriage—it is a societal responsibility that demands thoughtful governance. I urge you to reconsider the implications of these policies and advocate for legislative solutions that genuinely support families rather than burden them with unrealistic expectations. I would appreciate your thoughts on any actions you plan to take in response.