Sandra Van Scotter

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree. All medical decisions belong between patient and doctor. In 30 years as a medical professional, I never observed an abortion or request for Medical Assistance in Dying sought for 'convenience' — that framing is a political fiction. Inserting legal mandates into these decisions doesn't protect life; it restricts the ability of patients and physicians to pursue appropriate, compassionate care.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree. Medically, a human embryo begins approximately 2 weeks after fertilization. Fertilized eggs used in IVF are zygotes or blastocysts — not embryos by clinical definition. The IVF process, including decisions about fertilized eggs, is thoroughly discussed between patients, physicians, and legal counsel. This legislation misapplies medical terminology to restrict reproductive care. No additional legislative involvement is warranted or appropriate.

Under any circumstance that a patient and their physician determine is medically, emotionally, or personally appropriate. In 30 years as a medical professional, I observed that these decisions are never made lightly — they are made in pain, with care, and with profound personal weight. The government has no clinical standing in that room. The patient and doctor do. That boundary must be honored regardless of the circumstance.

Strongly Agree

I strongly agree. For millions of Americans, Planned Parenthood is their only healthcare provider. Its services span reproductive care, STI diagnosis and treatment, cancer screenings, and preventive care — protecting public health nationally. Abortion care represents a small fraction of total services. Defunding Planned Parenthood doesn't reduce abortions — it eliminates essential healthcare for vulnerable populations who have nowhere else to turn.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree. In December 2022, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Comstock Act does not prohibit mailing abortion-inducing medications unless the sender intends unlawful use. This interpretation is legally sound and has been respected by providers nationwide. Enforcing Comstock as a blanket ban contradicts established legal interpretation, criminalizes legitimate medical care, and would devastate access for patients in restricted states.

Agree

I agree. Free enterprise and private property rights are foundational to economic productivity and individual dignity. I would add that these principles are only meaningful when access is equitable — barriers like lack of healthcare, immigration status, or energy costs limit who can fully participate in the free market. True free enterprise requires removing obstacles to participation, not just protecting the rights of those already inside the system.

Strongly Agree

I strongly agree — with context. 'Relief' must be defined, as must 'afford.' Corporations paying wages so low their employees qualify for government benefits are being subsidized by taxpayers. That is socialism for the wealthy. Yes, individuals and corporations earning above a defined threshold should pay more. Working families should not be underwriting corporate profits. Tax policy should reflect that basic principle of fairness.

Agree

I agree — with critical distinction. Cutting spending requires intentionality, not a scalpel taken blindly to essential services. Reductions that harm children, disabled individuals, elderly and retired Americans while protecting tax advantages for the ultrawealthy are not fiscal responsibility — they are a transfer of suffering upward. Smart deficit reduction identifies waste without dismantling the programs that keep vulnerable Americans alive and dignified.

1) Audit implementation of existing laws before creating new ones — waste often lives in execution, not legislation. 2) Reform SSA and VA claims processes. The VA spends up to $10 billion annually denying earned benefits to veterans — that is unconscionable waste. 3) Pass Medicare for All. The CBO and independent studies confirm billions in annual savings by eliminating administrative redundancy. Efficiency and compassion are not opposites.

Disagree

I disagree with 'required' — that word changes everything. Religious liberty and personal conscience deserve protection. However, no belief system grants the right to discriminate in the public marketplace. The same separation of church and state that protects religious institutions from government interference also prevents personal belief from becoming a weapon against others' dignity. Conversation and defined boundaries, not mandates, are the path forward.

To me, "separation of church and state" means the government cannot create a national religion, interfere with how we worship, or favor one faith over others. Adding "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" to US currency blurred this constitutional line. Furthermore, when our elected officials promote a specific faith or create legislation that supports one religion over others, they directly violate the First Amendment's core requirement for separation of church and state.

Option A. For-profit insurance tied to employment, paying mostly nonprofit hospitals and clinics, is among the greatest conflicts of interest in American life. It exists to generate shareholder profit, not deliver care. Nations with universal healthcare have learned that parallel private systems weaken the whole — resources and healthy patients migrate to private options, leaving the public system underfunded. Healthcare is a human right, not a commodity.

Strongly Agree

Absolutely! Countries with Universal Healthcare already have databases as the prompt describes. The database helps those nations understand and manage overall costs. None use them to deny care at the individual level, unlike the USA "for profit" system. Decisions are made at the "treatment/formulary" level. These rules apply to all people regardless of wealth or employment, and appeals can be made. All these countries have processes that are transparent and hold them accountable, unlike the U.S.

Option C. America has overextended itself in conflicts neither ours to resolve nor improved by our involvement. 'Imminent danger' must be broadly defined — including direct attacks, economic threats, and strategic alliances. But national security begins at home. CA-20 feeds the nation — its water crisis, workforce health, and infrastructure are national security issues. Intervention abroad requires clear purpose and an exit strategy. Security starts here.

Agree

I agree — and have for years. The CCP poses real military, cyber, economic, and intellectual property threats. But America's response has been selective and convenient. We've allowed CCP-manufactured components into weapons systems, critical infrastructure, and supply chains while calling it a threat. That is institutional hypocrisy. Real national security requires consistency — the same rigor we apply abroad must apply to what we build, buy, and depend on here at home.

