Arizona Right to Life

Political Action Committee Questionnaire

2010 Arizona Political Candidates

Return To: Arizona Right to Life PAC

3333 N. 44th Street, Suite 4

Phoenix, AZ 85018

Phone: (602) 285-0063

Fax: (602) 285-0082

E-Mail: PAC@ArizonaRightToLife.org

Candidate Name:___________________Adam Armer_________________________ Date:_____________

Address: _________ ____________________________________________________________

City:      Mesa     ZIP:_ ____________ County: ________________Maricopa_____

Phones:  Home: (602)_ -348-2383____ Work:( )_____________ Fax:( )____________

Campaign Committee Name:   Committee To Elect Adam Armer ________________________________

Committee Address:____________________________________________________________

Committee Website:____ADAMARMER.COM______________________                                                                        E-Mail:___adamarmer@cox.net________________________

Committee Contact:____________________________________________________________

Party Affiliation: [ ] Democrat [ x] Republican [ ] Other____________________________

Candidate Status: [ ] Incumbent [ x] Non-Incumbent

Office sought: ___________State Representative LD 22___________ __________________________________________

Clean Election Candidate?: [ ] Yes [ x] No

Note: We understand that not every issue on this questionnaire will come

before you in the office you seek. However, because candidates often

eventually seek higher office, we believe it important to determine the

strength of one’s convictions as early as possible in the political ascension

process. Thus, even if an issue may not come before you for a vote, we

nonetheless appreciate you providing your stance on that issue. Thank you.

Arizona Right to Life Political Action Committee Principles:

AZRTL PAC holds firmly to the principle that every innocent human life is precious and

demands utmost respect. In the face of overwhelming and compelling biological evidence (i.e.,

distinctive genetic composition at conception, heartbeat activity at 18-21 days post-conception,

brain activity at 42 days, etc.), we affirm that a new and unique expression and continuum of

human life begins at the moment of conception. We affirm that the preborn child is a person who

is innocent, vulnerable and in need of our protection and the full protection of our laws. We

affirm that the right to life of all innocent persons, pre-birth and post-birth, must be protected

regardless of race, age, sex, health, degree of disability or circumstances of conception.

Abortion

Roe v. Wade

In its 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court created a so-called

constitutional “right to abortion” that invalidated the abortion laws of all 50 states. Following

these decisions, from 1973 until 1989, the federal courts permitted virtually no restrictions on

abortion, even after “viability.”

(1) Do you support the complete reversal of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions,

thereby allowing the Arizona State Legislature and the U.S. Congress to once again protect

unborn children to the degree they deem appropriate?

[ x] Yes [ ] No

Legal Protection/Personhood

The AZRTL PAC affirms that unborn children should be protected by law, and that an abortion

should be permitted when it is the ONLY way to prevent the death of the mother, a near modern

medical impossibility.

(2) Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that abortion should be legal?

[ ] In no case.

[x ] Only to prevent the death of the mother.

[ ] To prevent the death of the mother, cases of incest (with the perpetrator reported to

law enforcement agencies), and in cases of forcible rape (reported to law enforcement

authorities within seven days).

Other: (Please explain) _______I do not believe there has ever been a case where an abortion was necessary to save a mother’s life.__

(3) Another alternative for restoring legal rights to the unborn is to amend the U.S. Constitution

to affirm "personhood" for all human beings, including the unborn. Would you support

ratification of such an amendment establishing "personhood" for the unborn?

[ x] Yes [ ] No

However I believe the Declaration of Independence clearly defines when personhood begins. (All men are created equal)

Abortion Restrictions

In its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the “core

holdings” of Roe v. Wade, but modified Roe somewhat to permit states to adopt abortion

regulations that do not place any “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman seeking an

abortion. Under this so-called “undue burden test” the Court upheld Pennsylvanian regulations

requiring with various exceptions that a woman or girl seeking an abortion be offered stateprepared

information about fetal development and alternatives to abortion, that she wait 24 hours

prior to the abortion, and if she is a minor, that she receive parental or judicial consent prior to an

abortion.

