Darren Hamilton

While I am personally against abortion, I also recognize that such a judgment is not the responsibility of the government or its leadership. There are, however, a limited list of conditions under which I believe abortion can be medically and legally justified, such as conditions of rape, incest, or when continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the fetus and/or the mother.

Strongly Agree

As stated above, it is not the responsibility of the government or its leadership to judge or prohibit the personal choices of its citizens. This includes publicly financing such procedures. These same organizations, however, should be able to receive public funding for other procedures that promote the health and well-being of the public.

Agree

If a person under the care of a medical profession requests the ability to end their own life for what can be considered (according to that professional) a valid reason, that is their choice and it should be respected.

Did not answer

I suppose the first area to investigate is commonly referred to as "corporate welfare". Unless the business itself is providing some product or service for which the the government is paying (i.e., the government is a business customer), the government should remove itself from interfering with businesses.

Strongly Disagree

I don't think I have ever been an advocate of public education. As an autistic, I recognize that no single format of education can possibly address the needs of all students. Also, college should be a personal choice regarding an individual's education. If the government starts subsidizing education, then it can also determine which subjects can and cannot be taught, thus interfering with individual liberty.

Strongly Disagree

Individuals and businesses should be under no obligation to provide goods or services to anyone regardless of the reason, and any reason for their disassociation is irrelevant. If an individual or business is unwilling to provide a product or service for any reason, there are likely a number of other individuals or businesses that would gladly provide the same service. As the saying goes, "money talks".

I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which government would (or should) have an ability to restrict religious (or any other) meetings. The government can (and should) widely make public health information available, then allow the institution to make their own decision on whether to find alternate methods to conduct religious or other service, or restrict them outright.

I personally find myself somewhere between the options B and C above. I am not an advocate of government-funded anything, but I also understand that many currently government funded programs provide more benefit to the public than is typically expressed.

Government, never. A public school whose students may be adversely affected by contagious diseases may require vaccinations for attendance, but the parent/student should have a choice on whether to attend that school or find another. Private employers can require whatever they want as a term of their employment and the government should not be allowed to interfere.

There is no way to eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism. The best that can be done would be to remove American military personnel from those foreign locations, thus reducing the possibility of Americans falling prey to terrorist actions abroad. Americans serving abroad in those areas should be returned to the United States to protect our internal domestic interests.

Choose not to answer

Disagree

In my opinion, border security (especially at the southern U.S. border) is a "red herring". What should really be discussed is "comprehensive immigration reform". Quite simply, if Americans want potential immigrants to enter the United States through legal channels, then the immigration laws (and their reforms) should address making those legal channels fair, reasonable, and more accessible to potential immigrants.

I believe that most American families came to the United States from somewhere else, whether long ago or relatively recently. As long as they have no credible plan for, a history of, or perform acts of violence within our country, anyone should be welcome to immigrate to the United States

Neutral

Morality is highly subjective, Judeo-Christian or otherwise. Laws should not be written or based on subjective grounds, and subjective morality is a poor foundation for any law. It was tried already, and it was repealed a decade later.

Disagree

Generally speaking, if a person believes they are experiencing a discriminatory situation, I would suspect that there actions (other than the discrimination) being taken that would be supported under legal scrutiny.

Disagree

Some years ago, actor Morgan Freeman was asked his thoughts on stopping racism. His reply was simply, "stop talking about it." His point was that as long as people keep talking about it, it will be a topic that people think is important enough to talk about. If our goal is to achieve a society where a person's race does not matter, then racism itself will end once the circumstance of a person's birth is deemed as 'unimportant'. In my opinion, the Critical Race Theory contradicts that premise.

I don't believe that my personal spiritual beliefs would have any bearing on my ability to serve the citizens of Texas in this office.

Agree

If a citizen can otherwise verify their right to vote in an election, they should be allowed to vote.

Other than to make the ability for a citizen to cast a vote easier to accomplish, I cannot think of any specific law that I would propose to change.

Racism is only a threat to domestic security because people continue to see themselves as different from each other. When people of good conscience understand that there are more similarities and fewer differences between peoples, racism ceases to have an effect.

Disagree

Persons who have had their livelihood stripped from them for unjust reasons, such as slavery, unjust incarceration, or actual theft of property are due reparations. Race or racial prejudice is simply not a valid reason to insist on reparations.

B. At some point, any discussion regarding energy and the environment comes down to which topic has more significance to the parties engaging in the discussion: the environment or the economy. Personally, I fall squarely into the "environment" camp. After all, we (currently) only have this planet on which to live, and if we continue to expand our current methods of energy production (thus adversely affecting the global environment), eventually any world economy, including ours, will no longer matter.

Disagree

There are many areas where the U.S. can maintain a reliable, low-cost supply of energy, but there is one thing that it cannot do: presume that any one single source will work for all areas of the country. I believe that the energy needs of the 21st century (and beyond) can be easily met by embracing a variety of non-polluting energy sources, each appropriate to their location. The idea of a "one size fits all" solution to America's energy needs is not required, or in most cases, even desired.

In general, (and I quote) "... establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

Moderate

My faith guides me, but I do not expect that the standards that I follow will work for everyone.

Did not answer

No.

Some of my legislative priorities include (but are not limited to) specified term limits for Congress members, a modification (but not elimination) of the Electoral College, a comprehensive reform of immigration policies and processes, and a repeal of prohibition laws including those against cannabis and hemp.

Disagree

As has been repeatedly demonstrated, especially in the recent past, the idea of qualified immunity enables an environment where those who have chosen to uphold the laws are effectively no longer subject to those laws. Removing qualified immunity reasserts the fundamental idea that the laws must govern everybody or they are not laws at all.

Agree

Some funding, but not all funding. I believe that mental health and community programs are far more beneficial to supporting a community than fear tactics instilled by police.

Only persons with a history of unjustified violence, or verifiable mental instability with a tendency toward violence should be prohibited.

Strongly Disagree

Personally, this statement reads no differently to me than one suggesting lawsuits against flatware manufacturers because spoons contribute to obesity.