Up until mid-term as there are serious issues/problems with categorical prohibitions on abortions with very tight timeframes. The 10 year old Ohio rape victim is a good example where a child and many people may not realize that they are pregnant, or know that they are not capable of taking a pregnancy to term, for months.

Neutral

Do not believe that "in person" consultations are necessary given the ubiquity of telehealth options in today's world. But reporting of adverse reactions is certainly something that needs to be tracked.

Neutral

Planned Parenthood does provide other services beyond abortions that should be allowed to be covered. Although money is fungible, government contractors across the spectrum from military to engineering ones have been able to segregate funds received from government agencies for decades for proper use with audits.

Neutral

Long ago the medical profession had a "soft" ethical understanding where doctors could continue prescribing medication to reduce pain to the point where death was finally induced not from an intent to cause death but an intent to ameliorate the pain. This is an ethos which I think is very hard to legislate, but one that we have always had in extremis. It can be quite a slope from an intent to stop unceasing and unbearable pain to an intent to kill. But it should not be outlawed.

Very limited. But in cases setting out minimum ventilation standards or cubic feet per person etc. that is applied to all buildings, that can be appropriate. Just like Churches should meet the same building code standards that are applied neutrally to all buildings for health/welfare standards. So if a union hall would be closed for the same non-discriminatory health/safety reason as a Church, I think those would be appropriate circumstances by neither favoring or penalizing a church.

Neutral

This can be tricky. If one provides essential goods or services, being able to deny services or goods one commercially provides to a person because of who that person is can be very problematic. We made a decision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that commercial services cannot be denied to people on the basis of race/ethnicity. Forcing someone to provide services that violate beliefs, like requiring a physician to provide abortions, is different than discriminating in providing commercial services.

Strongly Agree

Yes. Israel's existence is owed to American support from its first recognition. So we have a deep responsibility to it and its people.

B. Between Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare/Military Health/Indian Health Services/FERS/tax deductions for premiums/health care, the federal government already funds or controls 2/3 of national health care spending. And it does so in an irrational and wasteful manner. Having a similar base health insurance for all Americans, with supplemental private health insurance still allowed, would go a long way to more efficiently provide health care nationwide.

CJ Marshall in a unanimous 1824 Supreme Court decision set out Constitution allows states to regulate health standards. This was affirmed for vaccines in 1904 by SCOTUS. So with a virulent highly contagious disease like smallpox or polio: Yes.

Strongly Agree

Support, but think there should be more localized variations. A minimum wage for Denver is not the same one that is appropriate in La Junta.

No

No. Not for public monies like pension funds and other "investments". But in spending decisions, ensuring there are good labor and environmental practices, along with efforts to ensure government contracting does not default to a "good ole boy" system, I think is appropriate.

Agree

Disagree

If one accepts government money, government rules and regulations WILL follow. It can be very short sighted for religious and academic freedom to aspire to have the government fund all education because that will lead to the government controlling all education.

Neutral

I am strongly in favor of funding public safety. But we have allowed the police to become the default mental health providers for everyone over 18. In DougCo, more than 1/2 the jail inmates are on psychotropic drugs. We need to get that burden off the police and re-establish our mental health institutions/infrastructure that was destroyed by needed reforms. In the 60s, Colorado had 2000 mental health beds, now with 4X the population, only 200. The cops or the streets are taking on that burden.

I voted for the Red Flag law and returning the firearm industry to the same legal standard as all other industries. But I was also a deciding vote in the judiciary committee that killed the "assault weapons ban" bill in 2023. Keeping firearms out of mentally ill and dangerous individuals should be the primary goal of public safety firearm policy.

Choose not to answer

If they meet the same standards as law enforcement and are authorized by the district in which they serve. I voted against the "sensitive spaces" bill in 2023 because I believed it was overly suburban centric in mandating that only dedicated security or law enforcement could carry in the schools. Most rural districts do not have the resources/capacity for dedicated SROs. So allowing it to be a collateral duty for those who meet the training standards and authorized by a district should be ok.

