Ivette Palomo

Neutral

I affirm the inherent dignity of human life from conception until natural death. "Legal protection" can mean fetal homicide laws, personhood amendments, or absolute prohibitions — these are not the same. I am committed to protecting the vulnerable. I will not let others define what that requires. The tensions are real. Pretending otherwise serves neither life nor truth.

Neutral

I believe all human life possesses inherent dignity, including embryos created through assisted reproduction. I also recognize that IVF has built families and brought immeasurable joy. The question of how to honor both truths — protecting embryonic life without criminalizing the physicians and parents who participate in IVF — demands careful, good-faith deliberation, not absolutist declarations that serve ideology over life.

I believe elective abortion should be permitted when the mother's life is at risk. This is not a preference for one life over another — it is a recognition that when a mother's life is lost, the child she carries is often lost as well. Some mothers would lay down their lives for their unborn child. Their courage honors us all. Acknowledging hard cases is not an invitation to unrestricted abortion. It is the mark of a society that takes both life and suffering seriously.

Strongly Disagree

Taxpayers should not be compelled to fund organizations that perform abortions. The claim that public money only supports "other services" ignores reality: money is fungible. Every dollar subsidizing overhead frees another dollar for the procedure itself. Conscience rights work both ways — if we would not force a pro-choice citizen to fund a crisis pregnancy center, we should not force a pro-life citizen to fund Planned Parenthood.

Agree

The Comstock Act should be enforced — it is existing law, and the executive branch lacks the authority to ignore it. But enforcement alone is insufficient. Laws restrain action; they cannot form character. If we are not raising children who understand self-restraint — who recognize that some consequences are avoided only by choosing not to invite them — then we are merely managing moral decay rather than resisting it. That work begins at the kitchen table, not the Capitol.

Agree

Free enterprise and private property are not abstract economic theories — they are the foundation upon which every American kitchen table rests. When government erodes property rights or strangles enterprise with regulation, it does not merely inconvenience businesses. It starves families of the opportunity to build, to prosper, and to secure a legacy for their children. The right to own and to build is the right to hope.

Disagree

The question conflates morality with governance. Whether someone should give more is a matter of personal conscience. Whether government compels them to is a matter of law. These are not the same. Charity is a virtue. Taxation by force is not charity — it is confiscation dressed in moral language. Every American has the right to do with their lawful earnings as they see fit. If we wish to help working families — and we should — the answer is opportunity, not redistribution.

Disagree

"Cut spending" is a slogan, not a strategy. The debt is unsustainable — but the question is what we fund and why. I will not endorse blank "cuts" that slash services while leaving the administrative state intact. Cut the bureaucracy that inflates costs. Cut the regulations that strangle enterprise. Cut duplicative programs that employ administrators rather than serve citizens. That is fiscal responsibility. Everything else is theater.

1. REINS Act — No major regulation takes effect without a congressional vote. Ends rule by unelected bureaucrats. 2. Administrative Independence Act — Abolishes administrative courts that enforce waste and shield bureaucrats. 3. Zero-based budgeting — Agencies justify their entire budget annually. Baseline increases are not entitlements. 4. Eliminate duplicative programs — GAO identifies thousands of redundancies. Consolidation is competence.

Disagree

A business built from a citizen's sweat, blood, and tears does not become public property upon opening its doors. Compelled service is compelled labor — and compelled labor has another name. Conscience rights are not a loophole for discrimination; they are the last defense against a government that believes it owns your labor. If we would not force a citizen to speak against his faith, we must not force him to work against it. Freedom of conscience is non-negotiable.

"Separation of church and state" was intended to protect the church from the state — not to banish faith from public life. When government compels citizens to violate their conscience, it does not maintain neutrality. It establishes the state as the supreme authority over the soul. The state is not our god. It has no authority to command what conscience forbids. True separation means the government respects the limits of its own jurisdiction — and that jurisdiction ends where conscience begins.

I believe Medicare and Medicaid must remain available for those they currently serve — abandoning that commitment is neither conservative nor conscionable. But I am not prepared to endorse a new government program until we have addressed why the existing system fails so many working families who fall through the cracks. More government is not automatically the answer. Better government might be. I want to see the existing system reformed before we expand it.

Strongly Disagree

A government database of citizens' illnesses is not a tool for compassion — it is an instrument of control. The stated purpose, "assessing economic burden," is the pretext. The reality is rationing. When government knows who is sick and what they cost, it is only a matter of time before that data is used to decide who receives care and who does not. Medical privacy is not a loophole. It is a wall between the citizen and the state. And that wall must not be breached.

