Tom Bartole

Until viability (18-20 weeks) under any circumstances. After 20 weeks I support all exceptions inclusive of rape, incest, fetal anomaly, health/life of the woman.

Neutral

I feel that the decision is between the woman and the Dr. I do not believe in or support requiring reporting, as that is a privacy issue.

Strongly Disagree

Planned Parenthood and other providers of women's health services provide numerous other services. These include access to contraception, education, health screenings, pre/post-natal care, child and mother wellness checks. These services must receive federal funding to ensure the health and safety of women in this country. They provide services to lower income and at risk populations who need, and can't afford these services. To assume that they are primarily abortion providers is wrong.

Neutral

I have always felt that the choice should be with the patient, as it is in the case of living wills. I believe if with consultation of medical, spiritual and family support that the individual wishes to proceed then that is their right. Of course their needs to be guidelines and criteria- terminality quality of life issues.

Agree

I agree, but the they should not directly interfere with what is best for the whole. Free enterprise should not directly injury or cause harm to the general public. And the use of private property, as well, should not cause harm to the general public.

The term minimum wage should be referred to as a living wage. It is rather disturbing that in a county as rich as ours, we have people who can't make ends meet. Corporations make record profits, but employees need public assistance.

Yes

If the church violates state or federal laws then they put themselves at risk. I believe this includes criminal activity by the organization as well as tax code violations

Agree

I believe that any business that receives federal funding, or uses public resources cannot be allowed to refuse services. In the context of this question it would be considered discrimination and religious and morals are not a justification for discrimination. Unless there is a direct danger or harm, there is no reason to deny services.

I believe that a hybrid of A and B is the best way. We should have a system of universal healthcare (for all) in which everyone receives the same basic healthcare coverage. A private option is then available to anyone who wishes to add or replace coverage at their own expense (non subsidized). This would include employee plans that should be required to offer optional healthcare (as they do now) which would be in addition to the basic universal coverage.

When it is a situation of protecting the whole. We have had vaccinations for decades with little issues. The recent events in the world have brought this back to the news. But it basically comes down to the safety of the many/population.

Agree

Yes, our relationship with all of our allies is important. That does not mean that we ignore wrong-doing or violations of international law. It does mean that we come to the table to work on solutions that will benefit all the parties.

Neutral

I'm not sure what is meant by 'physically' secure the border. I do not believe that a wall is the answer to our border issues. Nor do I believe that demonizing and spreading hate about immigrans is an appropriate activity for public officials. Funding and training are the only proven solutions to the border, and I believe that that has been offered and refused by the same body that is shouting fir mote border security.

Strongly Disagree

Until the schools accepting the vouchers are held to the same standards as the public schools, these programs will continue to be no more than a subsidy for the well-off and the private schools. Until private school is required to accept and provide ALL services to ALL students they should not get public dollars. This includes transportation, special needs services, free/reduced lunches. Remember public schools must accept all students while private schools get to pick and choose.

Disagree

This question includes too many variables. Yes children should be protected from abuse, that is a given. But to say that gender ideology and bodily mutilation is abuse is incorrect. In the sense of a child, their parents, and medical providers making a decision together this is not abuse of any sort. Additionally the term grooming is misused in this instance.

Neutral

This is true in many instances but in the assumed context of this question I cannot agree.

Agree

I believe that if it is a medical procedure that is under the supervision of a licensed physician, then all appropriate funding should be used. However, the instances of this falling under taxpayers funding would be quite rare.

Strongly Disagree

Marriage is a civil action, it requires a license from the state/government. So in the eyes of the law marriage is under the authority of the government. Individuals choose to attach religion to this activity. Yes, marriage is considered a sacrament but it is not legally binding without the involvement of the state. Additionally, weddings outside the church are consider true despite not being sacredly ordained.

I was raised a Catholic and believe in MY faith. I believe and live my life within my code of beliefs. This however, does not mean that I believe that all persons should adhere to my beliefs. Not do I feel that laws should be written that place one belief or faith over others. Regardless of faith, beliefs, or lack there of we are all Americans and have the same rights and privileges.