Informed Consent

(4) Would you support and vote for an Informed Consent bill requiring that doctors provide

information on the development of the unborn child, alternatives to abortion, and the medical

risks of abortion 24 hours before an abortion is performed?

[ x] Yes [ ] No

I would add future emotional trauma.

(5) Would you support and vote for an educational program to provide public information about

the development of the unborn child and about alternatives to abortion?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

Fetal Pain

(6) Would you support and vote for an Informed Consent bill requiring doctors to provide

information to a woman about the nervous system development of her unborn child and the

unborn child’s ability to feel pain?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

Partial-Birth Abortion

(7) Would you support a ban on partial birth abortions?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

Legal Birth Definition

(8) Would you support a law defining when birth begins?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Government Funding and Sponsorship of Abortion

(9) Would you support and vote for a bill to remove government from the abortion industry by

preventing the use of state facilities or resources to perform abortions not necessary to prevent

the death of the mother, and to prevent state employees from performing, referring or counseling

for abortions, other than those necessary to prevent the death of the mother?

[x] Yes [ ] No

(10) Would you oppose and vote against the use of taxpayer funds for abortion other than to

prevent the death of the mother?

[x] Yes [ ] No

(11) Would you oppose and vote against the use of taxpayer funds for abortion referrals for

government employees other than to prevent the death of the mother?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

(12) Would you oppose and vote against the establishment or funding of “health clinics” in

secondary schools, unless they are explicitly prohibited from performing abortion counseling or

referral, or referring to any entity, which counsels for or performs abortions?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Use of Fetal Tissue

(13) Would you oppose and vote against the use of tissues and organs from aborted embryos and

fetuses in transplants or medical experiments?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Birth Control Abortions

(14) Would you support and vote for a bill that would prevent the use of abortion as a means of

birth control?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

Sex-Selection Abortions

(15) Would you support and vote for a bill that would prevent abortion for sex selection?

[x] Yes [ ] No

RU-486

(16) Would you support and vote for restrictions on the marketing, distribution and sale of the

abortion-pill “RU 486” and the morning-after pill in Arizona?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

Conscientious Clause

(17) Many health care workers conscientiously object to any activities surrounding the

performance of an abortion. This may include referrals or disbursement of abortifacients. Would

you support and vote for a legislation which protects from discrimination or legal liability health

care workers and institutions that conscientiously object to participating in a health care service

which offends their ethical, moral or religious beliefs?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

Embryonic Protection

The right to life of human beings must be respected at every stage of their biological

development. Human individuals who are at the embryonic stage of development should not be

used for harmful or lethal medical experimentation. This applies equally to human beings whose

lives have begun by means such as in-vitro fertilization or cloning. AZRTL PAC strongly

opposes the harvest or experimentation on “stem cells” obtained from living human embryos

regardless of origin, since this ultimately results in the death of the human embryo. Note: AZRTL

PAC is not opposed to other research using stem cells which are obtained without killing

embryos.

(18) Will you support and vote for measures to protect living human embryos from being used

for medical experiments that would harm or kill them, including embryonic stem cell research?

[x] Yes [ ] No

(19) Will you support and vote for measures that would make it easier for couples to adopt socalled

“snowflake babies” – un-implanted and stored embryos that are usually discarded as a

result of in vitro fertilization?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Human Cloning

Human cloning is a process in which genetic material from one person would be artificially

transferred into a human or animal egg cell, thereby beginning the life of a new human

individual who has only one parent and who is genetically identical to that parent. AZRTL PAC

affirms that human life at every stage of biological development is deserving of respect and

protection regardless of the circumstances under which that human life was created. It has been

proposed to create human life through cloning for the purpose of destructive experiments on

those human beings, resulting in their deaths, and for the purpose of scavenging the bodies of

those human beings to obtain tissues and organs, resulting in their deaths.