No

No

The protection of life, liberty and property as set out by John Locke and as interpreted by John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. I also ascribe to Hayek's views on government as he opposed socialism, but in the Constitution of Liberty made it clear he was not against government social welfare programs for individuals, but government control of people.

Moderate

Hate the word "moderate" as it sounds "milquetoast". I am not milquetoast and have strong principals/views as one of the most fiscally conservative legislators. But I am socially tolerant with the view that the damage the state can do trying to enforce certain conduct is almost always worse than the conduct trying to be stamped out. I think this reflects "old" Colorado, the birthplace of the libertarian party and 1st state to legalize abortion/marijuana, but also with a balanced budget & TABOR

Agree

Yes. When these are actually occurring. I do worry that we have turned actual sexual abuse, grooming and bodily mutilation into a modern day version of the 1950s McCarthyism red scare. For example, outlawing all gender affirming surgery also outlaws gynecomastia surgery, which has helped many young growing boys who are brutally bullied for having "breasts".

Strongly Agree

Colorado Parents Advocacy Network (CPAN) gave me their Golden Apple award for courage for being the only Democrat to vote against a bill that would allow minors as young as 12 to take mental health exams and follow on treatments in school not just without the parents' knowledge, but against their express wishes to the contrary. I do think there is a "zone" of increasing independence in adolescence, and there is a state role to protect kids, but the general rule should always be parents first.

Neutral

There are legitimate medical transition issues. A colleague has a Harvard Ph.D. in genetics. It is a HS biology level of understanding that there is only one perfect gender determined at birth by XY and XX chromosomes. That's true in the vast majority of cases. But there are outlier cases. And we should not treat such outliers as freaks and outcasts. But just as it is wrong to deny such cases exist, there seems to be prevalence to over-diagnose. But I would not categorically deny such care.

Choose not to answer

In the eyes of the church. When the state gets involved, it makes it more complicated. The state generally has an interest to ensure that those put in a weaker position in a family structure do not become wards of the state (e.g., children born of a union). But not every union results in children. So the state role cannot be solely to enforce such unions between two contracting parties. Yet that is what it does.

I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church. At that time, it was a conservative but very tolerant faith. And I continue to hold those views. I received a Bible when confirmed highlighting the words attributed to Christ and believe Christians should focus on those. So I am personally conservative but have so much work to do on my own sinful nature, I rarely find it productive to point out the sins of others, ascribing strongly to Matthew 6:5-13 KJV.

Neutral

Yes. With a provisional ballot.

Disagree

Yes. As Lincoln pointed out, no foreign power really could threaten the United States. We can only be defeated from within. And allowing us to be divided without seeing our shared humanity is a step towards our own division and destruction.

Disagree

I do not think all institutions are fundamentally racist as designed. But failing to recognize when institutions cause severe discriminatory effects (e.g., post-WW2 GI Bill available to every veteran, but black veterans not able to use it to attend restricted schools or obtain home loans; black owned farms starved of Dept of Ag capital etc.) perpetuates racial division in an unhealthy & unworthy manner of the American ideal.

Choose not to answer

As detailed above, I think there is some hysteria regarding the prevalence of the generally rare cases. The Olympics and other sports authorities have had tests for years ever since the East Germans used to dope up their female athletes to ensure there was a cut off standard for competing in male or female sports, which I think can be applied generally.

B. Grew up in Evergreen in the 1970s and when travelling to Denver would see the "Brown Cloud" and experience "chewy air" as a child. We do not want to get to those points with our air and water ever again. Even if we have halved the emissions/person from that time, we have doubled our population on the front range, so those issues of unhealthy levels of ozone etc. are beginning to appear again. Would rather not wait until it is a crisis before addressing issues.

Solar with nuclear as a strong back up.