Yes — strategically, historically, and as a democratic ally in a volatile region. However, the U.S. has a documented blind spot regarding Israel's human rights record in Gaza and the occupied territories. Unconditional support has enabled actions — including the attack on Iran — that the U.S. would not tolerate from other allies. True partnership requires honest accountability. Blind loyalty is not an alliance; it is an enabler.

Strongly Agree

Yes, violent jihadist extremism poses a real threat to U.S. national security. However, it's essential to distinguish this radical fringe from Islam as a whole. The vast majority of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims oppose terrorism. Conflating the two is not only factually wrong — it's strategically counterproductive. Muslim-American communities are among our most valuable partners in identifying and preventing radicalization. The threat is real; the religion is not the threat.

Legal immigration is supposed to begin at the U.S. Embassy in the applicant's home country. Permission granted there would authorize presentation at the border — creating an orderly, documented process. Exceptions should exist for asylum seekers, who have a legal right to request protection upon arrival, and refugees, who are already vetted overseas. I acknowledge the full system is complex, but the core principle should be: process first, entry second, with humanitarian protections preserved.

Strongly Agree

I strongly support sanctuary cities — not just as protection, but as on-ramps to legal status. For those who couldn't start the process in their home country and don't qualify for asylum, sanctuary spaces could serve as a place to present themselves and begin documentation. Rather than purely shielding people from enforcement, these jurisdictions could be reimagined as processing hubs — connecting people to a legal pathway they may not have had access to in their country of origin.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree. Federal education funding is the primary equalizer for under-resourced districts — 51% goes to the neediest third of schools. Eliminating it doesn't create local control; it creates chaos for the communities least able to absorb the loss. Returning funds to states without guardrails also risks public money flowing to private religious schools — eroding the separation of church and state in curriculum. CA-20 students cannot afford that gamble.

Strongly Disagree

Rather than prohibition, I support mandatory full transparency for all foreign funding of American education. The issue isn't the funding itself — legitimate academic exchange benefits everyone— it's the opacity that creates national security vulnerabilities. Blanket prohibition would harm research, strain diplomatic relationships, and restrict academic freedom. Robust, enforceable disclosure requirements are the smarter, more targeted solution. Transparency, not prohibition, is the right frame.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree. When a child signals they feel different, the adults around them must confront their own biases and create space for guided exploration — through therapy, expression, and patience. This is never a leap to medical intervention; it is a careful, supported process. Gender-affirming care and trauma-informed therapy are tools, not abuse. And if someone later returns to their birth gender, that is not failure — it is a person knowing themselves.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree. Civil marriage is a legal and administrative function — predating organized religion — governing rights, property, and record-keeping. Who enters that contract is a matter of individual freedom, not theological definition. Religious institutions retain full authority to define marriage within their faith. But no church holds authority over civil law. The separation of church and state must be honored in the marriage process as in all others.

I live by the Golden Rule and strive to be the person I needed when I needed help — because someone should have been there, and now I can be. I operate from a deep sense of integrity, even when the outcome costs me personally, because the right thing doesn't stop being right when it becomes inconvenient. I believe I am called by a higher power — placed in specific situations and with specific people for a purpose I don't always fully understand. I serve as a conduit: I know why I am somewhere or with someone. I rarely know in advance what that person or moment actually needs. I trust what flows through me in service of others. I don't wear a denominational label. I live my faith through action, service, and mission every single day.

Strongly Agree

I strongly agree. California's system demonstrates that photo ID is unnecessary for secure elections. Voters are verified through signature matching — against DMV records or the Secretary of State — at the point of voting. Mismatches mean the vote isn't counted. This protects integrity while removing barriers that disproportionately affect elderly, low-income, and minority voters who may lack current photo ID. Security and access are not mutually exclusive.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree. This prompt conflates unrelated issues — sports and shared spaces require separate, evidence-based policies. Research consistently shows transgender women are far more likely to be victims of violence in these spaces than perpetrators. There is no documented evidence that transgender-inclusive bathroom policies increase safety incidents. The term 'biological male' also erases the critical distinction between transitioned women and cross-dressers. Policy must follow evidence,

Solar and wind are the most reliable path forward. But policy must allow individuals to install these sources on their property, operate independently of the grid if they choose, and not be penalized for energy self-sufficiency.

I have never been penalized for sexual misconduct in civil or criminal court.

I have never been convicted of a felony.

Lean Liberal

I select 'Lean Liberal' — though no single label captures how I actually think. My positions are evidence-based and values-driven rather than ideologically fixed. I support individual empowerment, process-based solutions, and fiscal responsibility alongside healthcare access and social equity. My faith grounds my public service. I hold positions across the traditional spectrum because I follow evidence, not party lines. Labels are shortcuts; my answers speak for themselves.

Disagree

I reframe this: government must create meaningful, enforceable legislation holding platforms financially and legally accountable when children are exploited. Facebook, Craigslist, WhatsApp — they own the responsibility to protect their users, especially children. Real fines and consequences must follow failures. CA-20 is a major human trafficking corridor — I have seen what platform negligence costs communities. Legislation must have teeth; platforms must bear them.

Existing ownership restrictions are largely adequate — the gap is in types of weapons allowed and enforcement. Military-style weapons have no place in hunting or civilian self-defense. Illegal weapons must be intercepted at the border, but domestic loopholes — straw purchases, ghost guns, private sale background check exemptions — also demand attention. Red flag laws save lives without restricting responsible ownership. The problem is never responsible gun owners.