(20) Would you support a legal prohibition on all forms of human cloning, including therapeutic

(somatic cell nuclear transfer - SCNT) and reproductive cloning?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

(21) Would you oppose and vote against any legislation that would allow for the cloning of

human beings for the purpose of embryonic research and that would effectively mandate the

destruction and disposal of the resultant cloned human embryos (also referred to as “clone and

kill” legislation)?

[x ] Yes [ ] No

Euthanasia

From its inception, the Pro-Life movement has sought not only to protect the unborn from

abortion, but also to protect the vulnerable born, especially older people and those with

disabilities, from euthanasia. We consider rationing of health care, resulting in the denial of lifesaving

medical treatment against the will of the patient, to be unacceptable involuntary

euthanasia.

(22) Do you support the current Arizona law, A.R.S. 13-1103, which defines manslaughter as the

intentional aiding of another to commit suicide?

[x] Yes [ ] No

(23) Would you vote against the legalization of physician assisted suicide?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Medical and ethical journals now frequently carry articles advocating denial of life-saving

treatment against the will of a patient or the patient’s family if health care providers or an ethics

committee think the patient’s quality of life is unacceptable, even though the patient and family

disagree. In 1991, Oregon approved a health care rationing plan for its Medicaid program. The

primary basis for denial of treatment is the expected degree of disability or poor "quality of life"

a patient would experience after treatment. This is a form of involuntary euthanasia.

(24) Would you support and vote for legislation that, would prohibit the rationing of health care

which intentionally denies treatment on the basis of disability or "quality of life?"

[x ] Yes [ ] No

(25) Would you vote against involuntary denial of life-saving treatment by providing that in

cases where a health care provider is unwilling to provide treatment, food or fluids that is desired

by the patient or the patient's surrogate, and medical judgment is necessary to prevent the

patient's death, the provider must allow the patient to be transferred to a willing provider and

provide the treatment pending the transfer?

[x] Yes [ ] No

(26) Arizona's current law (A.R.S. 13-3412.01), supports the administration of analgesics and/or

sedatives to terminally ill patients in doses large enough to control pain and other symptoms.

Would you vote against legislation that would allow "terminal sedation," the practice of the

inappropriate use of medication to induce coma in order to hasten the death of a patient?

[x] Yes [ ] No

(27) Hydration and nutrition (food and water) are basic human necessities and should never be

considered a form of medical treatment. The provision of nutrition and hydration whether it be

administered orally, intravenously or via gastronomy tube, should never be removed without the

patient’s clearly expressed and informed consent. Would you support legislation which prohibits

the withholding or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from an individual by a health care

provider, guardian, surrogate or any other public or private agency or court?

[ ] Yes [x ] No

I know my wife’s desires, aspirations, and wishes. My wife has faith in me to carry out her wishes if something unspeakable were to happen. I could not support legislation that would diminish the responsibility one takes for his or her partner when they enter into marriage.

I would also argue that as a parent my children’s futures are of the utmost importance to me. In the event that a parent would be called on to make such a terrible decision every other alternative must be undertaken. That being said the state should only interfere when there is reason to believe there is a chance of any recovery.

There are cases when clear and informed consent, on the patient’s part, is impossible. Parents, husband, and wives should retain the burden of responsibility for each other and their children.

Otherwise I would support such legislation.

Thank you for your time and answers.

I understand that my answers to this questionnaire will be kept on file with the Arizona

Right to Life's Political Action Committee, and will be made available to members of the

public upon request.

Signature of Candidate_______________________________________ Date________________

In his recent statements, our President has been accusing doctors of making health care decisions based on a pay schedule rather than evidence. In doing this, President Obama has reaffirmed the left’s traditional view that mankind will do the wrong thing if left to their own devices.

His comments on the matter are slanderous, but of whom? 

Doctors? Specialized surgeons?

Answer:

They slander all of us, including himself.  His observations have led him to see only the negative side of humanity.

Many associated with the president have a less than wholesome background.  Whether its tax evasion, home grown terrorism, or racially charged anti Semitic rants, he is surrounded by some pretty bad people.

