Purely elective? Never. Abortions to prevent fatal health complications for the child and/or mother should always be allowed, and I do not consider those "elective", as the mother wants the child, but cannot give live birth due to uncontrolled circumstances. "Should" gives a different answer than "can feasibly be put into law right now". Any laws that can be enacted and upheld that save lives should be pursued. For example, rape and incest exceptions are unavoidable in our current environment.

Strongly Agree

Sounds like common sense. I've heard complaints that some rules for these drugs are not essential for safety, so some discussion could be beneficial. The statement itself I fully support.

Strongly Disagree

Suicide is morally wrong, and the dangers are too great (See: Canada).

Strongly Agree

There are many worthy women's health providers that don't end innocent unborn lives. Any tax dollars removed from abortion providers should go to these positive services providers.

Very, very rarely. When specific churches are hosting violence, perhaps. Never blanket closures.

Strongly Disagree

People have to be able to live by their convictions. That's the purpose of the first amendment.

Yes

With school choice, families can choose schools that align with their values. Schools can also choose values they require.

Strongly Agree

China plays the long game. They will do whatever it takes to defeat us and bolster their own position. We must be vigilant.

Yes. They've been strong allies for generations, and hold similar values to us. They value democracy and their people have been under threat for a long time.

Decline to answer. I know we have a terrible system for paying for healthcare. I don't know what the best option would be. I want all people to be able to access healthcare, and I recognize affordability is a major roadblock. Perhaps competition would drive down prices. This is not a policy item I need to have a solution for as State Auditor.

Any requirements must have an adequate exceptions policy. It should also be limited to private schools and businesses, or to very well established vaccines.

Strongly Agree

As an Economics major, I recognize the complexity of economic policy. Free enterprise and private property are nonnegotiable. Governments do need to ensure a few things that the market cannot, such as correcting for externalities, ensuring symmetry of information, and preventing or regulating monopolies. Government overreach is common, though, and any regulations need to be founded on strong economic principles.

I wouldn't enact one, but I am willing to compromise. It should be a 'minimum' wage, not an arbitrary 'living' wage. Also, if we decide to have one, it should be tied to inflation so that we don't have to keep having this discussion.

No

There are some non-financial considerations - like national security - that can be used, but investments shouldn't be used for personal agendas.

Strongly Agree

I was blessed with a family who had the resources to allow me to move schools when it was clear I needed a change. I want every parent and child to have the same opportunity I had to be able to choose the best fit for their own personal situation. Every kid is different, and we should have a variety of schools that reflect that.

Disagree

We should spend money on policies and programs that lessen the burden on police departments and keep everyone safer. Short term, we cannot redirect funds, as police are notoriously underpaid and very necessary. Long term, as we build a society with less crime, our need for police will decrease, which would be the only scenario when funding could decrease.

Preventing criminals, particularly violent criminals, from owning guns. All laws should be targeted to prevent ownership from the very small % who commit violent crimes with guns.

Protecting the rights of its citizens given to them by their Creator. A government is not responsible for providing for its citizens, because that creates dependence on the government. If we have our rights protected, then the government is fulfilling its duties.

No.

No.

Conservative

The goalposts have been changing drastically in recent years as the left moves further left, so that I appear more conservative relative to culture. I am, by nature, a practical compromiser. I am not 'all-or-nothing', I respect others opinions, and I can often see their value. I am undoubtedly right of center. As State Auditor, my role will be to find the objective truth. My values and ideology are not particularly relevant. This position is like judges in that respect

Strongly Disagree

That's elective.

Strongly Agree

Children haven't developed enough to make those kinds of decisions.

Strongly Agree

Includes unborn children as the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.

Choose not to answer

I 100% agree with the first statement. As to the second, what government does is not marriage; it's civil union. My marriage doesn't need government approval, and no government can "marry" me to anyone - only God can. Debate over government policy misleads culture to see government as the authority. To honor the first statement, we must not get caught up in the second.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I believe the Bible as the moral authority and the word of God. I grew up Catholic, then married a non-denominational woman and now attend a non-denominational church. We serve at a newly planted church (King's Table Church) in Raleigh. I value loving God and loving my neighbor as the greatest commandment, and this belief is why I am running for office. I feel called by God to serve my fellow North Carolinian's with the skills as Auditor that I have been given as fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Neutral

The word 'should' drives my response here. While in short term practice, I agree with these criteria, I'm not against the idea that mail-in could be done well and be a benefit to all voters and the election system. It must, must, MUST be done right, though, which is difficult and adds risk that the above statement seeks to prevent. I am fully aware of the risks, and I think we should look into mail in voting more broadly as a goal.

No. Some racial violence does happen and would of course be a threat to those who fall victim to it, but domestic security at large is not really at risk due to racism.

Strongly Disagree

Separating people into oppressor-oppressed categories is harming society, and it harms the people who subscribe to it most of all. CRT in practice continues racial animus.

Strongly Agree

Rare genetic abnormalities do exist and should be treated gently. Those are rare and the norm should be the above statement. Gender confusion is a mental health issue that needs to be treated with loving correction. Ascribing to progressive gender ideology is harming those it purports to help.

Based on the practical reality of environmental laws being pushed by the left, I'd say C. In an ideal world, D comes closest to my views, with the strong caveat that those policies need to be based on promoting innovation and American energy independence. The world is on the precipice of a clean energy version of the industrial revolution, and I want America to be the leader in this revolution. This requires good energy policy.