DO ASK, DO TELL!
FAQ's will be added in real-time as they get asked. I'm here to listen to you! I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'm more interested in hearing what YOU want from me as YOUR representative.
TEAMING UP WITH YOU IN 2022!

What will be your criteria for deciding how to vote on bills?

In all legislation on any topic, I have five rules of equal standing:

1) Majority constituent opinion, because they are whom I represent.

2) Republican Party Platform, because I owe some degree of allegiance to the body which nominated me.

3) Negotiations process with my peers in the legislature, including priorities as defined by chamber and caucus leadership.

4) Constituent communications; those who actively participate deserve to have additional weight for their opinions.

5) Organizational partners, such as (hopefully) your group. No one can effectively legislate without organizational partners, so institutional opinions matter.

6) Yes, there is a sixth: my own informed conscience. All five of the above are entitled to have me retain my personal humanity, lest I would not be able to form meaningful relationships with them.

What's your position on abortion?

–Timing: the needs of sentient life outweigh the needs of non-sentient life. The earliest sentience has ever been observed in human fetuses is week 18. Once sentient, the fetus is a full human being, entitled to the rights of personhood. Prior to 18 weeks, the needs of the mother take prescience, therefore abortion should be legal up to that point. Pain awareness does not precede sentience; government should not disregard the mother's pain before the fetus becomes aware of pain. Bodily sovereignty is equal to the right to life itself! The recent pandemic shows the disastrous results of failing to place living on equal footing with life. Imagine telling someone they can not work, can not visit a dying spouse, and must submit to experimental medicine, because they "might" expose someone else to a deadly disease.

– Exceptions: doctors should be completely free to determine medical risks for the mother and gestating child. Government should not require proof beyond ordinary record-keeping. Mothers have the sovereign, inalienable right to determine whether quality of life or life itself is more important for their baby. If the mother, in consultation with her doctor, determines that the PHYSICAL (not circumstantial) quality of life will be too poor, then pregnancy termination is implicit in that right. Mothers also have the sovereign, inalienable right to terminate the pregnancy if continuing to carry would pose a severe risk to their own health. Mental and emotional health are equally important as physical health, so mothers should be free to claim rape and incest exceptions, without proof, to terminate their pregnancy. Doctors are mandated reporters, so mothers are already (legally) protected from having to submit to force or extortion by abusers. That protection should be strengthened for improved coverage and efficacy.

– Providers: abortion is always a surgical procedure, and the "abortion pill" carries significant medical risks. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants who are professionally trained with relevant skill sets should be allowed by law and license to perform respective types of abortion. Providers and clinics should be legally and professionally required to meet rigorous safety standards, including hospital admission privileges. Providers and clinics SHOULD receive government funding in the same way as other medical contexts, because public sentiment is not sufficient grounds for medical discrimination. Equal access to government funding, is a form of Constitutional equal protection. Government also has a compelling civilizational interest to ensure that routine and emergency medical services are geographically accessible to all populated communities. Pregnancy certainly counts as routine medical service!

Since we talked about abortion:
what's your position on the death penalty?

"Capital" exists as a legal classification, for good reason: certain crimes are so heinous, that they're in a class all their own. Some non-capital crimes fall within the scope of life imprisonment sentencing. Murder can be sentenced either as a capital or non-capital crime, sometimes even carrying the possibility of parole. Murder has additional specifications that typically differentiate whether it is or isn't capital. Some non-homicidal acts, with additional specifications, can be sentenced as capital crimes. Justice exists; as one of the few true binaries of the universe, something is either just or unjust. Without proportionate sentencing, justice cannot fulfill its inherent nature!

What justice does NOT require, is perfection. Human systems cannot be perfect, but must exist for humanity to fulfill its inherent nature. The need and pursuit of improvement doesn't negate the function of human systems! For these reasons, I support the existence of the death penalty as a sentencing option for capital crimes. Of course, barbarism runs contrary to Western ethic and Constututional law. Execution should be as painless and complication-free as scientifically possible. Death row inmates should have every REASONABLE opportunity to appeal their sentence, and executive office holders should feel completely free to issue clemency orders according to their own conscience.