So what else should he expect from the American people?  Why shouldn’t he assume that the problem with healthcare is a symptom of human behavior?  This fallacy he puts his faith in is not isolated to the President. 

His belief has been a way of thinking that has permeated the left for ages and has just fully infected the Democratic Party.  The belief is that the common man is either not capable of making the right decisions or if a person is capable, then they are not inclined to do so.  Finally, if someone does do right, than it was merely a side effect of greed.

This is the real reason they seek to dominate health care and 1/7^th of our economy.  Don’t forget Cap and Trade, and let’s face it the Fairness Doctrine would be on the table if they thought they could get away with it.

The idea that an individual cannot guide himself through life is not new.  This idea is much older than the concept of liberty.  That being said, the world has immensely prospered from the pursuit of liberty when on the other hand; people have only suffered under despotism, socialism and communism. 

All of these ideologies worked to centralize power and take away the ability of individuals to choose for themselves.

My experience tells me to put my faith in the American individual.  It’s these individuals who have led the world in every new technology and medical innovation.  Our economy is unmatched in all of history because of the independent spirit of our entrepreneurs, and a work force full of thinkers and problem solvers.  This system of freedom has brought our work force an unparalleled quality of life.

The Democrats of the 20^th century knew this.

I would suggest they shrug off the disparaging views of the left and get back to believing in the potential of this country and its citizens.

On this day, the 7^th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, many still struggle to understand why this atrocity occurred. As a group, it is safe to say that we are not all of the same religious or ethnic background, but still we have the freedom to come together as a group and share our beliefs. As individuals we will never agree on everything, or live our lives by the same rules as one another, but still we have the right to stand for what we believe in. This is a trait that is unique to us as Americans, and this trait is one reason that we are so successful as a nation. We are able to draw off of the experiences of many different backgrounds and use that experience to overcome obstacles. Our freedoms of political and religious expression give us, as individuals, the courage to accomplish great things. Our right to property, both real estate and intellectual, gives us a stake in this country, and something to fight for. I believe that these freedoms are what our enemies despise about us the most. Generally throughout history this grievance is the one common factor between all of our enemies. There is no doubt that today’s enemy is among the most vicious and evil, and their purpose remains the same as those that have come before.   They would seek to subjugate us to their will and culture. I am not saying that all of our enemies in the past were evil, but I will say that their intentions certainly were. 

The attacks on September 11, 2001 were seen by many as an attack on our way of life, or on our foreign policy. This is simply not true. The attack on the Pentagon was an attack on our security. Their intentions were to cause us to question our safety, and for many it did.  After all, how could anybody feel safe when such a gruesome assault could take place, not only on American soil, but to the very symbol of our military might? Fears such as these, could cause us to more easily part with freedom, and our enemy was counting on this.

As for the World Trade Center, this attack was obviously an assault on our economy, and the way in which we do business. This was not the main objective of such an attack. The World Trade Towers were a testament to our abilities, and a symbol of capitalism in all of it’s glory. Capitalism is the economic expression of freedom. They knew this, and they knew that an attack on these targets would cause us to question which we valued more - freedom or safety. 

Immigration

While legal immigration remains important to our growing economy, illegal immigration threatens the very fabric of our system. Our borders need to be secured in order to protect our citizens. I understand the need for low cost labor, but the need to know who is here, may ultimately be more important. Then we can work on the cost of labor.

Family Values

In today’s political arena, the family is not represented. Family values are not something that can simply be legislated, but they can be promoted through the educational system, and by our communities coming together to support the family unit as it traditionally stands.

Health Care

The health of our families is one of the highest priorities.  The rising costs of health care concerns all of us, but state funded programs are not the answer. Tort reform, alone, would help with the inflated cost laid on our medical providers, by frivolous lawsuits. These costs are passed on to us, the consumers.  Frivolous lawsuits place a hidden “tort tax” on every service we require, or product we purchase. Together we can improve, not only our health care system, but our standards of living. 

