Lynn M. Bowker

At the woman's discretion.

Strongly Agree

Emotional responses to difficulties in life are not a reason to choose suicide. In the case of terminal illness, chronic pain, or the diminishing of quality of life, a person should have the the right to die with dignity at a time of his or her choosing.

Strongly Disagree

Specific changes? I don't know, but taxes were supposed to be a temporary measure. If we stop out-of-control spending by the folks in Washington, taxes for everyone would be lower.

All pet projects snuck into other bills to fund unnecessary projects needs to be eliminated.

Strongly Disagree

Individuals and business should retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. However, by refusing service, businesses have to know that will impact their business and should tread lightly when balancing personal morals with their revenue stream.

The government should never have the authority to close a church unless the building violates zoning or building codes making it unsafe for occupation.

I'm torn between B and C. The government really needs to get out of the healthcare business, but leave Medicaid and Medicare for elderly recipients who have retired and no longer have healthcare provided through an employer.

An employer should be allowed to require vaccinations if they choose to. If the potential employee doesn't agree, they can get a job somewhere else. Schools and the military have long required certain vaccinations and should continue to do so. The government, as an employer, should be able to require vaccinations for the people it employs, but it shouldn't be allowed to require vaccinations for the general public. If the medical community deems a vaccination beneficial, it should educate the public on why the vaccination is needed.

Terrorism is a threat to the U.S. because we keep sticking our noses into the business of other countries. If we stop trying to be the world's police and imposing our brand of government and morality on other countries, and if we stop supporting governments that are cruel and oppressive to their citizens, the people engaged in terrorism won't hate us as much.

Strongly Agree

Immigration is really a fundamental part of the founding of our country. I don't oppose LEGAL immigration in which people follow protocols for entering the country and progress through a process of becoming a citizen. Our immigration laws are similar to that of other countries and have to be obeyed. I oppose ILLEGAL immigration in which people sneak into the country and live here with no intention of seeking citizenship. An illegal immigrant is nothing more than a national squatter.

Obviously, people seeking asylum and those having credible fears of persecution or torture for the reasons of race, religion, and nationality if they are returned to their home country should be allowed to start the process of becoming a permanent resident and citizen, as well as people from a country that has been given Temporary Protected Status. People seeking to immigrate should have a sponsor in the U.S. or bring enough money to support themselves so they don't enter the country and immediately enter our welfare systems until they get a work visa and can legally get employment. Skilled workers, health and care workers, experts in academia, and employees working for a U.S.-based company should be given priority. Honestly, I know a lot of folks think we should just throw open our borders and let everyone in who wants to be here, but that's not realistic. No other country does that and allowing it to happen here has severe negative consequences.

Agree

Did not answer

That seems to be a misleading question. The answers are aimed at opinions on banning books, but the question specifies pornography. What constitutes 'pornography' is arguable. I'm going to select "A" as my position on book banning.

How about choice "E", none of the above? I think it's too easy to get into marriage and a longer waiting period and pre-martial counseling might curb the high divorce rate in the U.S. A marriage between two people, regardless of what gender they are, should be well thought out before tying the knot. The common attitude here seems to be "Sure, let's get married. If it doesn't work out, we'll get divorced." That attitude needs to change.

Strongly Disagree

We need human morals and values without bringing religion into it. Lumping Christian and Jewish religions together in a term that is overly misused in modern times to have people believe that you can *only* have morals and values if you are a member of one or the other of these religions is misguided.

Strongly Disagree

No matter which gender you claim, non-discrimination laws apply.

Strongly Disagree

A government body is issuing the marriage certificate. If you want God in your ceremony at the church of your choice, that's your prerogative.

Did not answer

Strongly Disagree

We expect people to have an ID to operate a vehicle, cash a check, and buy alcoholic beverages. Why wouldn't you expect them to produce an ID for doing something as important as voting?

I want choice "D" none of the above with more than 100 characters to explain. Instead, I'll pick "C"

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Reparations are given people who have had something taken from them. The U.S. didn't take anything from slaves. What they had taken was done before they left their home country. If people think they're entitled to reparation, they need to go to the country from which their ancestors were taken and get reparation from the people that actually took from them. If any group is entitled to reparations from the U.S., it's native Americans.

Racism is a word batted around with a complete lack of meaning anymore. It's used as a catch-all for shutting someone up that you disagree with. Real racism is really not all that common anymore, though it is stirred up to get people wound up and distract us from more important things going on behind the curtain.

Another loaded question. Environmental laws and regulations are important to protect our lands and waterways. Stricter laws aren't beneficial unless they actually solve a problem. Enacting "feel-good" laws and regulations that don't actually help but make people *feel* like they're doing something good aren't beneficial.

The general purpose of our Federal government is to maintain relations with other countries, maintain a military for our defense, and regulate international trade. The day-to-day government activities are supposed to be handled by the States. Unfortunately, our Federal government has gotten *way* too bloated, *way* too big, and sticks its hand into State's affairs where it doesn't belong.

Choose not to answer

I am best described as Libertarian and don't wish to be associated with either the left or the right.

Did not answer

No, never

Did not answer

Strongly Disagree

While the idea of qualified immunity was a good thing, it has become so abused that so many police officers don't know how to do their job without violating people's rights. They're no longer law enforcement and have, by their own departmental policies, become municipal thugs. Not all of them, but a great many. Qualified Immunity needs to be abolished and we need to hold all law enforcement officials accountable for what they do. Being "law enforcement" they should be held to a higher standard.

Disagree

I don't think police should have access to military-grade equipment. They do need to have a salary structure to attract quality officers, which seems to be lacking in today's environment. Mental health and community programs need better funding, but taking money from the police may not be the answer.

Guns are not the problem. Lack of access to mental healthcare is the problem. Public safety is at risk when families can't get a family member the mental healthcare they desperately need. We need to remove the stigma from mental health and make it available to anyone that seeks it. Our founding fathers wanted citizens to have the right to own firearms because they saw what happened when citizens were disarmed. Restricting gun ownership only affects law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still have access to guns and will run unchecked through our neighborhoods if they know the general citizens are unarmed.

Strongly Disagree

That's ridiculous. Gun dealers and manufacturers have no more control over how their product is used than a car dealer or manufacturer can control how someone drives. Spreading blame to the deep pockets isn't the answer.