C is the rule: America first, sovereignty first, no more endless wars. But there are moments — supporting Israel, countering China, confronting terrorism — where selective engagement serves our principles and security. The standard: does this protect the American kitchen table? We support democracies that stand with us. We confront adversaries that threaten us. We do not nation-build. We do not sacrifice blood and treasure for abstractions. Sovereignty first. Strength always.

Agree

The Chinese Communist Party is not a strategic partner — it is a strategic adversary. The threats are not theoretical: military expansion, systematic theft of intellectual property, cyber infiltration, and economic manipulation designed to create dependency. Appeasement has failed. The CCP respects only strength and resolve. We must decouple critical supply chains, harden cyber defenses, and meet aggression with consequences, not concessions.

The U.S.-Israel relationship is vital — not because of shared faith, but shared interests and values. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and democracies must stand together. Beyond principle, Israel provides critical intelligence, counter-terrorism partnership, and defense innovation that serves American security directly. Supporting Israel is not charity. It is strategy.

Agree

Radical Islamic terrorism remains a clear and present threat to our national security. The distinction matters: we are not at war with a faith. We are at war with an ideology that uses faith as a weapon — one that has declared war on the West, on Israel, and on the principles of liberty that define us. To deny the threat because naming it might offend is not tolerance. It is cowardice. We cannot defeat what we refuse to identify.

Immigration must serve the American Republic — not the other way around. We welcome those who bring skill, industry, and commitment to our founding principles. Those who respect our laws, our language, and our sovereignty — and who offer something we need — may find a place here during open immigration periods. A republic is a covenant. And covenants require mutual obligation.

Strongly Disagree

"Sanctuary city" is a euphemism for nullification — local governments picking which federal laws to obey. This is not compassion for a poor soul. It is a systematic refusal to cooperate with enforcement that shields cartels, traffickers, and repeat offenders alongside the desperate. A republic cannot endure when cities override federal law at will. Nullification destroys the covenant of mutual obligation that holds a republic together.

Agree

The Department of Education has not educated a single child — it has administered, regulated, and coerced. Federal funding comes with strings used to impose ideologies parents never consented to. There is no greater theft than the seizure of a child's mind by bureaucratic force. Control must return to states and communities — where parents can see what is taught, challenge what is wrong, and protect what is sacred. The DOE must come down.

Agree

Foreign money comes with foreign interests. When hostile regimes fund American education, they are purchasing influence over the minds of our citizens. A republic that allows its children's formation to be shaped by adversaries has already surrendered the most critical battleground. Education is the architecture of the future. No foreign government should hold the blueprints. Sovereignty over the mind is the first sovereignty.

Agree

The government has no right to alter a person — certainly not a child, who is not a tool for state purposes. The Fourteenth Amendment protects parental rights as fundamental liberty. The Declaration requires consent of the governed. No institution may usurp the parent's role — at all. A child cannot consent to permanent alteration. Whether parents consent or not, the state has no authority. An institution that enables this has abandoned its duty to protect and violated the family.

Neutral

The federal government has no constitutional authority to define marriage — that power is reserved to the states and the people. Marriage is sacred in religious law and legal in governmental spheres. The government's interest is not theological but practical: property, progeny, and prosperity. A republic that severs marriage from the reproductive structure of one man and one woman severs itself from its own future. Alter the reproductive foundation, and the society destroys itself.

I believe in the inherent dignity of every human life, the sanctity of the family, the necessity of moral courage, and the truth that we are accountable to something greater than ourselves. These values are not negotiable. They inform every position I hold.

Strongly Disagree

The integrity of the franchise is the foundation of republican government. A republic that cannot verify its voters cannot trust its elections. And a republic that cannot trust its elections cannot long endure. Unrestricted elections are ludicrous to any nation that chooses to remain sovereign.

Strongly Agree

Biology is reality, not controversy — and women's spaces must be protected.

The most reliable energy source is not belief — it is physics. Those who risk livelihoods and life to remove our footprint are experimenters, and we are not subjects. Reform must honor time, not fiat.

No.

No.

Conservative

Agree

The primary duty to protect children belongs to parents — not government. Government does not conceive. Government does not give birth. When the state assumes the role of parent, it usurps the family and erodes the authority best positioned to shield children from harm. That said, government has a legitimate role in prosecuting predators and enforcing laws against exploitation. Protecting children from criminals is justice. Replacing parents is overreach.

The Second Amendment is an inherent right, not a government privilege. Restrictions on the law-abiding do not improve public safety; they disarm the innocent while criminals remain armed. The proper focus is prosecuting violent offenders, enforcing existing laws, and addressing the mental health and cultural crises that produce violence. I support national reciprocity — a right that vanishes at a state line is not a right. It is a permission slip.