Education

The futures of our children are secured in the education that we provide, and the values we raise them with.  It is crucial to the future of this state and country, to educate our children with strong family values. Money cannot solve all problems, and sometimes the community itself, holds the key. I believe that those who educate our children should be held accountable for their job performance, as any other persons would be.  The education of our future generations is of the utmost importance.  They need to be taught fact, not opinion; to be taught life applications, not group therapy. Freedom of choice could help us do just that.

Spending

With out of control spending, our state government has amassed a one billion dollar deficit.  As a true fiscal conservative, I would limit our state spending by rejecting "feel good legislation", and concentrate on Arizona's basics. 

Government

I believe a small government is a healthy one. I will do my part to restrict government to its constitutional boundaries. With big government comes big taxes, and this combination stifles individual freedom. When we are allowed to keep our money, we are able to ensure the success of our communities and families. We can do a better job at securing the futures of our children, when we are allowed to decide for ourselves, how our money is spent on their education. Furthermore, we can ensure the success of our own communities much better than any state or federal government.

2^nd Amendment

Our right to bear arms is not just simply a right to hunt;  it is the right to defend ourselves as free citizens. It is the right to defend our families and our freedom, from those who would harm us.  Criminals will always have the weapons to threaten us.  Citizens should always have the right and means to defend theselves.  Arizona protects this right, and as your representative, I will do all that I can, to protect and uphold the rights of our law abiding citizens. 

Life is Beautiful
I have been asked many times about my stance on life.  To be very clear on this issue, I believe in Life.  This issue, however, is far too important and delicate to sum up in a mere paragraph.  I have many ideas on what can be done to lower the abortion rate.  Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, we will only be able to reduce abortion with education, and the promotion of family values. 

I want to be very clear on this issue. Defending my life, and the lives of my wife and children, is a God given right, period. The second amendment protects this right. It is clear to me that if the state of Illinois protected that right, then maybe the recent shootings would have rendered less loss of life, and been less of a tragedy. That being said, we live in Arizona where our governor, in the wake of Virginia Tech, vetoed a bill that would allow security on a university campus to carry firearms. I am concerned about how much it will take to get some people to wake up. The times that we live in,  are in many ways more dangerous than those of the lawless west.  Senate bill 1214 is a sign that some of us do get it. This bill would give those of us with CCW permits the right to carry on school campuses. There are those who argue against the bill, saying that all these gun toting people scare them, or that these occurrences do not happen frequently enough to change the laws. Well in my opinion, once is enough. Who is to say where and when I can defend my life. 

This bill would allow those with conceal permits to carry on campus. One passion filled argument I here from the left is; they would feel less secure knowing that all those guns were around them. Now, what our friends on the left do not understand,  is that those CCW permit holders tend to be more law abiding than average. I was speaking with a retired NY city police officer friend of mine, when he revealed to me that only 1/10^th of 1% of CCW holders commit any type of crime. There is no debate, these shootings end the instant a law abiding citizen or peace officer confronts the terrorist with a firearm. So as far as this argument goes, I do not think it is wise to base law on emotion, rather than fact, logic, and security.

I have heard it said that these tragedies happen so rarely that there is no need to change the current law. Simply put; since when, is just one life not worth defending? 

Historically, treaties were made to be broken, whether a country breaks it to defend itself, or breaks it to be the aggressor.  Typically treaties are too complicated to adhere to. In many cases of American history, the treaties have been designed to limit our powers, or redistribute our wealth to the rest of the world.  The laws of The Sea Treaty, or LOST for short, is no different.  It would seek to hinder our military, tax our economy, and take our sovereignty.

The treaty restricts military operations without the permission of other countries.  We will not be allowed to collect intelligence off the coast of any country without permission.  For some reason, I do not believe that Iran will give us permission to use our Navy in their waters to collect intelligence, or for any other reason.  The treaty would require that a U.S. sub travel on the surface, in foreign water with our flag raised.   Right now, technically, we already need permission from a country to be in their water.  This treaty, however,  would give an international governing bureaucracy, with un-elected officials, powers over the United States.  Our very sovereignty is at risk. 