Neutral

I believe that proof of identity is important for election security, but believe that in some cases this has gone too far. I remember when we didn't need to show ID to vote, and there were no issues. Recently the call for voter ID has become synonymous with the false claims of voter fraud. We have been required to show ID withpit fail, yet there are still claims of voter fraud. Many recent tactics to change voter ID laws have been seen as attempts to suppress voters.

Agree

The Electoral College is an antiquated system that has been proven to be problematic. It's origins in general are problematic and the continued reliance on it is wrong. A shift to the popular vote is one of the prime ways that we can fix the negative views of our open and fair elections. Every vote counts the same.

Yes. There is too much racial rhetoric in this country and much of it stems from attempts to minimize the history and effects of racism. The attempts to wipe out the systemic history of racism in America is at the heart of the problems. We have a dark history when it comes to racism and the best way forward is to admit it and work to improve it not hide from it. The hateful rhetoric by elected leaders looking to minimize racism, and even reverse it, does nothing to help.

Disagree

I disagree on this statement. I do not believe CRT asserts that institutions are fundamental racist. That is a gross misunderstanding. CRT is an educational concept that explores how racism was a social construct that DID influence laws in this country, and still does. It merely examines how race and racism has molded this country. It is NOT indoctrination, nor is it's intent to frame 'whites' as evil. It is our HISTORY and must be taught in our schools. To remove it is to deny our history

Disagree

This question does not give the subject justice. This is to assume that a male just decides to compete, or use facilities as a woman. That is unfair to the population it addresses. This is a biological and physiological issue. This also gets into a whole other issue of denying this population the early intervention that it seeks. If a transgender child is permitted to seek their reassignment, thru hormones etc., at an early age then this is not an issue. This is a population of Americans

The answers to this question are not mutually exclusive. I believe that D is true. We are rapidly destroying our planet and climate and immediate action is necessary. Additionally I believe B is true. We need to address policies/laws that protect our planet for future generations BEFORE it is too late and cost should not be a detractor. And I completely disagree with answers A&C. Alternative energy sources are just as, if not more, reliable and will not hurt the economy as claimed.

I believe investments in infrastructure to increase our use of solar and wind is vital to protecting our planet. Additionally we should look at increasing nuclear power generation. This country has strayed from that source and it's time we look again

No

No

To listen to and govern for the people. The commitment to party and special interests has destroyed what was once an effective government. Partisanship is destroying this country. Nothing gets accomplished without debate and supermajorities only hurt the people. Remember just because 40% of voters elected someone, it doesn't mean the other 60% don't count. Our government is FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. And Arkansas motto is Regnat Populus- the people rule.

Lean Liberal

I consider myself a moderate, but will say honestly that I lean to the left. I see this as a positive especially in today's polarized politics. I can see the issues with a more neutral eye but tend to focus on what is best for the people. I believe EVERYONE should have the same rights in this country. We are all Americans and thus no one should be given less rights regardless of beliefs, religion, sex, orientation or color. That's it pretty plain and simple

Disagree

I do believe in community programing but do not believe it should come at expense of police funding. Do I believe we need to reform police funding? Yes I do. I believe more efforts need to be put into trainng/retraining and retention, and community awareness. I do not believe we need to militarize our police. I believe the best route to effective policing is community investment and thus that cannot be ignored but should not impede funding for policing.

This is too big a question to answer in 500 words. Simply put our system is broken. Guns are too readily available. Increasing restrictions, including strengthening background checks and closing loopholes, are not a violation of rights but merely an inconvenience. Access is not prevented for the responsible gun owner, but access is impeded for someone who shouldn't have one. Closing loopholes only enforces the current laws, it is not imposing additional restrictions.

No

We already put too much on our teachers. We expect them to teach, counsel, and even parent, and now you want them to police. The current proposals say nothing about training and enforcement. Not to mention that adding guns to a classroom only increases the danger on a daily basis to both students and teachers. I believe we let teachers teach without the guns and without the stress applied by threatening them about what they teach and what books they use. Let's start there.