Natalie M Fleming

Neutral

I hold life as sacred. When a man is mature enough, respects women enough to open the door for a woman, he can ask for consent to intimacy, and consent to conception. We can easily resolve 85% of abortions simply by men seeking consent to intimacy, and consent for conception. Focusing on abortion issues absolves men their responsibility for consensual conception. Only 25 of 1000 rapes are successfully prosecuted to incarceration. When a woman does report, she is often persecuted for doing so.

Disagree

Beyond this question: some of the threats that actually keep me up at night are not on this survey. Uncontrolled AI development, unrestrained mass surveillance, and supporting data centers built with no public oversight are an imminent threat, reshaping who holds power faster than any single issue listed here. I want real regulation: transparency requirements, hard limits on data collection, and public accountability before these systems become too embedded to rein in.

I chose life when I was assaulted. I learned the hard way that a woman's life and her child's life is in danger for choosing life whether or not she reports. Abortions must be allowed when a woman is assaulted or her health and life are at risk. As it is unsafe for women to report assault, and women are left to reach the point of death before a doctor is legally able to help her, the law fails women. Thus the only honorable solution is to support women. Teach men to honor women is the only path.

Agree

When a woman's life and health are at risk, we must help her. If she is assaulted she needs help quickly.

Strongly Disagree

Again, if men seek consent for both intimacy and conception, 85% of abortions are resolved. All others left are the life and health of the mother. Problem solved. Women need quick assistance and support in crisis. If you want to support women choosing life, you must support women by being there for them as a mother throughout her motherhood. Support her with her toddlers, support her with her pre-teens, and for heavens sake, support her with her teens.

Agree

While free enterprise builds a strong flexible economy, the government has a responsibility to protect us against monopolies, and against massive corporations taking over our communities. Our economy must be household centered, not Wall Street centered. We must prevent massive international firms from buying up homes. Until the American Dream is fulfilled, and families own their own homes, we are enslaved by the economic beast. We must shift our food supply from global to local for resilience.

Agree

Yes, but higher taxes alone will not solve our financial problems. Those who can afford to contribute more should help working families, while government reduces waste, improves accountability, and funds programs that deliver results. We should also lower taxes strategically for workers and small businesses to encourage spending, hiring, and growth. Fair taxation, targeted tax relief, and disciplined spending must work together.

Strongly Agree

Bring our troops home, and build America. Eliminate government waste by mapping each service, defining measurable outcomes, and removing steps that add no public value. Standardize work, digitize repetitive tasks, prevent errors at the source, and fund programs based on verified results. Use independent audits, transparent contracts, open spending data, and protected whistleblowers. Test reforms in small pilots, track cost, speed, quality, and equity, then scale what works and stop what doesn’t.

Invest in people, communities, and infrastructure. 1. Invest in people: safe, well-fed children with strong education grow into peaceful, resilient, contributing adults, reducing long-term social costs. 2. Strengthen communities and essential infrastructure—schools, roads, water, and local energy—to support healthy, self-reliant economies. 3. Streamline government agencies by eliminating duplication, simplifying outdated processes, auditing spending, and ending programs that do not produce.

Strongly Disagree

No one should ever be required to do that which is against their moral code of ethics and faith.

To me it means government can never establish, coerce, or favor one faith. Religion should not be silent in public life. I quote scripture to argue for immigrants or compassion; that's persuasion, open to anyone. The Pentagon running Christian worship services, or a pastor demanding non-Christians lose office, that's state power fused to one theology. Establishment is the line: government picks no faith. Every faith enriches us with its own enlightened view. Government answers to none of them.

A healthy population is a matter of national security. A weakened workforce and an economy strained by medical bankruptcies leave the whole country weaker. We're the wealthiest nation in history. Leaving people behind for lack of money is a failure of priorities. Government-funded health insurance should be available to anyone who needs it, alongside private options. Choice stays intact. Everyone gets covered.

Strongly Disagree

Stop tracking us. Who decided dental and vision aren't basic health care. We shouldn't have to go to Mexico for reasonable dental prices. Why are reading glasses 5 for $10 while distance vision is hundreds of dollars? Again a healthy workforce needs dental and vision. Teach healthy living in diet and exercise in schools. Ensure children get plenty of outdoor time. Encouraging healthy lifestyles in early years and beyond and it lowers all health care costs. Get some sunlight in the morning.

None of these name what actually causes conflict. Hunger breeds unrest, so support international self-reliance: greening deserts, building food forests, helping nations feed themselves. Authoritarian regimes gain power through supply chains the world depends on. Localize those chains, and dictators lose their leverage. My foreign policy starts upstream, fixing hunger and dependency before conflict starts, not managing wars after they've already begun. Oh, and we are becoming the tyrant.

Strongly Agree

Yes, the CCP threatens us militarily, in cyberspace, on IP, and economically. But the world compares China to the America we actually show it, not an ideal one. When we mistreat allies and grow internationally unreliable, that comparison favors Beijing. The CCP didn't create that opening. Our own conduct did. Naming China as the threat while ignoring our own failures treats the symptom and skips the cause.