This will tax our maritime trade.  It would require the U.S. to adhere to other countries environmental laws, both in the sea, and land, i.e. Kyoto protocol.  Royalties would be imposed on American fishing, oil drilling, and mineral extraction. Of course, that’s only if they are given permission to use the sea for these reasons.  Out of 140 votes, the U.S. would  have only one vote, and no veto powers.  This would give us no recourse against an American bashing United Nations.   The royalties collected by the U.N. would diminish the importance of the already unappreciated contribution the U.S. currently makes to the United Nations.  As it stands, the U.S. contributes 25% of the U.N.s’ operating costs.  I don’t think they should receive any more of our money. 

This treaty would put restrictions on this country, which we would someday have to violate, to carry out our foreign policies or to grow our economy.  Too many times have we not made good on our promises, and this has cost us more than any military defeat.  Since our abandonment of the South Vietnamese, our credibility has been shot in the eyes of our allies.  We should not attempt to make treaties that would restrict our country from remaining a world power.  We will only come to break it, and give more ammunition to the enemies of this country.

The most important aspect is our sovereignty.  We cannot allow this Congress and the President to give away what so many have died to create and preserve.  Europe has tried, since our beginning, to take this away from us.  Now it seems, our leaders are going to simply give it away.  Rarely should this country consider a treaty, and when it does, the treaty should be limited to a specific purpose or achievable goal.  Then it can be dissolved when these conditions no longer apply.  The purpose should be based on morality, and the goals honorable.  This was the foreign policy of our first Commander in Chief, and should continue to be our policy today.

Lets not forget about “Comprehensive immigration reform”.  I have in the past, and will continue to say my piece on immigration, so now I would like to lay out what I believe it should be.  Many of you will be surprised to find out that CIR has little to do with the border.  Let me explain, and then you too will understand.  You see, focusing on the border only addresses the fact that they want to cross it.  As Americans, it is in our interest to make Mexico a place where Mexicans want to stay.  Believe it or not, this is a big deal to our national security, both now, and in the future.  Our need for immigration is also a problem.  Where are we going to get people to fill jobs and keep up with our growth if they are not coming in from Mexico?  Finally, a barrier which allows us to defend ourselves from people illegally entering our country is absolutely necessary.  Now let it be clear that the order these things are listed has nothing to do with how I believe they should be implemented.  If it were up to me, they would all begin immediately.

Currently, Mexicans are crossing the border illegally to find work.  Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, China’s economy is booming.  Much of the trade we are sending to other countries could be sent to Central and South America.  Transporting the products to the U.S. would be substantially less expensive.  Creating an economic boom in Central and South America would almost immediately end our immigration problem.  Most illegal immigrants from the south do not want to be U.S. citizens or Americans.  They would prefer to remain Mexican and work here.  Those who do want to be U.S. citizens would find it easier to do so with the reduction of immigrants.  Then we could focus on getting those into the country who want to be here legally.  Finally, taking trade from China and giving it to Central and South America would only help secure our future. 

China is using our money to amass a military capable of preemptive attacks against whoever they see fit.  This is very frightening.  Pulling trade from China and bringing it to our hemisphere will crush this future threat to our economy.  You are blind if you are not aware of the” bear in the woods.”  China is a communist country and Ronald Reagan proved to us all that appeasement is not the cure for communism.  Carter showed us that appeasement only provokes our natural enemies.  We should give our money to our neighbors, and not our enemies. 

The most obvious part to the solution is the border itself.  Build a wall, defend it, and keep the bad guys out.  Seriously, anyone who debates whether putting up a wall will help us, does not have our interests in mind. 

“Comprehensive immigration reform” is the only way to solve this problem.  First we have to remember the comprehensive part.  That is the key.  A wall alone will not solve the problem.  The trade system we are so accustomed to using, has to change.  China scares me, and if they don’t scare you, you need to open your eyes.  Our friends to the south, not only need our trade, but deserve it too, and doing so will only improve our situation.