Drew Cranmer

Strongly Agree

As a Catholic, I am both pro-life and anti-death-penalty. I don't believe either of these positions should be legislated by the federal government though. States and localities should be free to decide these matters on their own terms.

Strongly Agree

My personal belief is that an elective abortion should only be performed if the mother's life is in danger.

Strongly Disagree

I do not think taxpayer funds should be used to support abortion providers in any way whatsoever.

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1) End foreign wars, close needless bases, cut wasteful spending and foreign aid. 2) Audit and end the Fed's opacity, cutting the interest-on-reserves subsidy to big banks. 3) Shut down duplicative and unconstitutional surveillance programs. 4) Block-grant or sunset federal programs that duplicate state functions. 5) Abolish the federal death penalty and the associated capital-litigation apparatus.

Strongly Disagree

Government should neither make laws prohibiting religious practices nor subsidize or favor certain religions. People should be free to practice their chosen religion (or no religion at all) absent state interference.

D) Taxpayer funded health care should be abolished in all forms, and Medicaid and Medicare should be defunded. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress to run a health insurance program.Whether private insurance or government, 3rd-party payment severs the link between the person consuming care and the person paying for it. Medicare and Medicaid are the largest 3rd-party payers in the country, and that structure is a primary driver of the price distortion in the entire system.

Strongly Disagree

People's personal health should be no business of the government. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes such a database.

C) The United States has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger. Congress, not the executive, holds the constitutional authority to declare war. Decades of undeclared conflicts and open-ended commitments have drained resources and lives without a clear national interest. A restrained foreign policy means defending America first, not policing the globe.

Disagree

The CCP presents real challenges: IP theft, cyber intrusions, and economic coercion are documented and serious. But 'serious threat' isn't the same as 'imminent military threat,' and treating it that way fuels the kind of unchecked executive war-making I oppose. These are problems for vigilance, competition, and smart policy, not a blank check for intervention.

Yes, but not as currently structured. Decades of unconditional aid bypass real congressional debate under Article I. No ally should get a blank check regardless of conduct. That's especially true when US weapons and dollars are tied to mass civilian death in Gaza that many call genocide. I'd end unconditional aid, not the relationship itself. Diplomacy and trade can continue. What ends is automatic support without scrutiny, the same standard I'd apply to any nation receiving American tax dollars

Neutral

Terrorism is a real threat, and vigilance matters. But two decades of 'war on terror' policy (mass surveillance, indefinite detention, undeclared wars) did more to erode our own constitutional rights than to make us safer, while radicalizing new enemies in the process. Real security means targeted, accountable action against actual threats, not permanent war powers and warrantless spying on Americans sold as counterterrorism. We can defend the country without dismantling the Constitution.

Legal immigration, reformed to be far less restrictive, should permit those wishing to enter the country legally the option to do so without waiting decades. And as long was we have laws, they should be enforced evenhandedly, not seletively. Per Milton Friedman: open borders and a welfare state can't coexist. Decouple entry from means-tested benefits, and a more open door becomes fiscally sustainable instead of politically radioactive. Reform the law. Enforce the law. Don't subsidize around it.

Disagree

I get the instinct to protect people from an immigration system that's often arbitrary and cruel. But sanctuary cities are selective non-enforcement by another name, and I don't think the rule of law survives cities picking which federal laws they'll honor. If the law's wrong, the fix is Congress reforming it. I'd rather fight for a less restrictive, faster legal immigration system than normalize enforcement being optional depending on zip code.

Strongly Agree

The Department of Education doesn't teach a single child. It pushes paperwork while states pay the price. Since 1979, federal spending on schools has climbed with test scores flat and outcomes stagnant. Kansas parents and teachers know their kids better than bureaucrats in D.C. ever will. Return the money and the decisions to states and local school boards, where accountability is closest to home. Education isn't a federal function, it's a community one.

Agree

American universities have quietly accepted billions from foreign governments, including adversarial regimes, with little transparency and less accountability. Section 117 disclosure rules exist but go largely unenforced. Foreign gifts to research programs and undisclosed grants create leverage over what gets taught and studied. Education should serve American students and American interests, not foreign influence campaigns. Prohibit it outright and enforce real transparency.

Disagree

Calling every family's private medical decision 'child abuse' invites government into the exam room and the living room alike. I trust parents, not bureaucrats or politicians, to navigate hard medical choices for their own kids, in consultation with doctors they trust. That's not indifference; it's federalism and family autonomy applied consistently. The state's role is to protect kids from genuine abuse, not to weaponize that word against parents making difficult, good-faith decisions.

Neutral

Marriage is fundamentally a private contract between consenting adults, not a permission slip from government. I don't think it's my business who two people choose to enter that contract with. At the same time, churches and individuals should never be compelled to perform, host, or service ceremonies that violate their beliefs. Government's proper role is limited to the legal mechanics (custody, healthcare, property) not defining or gatekeeping who qualifies.

I'm a practicing Catholic, and my faith shapes my personal values, but I don't believe government exists to legislate any citizen's theology, including my own. Scripture calls me to humility, service, and respect for the dignity of every person; the Constitution calls me to humility about the proper limits of federal power. I take the Tenth Amendment seriously: anything not explicitly delegated to Washington belongs to the states or the people. That conviction isn't in tension with my faith, it flows from it. A government too small to dictate how you worship, raise your family, or run your life is also too small to become anyone's idol. My job in Congress would be defending that space for everyone, not imposing my own beliefs on it.

Disagree

I do not believe photo identification is an unreasonable requirement to vote. I also believe states should be free to set their own election laws though and that the federal government should not interfere.

Neutral

Fair competition matters, so I support preserving women's sports as female-only categories. But bathrooms, locker rooms, and other private spaces are a different question. That's not a federal legislative matter. Property and business owners, schools, and private organizations should set their own policies, not Washington. I trust institutions closer to the people to handle this sensibly rather than a one-size-fits-all federal mandate in either direction.

Nuclear delivers 90%+ uptime with zero carbon emissions, using a fraction of the land wind and solar require. Although it is expensive to build and the waste debate is real, it is the only proven baseload solution ready to scale.

No

No

Lean Conservative

I am m a constitutionalist libertarian: government must justify every exercise of power, economic or social, foreign or domestic. That means sound money and no Fed opacity, Article I war powers instead of endless intervention, zero warrantless surveillance, real religious liberty, and power pushed down to the states and the people. I lean right on culture, but the throughline is liberty and consent, not partisan alignment.

Strongly Disagree

Nowhere in Article I does Congress get a mandate to police childhood safety online. That's the Tenth Amendment doing its job. States can pass age-verification or content laws if their voters want that. Federal 'child safety' bills routinely become backdoors for mass ID verification and surveillance infrastructure that outlasts the stated purpose. I trust parents and states over a federal agency writing rules for the whole internet.

I support the individual right to keep and bear arms without new federal restrictions on law-abiding Kansans. For genuinely dangerous individuals, disqualification should go through due process: a real hearing, not an ex parte order. Gun policy belongs with states under the Tenth Amendment, not Washington.