Jennifer Decker

A fetus has full personhood from conception, and should be recognized as having the God-given and inalienable right to life that is protected by the Constitution of the United States. Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Advocates for abortion resist referring to life in the womb as a baby. Abortion-rights advocates seek to dehumanize life in the womb by insisting that an abortion is simply the removal of unformed material. For this reason, abortion advocates fought hard against Kentucky’s ultrasound law that requires abortionists to perform and explain both an obstetric ultrasound and auscultation of fetal heartbeat prior to performing an abortion. This law is a threat to the abortion industry because, once many women see the baby developing in their womb and hear the heartbeat, they know that having an abortion would be killing a child…stopping a heartbeat. There should be no exceptions to abortion. No one should need the services of an abortionist to save the life of the mother. There are legitimate medical procedures doctors can perform if a fetus threatens the life of a mother. The primary goal of an abortion is to destroy a living human embryo or fetus, while the death of an unborn child is a secondary result of a necessary medical treatment that has as its primary goal saving the life of the mother in a situation that is life-threatening to her because of the fetus. In cases of incest or rape, the baby that results does not deserve to be killed by abortion. While abortion proponents counsel women in these circumstances that their only solution is to abort the baby, pro-life counselors help women cope with the trauma they have been through and to see the baby living in their womb as a blessing. The truth is that millions of adults desire to adopt and care for babies who are unwanted by their biological parents, regardless of the race or national origins of the children, and regardless of the medical needs they may have. In cases of extreme poverty, pro-death abortion proponents argue that a mother of an unwanted child should have the right to kill the baby because they and their unwanted child would live in poverty if the child were born alive. Once life begins in the womb and until natural death, however, decisions of life and death should never be made on economic grounds. All life is sacred and should not be cheapened by the assertion that there are economic reasons to kill a human life. The entire economic argument about abortion is built upon the falsehood that, if advocates for life encourage poor women not to abort their babies, they must also advocate for endless government expenditures to pay for the needs of each child not aborted. This argument is a tactic pro-abortionists use. They predict that millions of unwanted children who are not aborted will wreak havoc on society and require government assistance for life. The truth is that there are waiting lists for adoption, and that public assistance was never meant to be a lifelong entitlement. While abortion advocates consider a life of poverty as the valueless fate of every non-aborted baby, the truth is, as stated above, that millions of adults desire to adopt and care for babies who are unwanted by their biological parents, regardless of the race or national origins of the children, and regardless of the medical needs they may have. There is no truth to the argument that abortion is necessary because pro-life advocates stand against a social safety net for children born into poverty. Honest debates around social welfare programs of today turn not on whether they should exist, but rather on what the goals of welfare should be. Some hold that welfare should be used to reduce poverty through an ever-larger welfare state, while others argue that the goals of social programs should be to increase self-sufficiency, to enhance and encourage recipients’ productive participation in society, and to improve the well-being and upward mobility of those who receive government assistance. The latter position was actually the one that President Lyndon Johnson took when he announced his War on Poverty. He specifically contended that his policies would reduce welfare dependence, not sustain it. President Johnson claimed that the War on Poverty would reduce both the symptoms and the causes of poverty by changing abilities and behaviors so that welfare would become unnecessary. Pro-life proponents stand for human dignity at every state of life. While we understand and support providing financial assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves, we also stand for these truths: There is dignity in self-reliance for the able-bodied, and welfare dependence decreases both the well-being of capable adults and their children. The welfare state must be reformed. Regardless of economic factors, personal choice, or the circumstances under which life was created, however, human life should be cherished and protected at every stage.

Strongly Agree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

KY's General Assembly should pass HB 8 in the 2022 Regular Session, to reduce the income tax to zero over time and expand consumption taxes. HB 475 in the 2022 Regular Session to authorize a question on the 2023 ballot that will allow voters to accept or reject an amendment to Section 181 of the Constitution of Kentucky to permit the General Assembly to authorize a county, city, town, or municipal corporation to assess and collect local taxes and fees that are not otherwise in conflict with the Constitution. Reducing the state income tax rate to zero, expanded state consumption taxes to broaden the tax base, and allowing local jurisdictions flexibility in taxation will allow KY to attract new residents and business that will boost our states economy and provide a higher quality of life.

I would reform welfare programs to require work for the able-bodied, which would reduce spending. I would also review all tax expenditures to ensure they are bringing in an adequate return on investment. Corporate welfare should be cut.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

HB 43 in the 2022 Regular Session sets forth the appropriate rule: In a state of emergency, places of worship shall not be deemed unessential. Religious freedom is essential to our commonwealth, and state and local governments must be disallowed from prohibiting religious services during an emergency to a greater extent than imposed on other organizations or businesses that provide essential services. Government shall be required to have a compelling governmental interest to place any burden on a religious organization.

C) Medicaid and Medicare should remain available, but no other taxpayer-funded programs are necessary.

Public employer or government agency, including schools, should be prohibited from requiring any of the COVID vaccines. In the future, government, school, and government employers should be allowed to require vaccinations only if there are exemptions provided for medical reasons, religious reasons, or personal convictions opposed to the vaccination.

I do not have a firm position on this topic at this time nor any authority in the area of foreign policy.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

The only persons who should be allowed to immigrate to the Unites States are those allowed by law. Because of the numbers of illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants, there should be a moratorium for some time to be able to provide for our citizens.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

I am a born-again Christian who has been saved by grace through the blood shed by Jesus Christ. I look forward to Christ's return to redeem His creation for eternity.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

I sponsored HB 574 in 2021 and HB 564 in 2022 to ensure the integrity of our election system and high voter turnout.

Yes, if critical race theory continues to be taught in schools and in training classes in American businesses.

Strongly Disagree

A) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.

Strongly Agree

The general purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.

Very Conservative

iVoter guide rating in the 2020 election. NRA candidate rating. Commonwealth Policy Center endorcement.

No.

I want to represent my constituents in ensuring no unconstitutional acts are passed, all Constitutional rights are protected, and that government doesn't act outside the will of the governed.

Agree

Strongly Disagree

As few as possible because an armed citizenry ensures public safety.

Strongly Disagree

No

Strongly Agree