Israelis and Palestinians are all children of God, and that alone means both deserve dignity and security. October 7th was a horrific atrocity, and Israel response has committed horrific violations. Palestinians want to stay on their land instead of forced removal dressed as voluntary emigration, rebuild what's destroyed, and finally vote again after twenty years. A real ally tells the truth in both directions. We must remember our common humanity/

Agree

Islamic terrorism is real and has taken American lives, so yes, it's a threat we take seriously. But extremism isn't unique to Islam. Every faith holds the seeds of both peace and violence within its own texts. People seeking peace reach for the peaceful verses of their tradition. People seeking conflict reach for the violent ones, and cite scripture to justify what they already wanted to do. The threat isn't a religion, it's the extremism that hijacks any faith to serve violence.

Who gets to immigrate starts with a harder question: why are they leaving home in the first place? Failed foreign policy breeds the hunger, conflict, and instability that drive migration, so real immigration reform starts upstream, not just at the border. At home, our system is a labyrinth that punishes people for trying to come here legally, years of delay, absurd backlogs, rules that make the lawful path harder than crossing illegally ever was. Fix the maze we already have.

Strongly Agree

I support sanctuary cities because I support separation of powers and local self-determination. When a community decides its undocumented neighbors contribute and belong, that is local judgment working as it should, not federal overreach. Federal forces belong in federal jurisdiction, not patrolling local streets against a community's own decisions. Sanctuary cities rest on the same federalism principle conservatives champion everywhere else: let communities govern their own affairs.

Strongly Disagree

Eliminating the Department entirely swings too far. What we need is balance: local communities and states know their students and classrooms best, and they should hold real decision-making power over curriculum and daily operations. But a federal role still matters, protecting civil rights, funding for low-income and disabled students, and basic standards so a child's education does not depend entirely on their zip code. Reform the balance. Do not eliminate the safeguard.

Agree

Yes, with a specific target: authoritarian governments should not buy influence in American classrooms. Confucius Institutes gave the Chinese Communist Party a foothold on our campuses, and that was worth shutting down. I support real transparency: full disclosure of foreign government funding to schools and universities, and limits on money from authoritarian states. What I do not support is vague fear of globalism used to attack international exchange or academic freedom broadly.

Neutral

Calling this child abuse goes too far and shuts down a conversation that deserves care. Medical transition should wait for adulthood, when a person can make that permanent choice for themselves. But every child, regardless of how they experience their identity, deserves kindness, support, and dignity from the adults around them. Protecting children from irreversible decisions and treating them with compassion are not opposites. Both matter, and neither requires calling loving parents abusers.

Disagree

For me, personally, marriage is a sacred, God-ordained union between one man and one woman. That's my faith, and I hold it fully. But separation of church and state means I don't get to write my theology into everyone else's marriage license. Government exists to protect equal rights under the law, not to enforce one religion's definition of a sacred institution on people who don't share that faith. My beliefs govern my life, not my neighbor's.

Every person is a child of God, worthy of dignity regardless of birthplace, sex, race, or faith. I believe we will all stand accountable before God for how we treated His children, every one of them, not just the ones who share our nation, our skin, or our creed. That belief shapes how I approach public service: look for reasons to do good rather than excuses to withhold it. We are responsible to our communities, not as a favor we grant when convenient, but as a debt we owe for being here. Faith, for me, is not a private comfort separate from public life. It is the reason I show up for people who have the least power to demand that I do. Dignity is not earned by birth, geography, or belief. It is owed, and I try to live like that is true.

Disagree

Photo ID to vote is reasonable, and I support it, on one condition: government makes ID genuinely accessible to every citizen, free and easy to obtain. What I do not support is a bill like the SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship documents matching your current name. Millions of married women changed their name at marriage, so their birth certificate no longer matches their ID. That is not election security. That is a hoop built to trip up women who did nothing but get married.

Neutral

This question treats a person as a threat before they have done anything, and I reject that framing. Real safety concerns deserve real answers, not an entire group written out of public life. Women deserve safety. Trans people deserve to exist without being treated as predators by default. Both are true at once. If we look for conflict, we will find it every time. If we choose to look for solutions instead, we can build spaces that are safe for women and humane for everyone.

Hydro and rooftop solar are proven and land-friendly. Solar farms create heat-island effects and eat farmland. Nuclear works, but demands real safety oversight. A careful mix, weighted toward hydro and rooftop solar, meets growing demand responsibly.

No

No

Choose not to answer

The left-right spectrum itself is too limiting to describe how I actually think. Real solutions often sit completely outside that line, not somewhere between the two poles, but off the axis entirely. I want to protect the environment and secure the border. I want faith to shape how I live and government to stay neutral about whose faith wins. Most days, I land wherever the evidence and the people actually affected point me. The stars are not linear and neither are our real solutions.

Strongly Agree

Agreed, and it doesn't stop at exploitation. The same surveillance infrastructure built to protect children can just as easily become the architecture of authoritarian control, watching everyone, not just predators. Uncontrolled AI paired with mass data collection gives any future government the tools to monitor, profile, and silence its own citizens. Protecting children requires real safeguards. So does protecting everyone else from the surveillance state built to do it.

I support the Second Amendment fully. Many of the restrictions people call for already exist on the books. Having lived briefly in cities as different as Seattle, Taipei, and Salt Lake, I've seen how differently gun policy needs to work depending on density, culture, and existing law enforcement capacity. That's exactly why I don't think one federal standard fits every community. Local communities should decide their own additional measures, not Washington. I prefer living safely in Idaho.