Candidate Profiles

Even with an ectopic pregnancy, the fallopian tube can be removed to save the mother without performing an abortion. I am unsure of ANY medical occurrence in which it would require you to take the life of the baby first in order to save the mother's.

Since I have worked as a hospice nurse for 6 years, I have seen it used medically for relief of chemo-related nausea in terminally ill patients. There may be an exception for closely-monitored medical use like any other narcotic drug or chemical intervention.

I think this is already being done at the present time, is it not? Through the Medicaid program.

I am unsure of the legal realm that this type of technology falls under; hence, I cannot opine at the present time on its taxation, under what entity or how much, if at all.

Yes - this will depend on our evolving definition of what the term "needy" indicates in terms of specific qualifications. Decisions will need to be made based on medical necessity, proper use of cost controls on procedures and generics, etc.

Reduce or streamline services wherever possible before raising taxes.

Many types of guns are in collections, numerous and locked in safes - this would be a very costly endeavor and not one that would be very useful in terms of decreasing crimes.

Depends on what is included in the legislation and exactly what dollars are being used - school budgets are tenuous at best and even minor disruptions can be disastrous in terms of projected vs. "actually-received" funding dollars.

Yes! We committed to this a long time ago and have never even come close yet with our present funding formula. Property taxes are out of control.

Only to ensure their basic, required competencies are being maintained - much like I have to recertify in my profession. I'm not really sure how this would be done for teachers, however, so may not be practical.

As long as it is properly balanced with the quality and availability of resources for each student (for example, in some areas transportation would cost a lot more than others, etc.).

I did not vote for this last year for the Class I's - I think it should be a local decision based on their own review of proper utilization of their resources, answering to their own local patrons.

This debate has been going on for a very long time and I am not convinced that legislation is the total answer - schools that need improvement are not necessarily made better just by throwing more money at their "status quo" operations. Still listening to the debate at this time and waiting for the issue to come to the Floor.

A great idea but who would pay for it?

NO. Check out the history of weather conditions in the world for the past centuries and it is easy to see that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happened even when we did not have automobiles and factories. The Kyoto Protocol in my opinion is unnecessary.

Depending on where and whether or not we needed them to save significantly on our energy costs; I do believe they are safe.

No - our DEQ already has more stringent regulations than are required by most other places, and already seems to have very tight standards that must be met.

To continue only with disclosure of the benefits we are receiving from them in terms of economic development and growth vs. what taxes we are excusing.

I believe that we are doing this now - will depend on what the outcomes are.

Yes, I do, only as we are able to sustain them. The EPIC fund as originally designed is now maxxed out; however, there are other business incentives still available to them.

Yes, through educational loan forgiveness as we do now.

Would depend in what ways - we already have a medical malpractice cap on awards right now. I still believe awards should at least cover the ACTUAL costs of future medical care - it is not right that they have to resort to Medicaid when they are harmed through no fault of their own - extra costs for all of us.

Let's get tougher with the laws we already have and crack down - if we have to invest more funding to get this done, I would consider it, but only on the federal level.

Maybe - if the suit was reckless and filed for nuisance purposes just to make the defendant sustain legal costs and inconvenience.

I was in favor of putting it on the ballot for the people to decide for themselves - and they did.

Not at this point.