Ken Krawchuk

Strongly Agree

I support one small change to the ADOPTION laws to allow for Pre-Natal Adoption. If a woman does not want her unborn child, any individual or agency can adopt it while still in the womb. Through the privacy of the doctor, ask the woman to bring the baby to term, and the adoptive parents would pay for the delivery. She can say Yes or No. Since many babies are aborted for economic reasons, we are guaranteed to save more babies and still preserve a woman’s right to choose. See KenK4Pa.com/abortion.

Agree

Neutral

Strict protection of artificial human embryos would kill the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) business. They always create extras because they’re expensive and they fail so often. But what would you do with the extras? You’d have to avoid creating them entirely. The price for IVF would skyrocket, much like the space business where they used to throw a rocket away after each use. If that were done with airplanes or ships, no one would ever travel. Do that to IVF and no IVF baby would ever be born.

Neutral

Any law should be enforced, even the bad ones. But civil disobedience is always an option.

I oppose minimum wage laws. They cut the bottom rungs off the ladder to success, contribute to inflation, drive up wages and prices, force businesses to overpay for skills resulting in fewer goods or services, and interfere in the free market.

Strongly Agree

Use the power of the veto and line item veto to eliminate big special interest spending, such as the $200,000,000 of tax dollars spent on horse racing, and even veto the little things, like putting the governor’s name on Welcome to Pennsylvania signs. Many more examples at KenK4Pa.com/taxes. Anyone receiving state money must reapply every year. When they do, take a close look at their application. Investigate those who don’t reapply because their prior application is more likely to be bogus.

I agree with PA Constitution Article 1 Section 3: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.”

Strongly Disagree

Forcing anyone to provide services that violate their moral and/or religious beliefs is blatantly unconstitutional. Article 1 Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “[N]o human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” Further, Section 25 states: “[E]verything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate,” so the rights of conscience cannot be taken away. Ever.

None of the above. The best way to improve the availability and cost of health care in Pennsylvania is to legalize health share organizations. They provide the best service at a fraction the cost of Obamacare, Medicare, or Medicaid. Unfortunately, most are illegal in PA. As Governor, I’ll work to legalize health share in Pennsylvania because without a free market, there are no pricing signals or transparency in pricing health care services that would foster competition and bring lower prices.

Strongly Disagree

The government should NOT keep a database of people with ongoing medical illnesses, nor assess the economic burden of treatment. It is not the business of government to interfere in the free market. To repeat: The best way to improve the availability and cost of health care in Pennsylvania is to legalize health share organizations. They provide the best service at a fraction the cost of Obamacare, Medicare, or Medicaid. Unfortunately, most are illegal in Pennsylvania.

Neutral

This is an irrelevant question. As governor, I have no say over foreign policy.

This is an irrelevant question. As governor, I have no say over foreign policy.

Strongly Disagree

The states have absolutely no role regarding immigration policy. The governor has no authority to enforce any federal law, and therefore cannot legally attempt to do so. Conversely, if the governor should attempt to interfere with the enforcement of any federal law, they would be subject to arrest. The Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution is quite clear: When it comes to any federal law, the governor can neither usurp nor hinder the federal government’s authority.

Neutral

This is an irrelevant question. As governor, I have no say over federal policy. Further, Pennsylvania already has control of education, and they've destroyed it horribly. Our Constitution mandates our schools be “thorough and efficient,” but they’re neither. Testing shows that most kids can’t read or do math at grade level, and the average cost per child is $24,000, compared to only $11,000 for a typical private school. Government should get out of the education business completely.

Neutral

This is an irrelevant question. As governor, I have no say over foreign policy. Further, I support privatizing the government schools by redirecting the funding currently given to the school districts and giving it directly to the student as a voucher instead. Then the parents can choose any private school for their child. Details at KenK4Pa.com/education. Governments, both foreign and domestic, should get out of the education business completely. Our kids deserve better.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

This is a trick question that cannot be answered by the available choices. I believe that anyone can choose whether they prefer a God-ordained definition, a government definition, or their own definition. Why should God or government stand in the way of true love?

Neutral

This is a trick question that cannot be answered by the available choices. It assumes that gambling should be under control of the state. As a Libertarian, I believe you have the right to live your life you way, without interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others. If you choose to gamble, run a casino, or anything that respects the rights and property of others, you should be free to do so. Of course if you run a crooked casino, you should go to jail for theft or fraud.

I believe you have the right to live your life you way, without interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

If you look all through history, everyone would deserve reparations for some injustice their race suffered. African blacks engaged in white slavery. American whites engaged in black slavery. Race X engaged in enslaving Race Y all through history. Fortunately in Western culture, this practice has been defeated. Besides, whoever committed those travesties would have to be a lot older than any of the people living in Western culture today, so why would any of us have to pay reparations to anyone?

Strongly Agree

Neutral

This is a trick question with sixteen possible yes/no answers. Is there climate change, yes or no? Is it man-made, yes or no? Is it a threat, yes or no? Is political action urgently necessary, yes or no? When you add in the five suggested answers, the range expands to eighty possible answers, hence my neutral reply. That said, anything that might be a global threat is beyond the duties of any governor. And whenever anyone calls for "urgent political action," it's time to pause and take stock.

There is a giant fusion reactor that can supply all the energy we can ever conceive of needing. It's called The Sun. Solar cells and batteries are more than sufficient. A 100x100 mile square of solar cells can power the entire United States.

Did not answer

No. FYI, the previous question is not valid, and it would not let me answer without choosing an invalid answer, so I'm forced to answer it here. That question was, "When you consider your views on a wide range of issues from economic and social matters to foreign policy and religious liberty, which of the following best describes you overall?" The possible answers range from "Very Conservative" to "Very Liberal." Speaking as a Libertarian, none of them apply. I choose "None of the Above."

No.

This is a trick question. Who determines what a criminal is? Certainly, someone who hurts you, defrauds you, or takes your stuff is surely a criminal. But under our laws, if you're just smoking a joint, the law calls you a criminal even though you've hurt, defrauded, or robbed no one. To my mind, a criminal is someone who initiates force or fraud. In that context, the goal of the criminal justice system is to get criminals off the streets so that the rest of us can live our lives in peace.

Strongly Disagree

There are already laws against sexual exploitation of children. Giving government additional powers to monitor online activities sits on a very slippery slope called, "censorship."

Strongly Agree

I believe Sharia law is fundamentally incompatible with Western values. Personally, I think women should be treated as equals.

Article 1 Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution says, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” I have no question what that means: Restrictions on gun ownership are unconstitutional and illegal. "Public safety" is a red herring to disarm the populous. For example, after a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. See more details at KenK4Pa.com/issues/gun-control.