Why I Will Vote Pro-Life

  If elected as your state representative, I will vote “pro-life” on all issues involving abortion. I have held pro-life views for the majority of my lifetime. As a child growing up in the Catholic Church, I was taught that a human being becomes viable at the moment of conception. This stance was reinforced when I became pregnant with our two children in my twenties. I recall the “flutter” of movement that I felt when carrying each of our children in my first trimester. There was no doubt in my mind that such movement indicated God-given life. 

My pro-life stance loosened in my thirties, however, as my work in local juvenile courts tested my convictions. As an attorney and guardian ad litem, I was exposed to many real-life tragedies in which young women found themselves facing unwanted pregnancies. Some of these cases involved rape, incest, or drug addicted mothers who continued to abuse substances while pregnant. For a few years, I embraced a broader approach to abortion because I saw, firsthand, the painful nature of these sad and complicated situations. Did this belief sit well with me? Never.

In recent years, my husband and I have returned to the church and the abortion issue has continued to trouble me. I now believe that as Christians, we must err on the side of caution and protect unborn life in the womb at all costs, even if the infant will be born with serious disabilities, or into situations involving drugs, poverty, abuse and neglect; even if it is a hardship for the mother to carry that child to full-term (unless the mother's life is at risk.) My renewed conviction regarding the sacredness of life at all levels is strengthened by my work on Ohio’s Board of Nursing Home Examiners (BENHA), and Warren County’s National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). Both organizations seek to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals regardless of age or physical/mental status.   

As a Christian and a Pro-Life Democrat, I will put my energies into honoring and enhancing the private and public systems that support women and children. I would like for the voter to understand that I have internally struggled with this issue in the past. Nevertheless, my return to the pro-life position that I held for the majority of my lifetime is permanent.

I welcome your response to this blog.

Save our Public Schools!

I've been knocking on a lot of voters' doors in recent weeks. There is always that awkward moment when the homeowner is thinking, "Is she a Jehova's Witness?" The potential voter is relieved when I hand them my card and say that I am running for State Representative in November. "So what are the issues that you are most concerned about?" I ask. Often, the answer involves public school education. Families and teachers want more funding for our local schools. Older folks on fixed incomes are fearful that property taxes will be raised in pursuit of that goal.

In 1996, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that the current method of funding by relying heavily on local property taxes was inequitable (see DeRolph v. State of Ohio). Simply put, the schools in Mason prospered and the schools in downtown Cincinnati suffered when relying on property taxes. Although the Court ordered that Ohio's government "enact a constitutional school-funding system", it did not provide any concrete guidance on how the legislature was to enact such tax reform. Our elected leaders were then faced with a quagmire similar to the oil spill in the Gulf. To correct the problem required a total overhaul of the system. Politicians run from that kind of task. Obvious solutions involve raising income taxes and tangible property taxes on the local electorate, thereby committing political suicide.

Consequently, the legislature took the easy way out and authorized more state funds to schools; a band-aid solution that could not last in the face of a subsequent "Great Recession" and present-day cutbacks in state and federal funding. So now we are faced with a harsh reality. How do we run our schools with diminishing revenues, especially when local levies like the one in Little Miami fail? At this point, my fingers take a long pause on the keyboard.

As your elected State Representative, I will encourage the passage of local levies; better schools increase our property values and make for stronger communities. However, I will not vote for increases in property, income, or tangible taxes without majority consent. People are strapped and struggling to pay their monthly bills and the unemployment rate remains high. We all need to find ways to reduce school spending without raising taxes. First, I will fight to eliminate the requirement of full-day Kindergarten as set forth in House Bill 1. Most local voters agree that this is an indulgent mandate given the limited finances of our public schools. Moreover, there is no strong data to show that all-day Kindergarten is worth the astronomical expense involved in increasing operating costs, staffing, and support staff. Presently, Mason and Lebanon have been granted a one-year waiver of this requirement. However, the full-day Kindergarten mandate should be done away with altogether. It's great in theory, but we just can't afford it.

Our local schools also need to get creative with cutting back on staff through attrition. In Mason, the attrition rate averages 25-35 staff members yearly. By not adding new teachers to replace the ones that leave, it is estimated that over 69 million dollars will be saved in Mason City schools alone in the next 10 years.  
This will obviously put a burden on the teachers that remain, especially in light of the 19-1 student-teacher classroom ratio required in House Bill 1. Nevertheless, we are living in tough financial times and these types of cutbacks are inevitable unless the public wants to pay more in taxes.

Schools can also continue to make cuts in nonessentials like paper costs. By using electronic worksheets and  report cards, large amounts of money can be saved. Similarly, reduced energy consumption in our schools will lead to significant savings, as will a freeze in all funding for extracurricular activities. Other initiatives include a workers' compensation discount program, and cooperative purchasing agreements.    


I am opposed to excessive legislation being placed on top of our local school systems at the whim of the government. An example is Senate Bill 210, intended to fight childhood obesity by requiring 30 minutes of physical activity per day for students in K-12. It's great in theory, don't get me wrong. But our schools don't have the monies to employ the require certified teachers to oversee the programs.


Unfortunately, the proposals referenced above don't come close to solving the dilemma of decreasing revenues and increasing student population faced by the communities in the 67th District.  When all is said and done, we need to increase tax revenues by attracting more lucrative industry to our area. Governor Strickland and the Ohio legislature endeavor to make Ohio the bell weather state for renewable energy in years to come. Communities in the 67th district need to attract money-making, green industry with more tax incentives. The paradox is that offering tax incentives to such industries will result in adding more money to the tax base than what currently exists. We also need more jobs in Internet Technology and Health Care.

By increasing tax revenues through additional businesses and industry, and aggressively decreasing costs, the communities of the 67th District can improve their public schools. I welcome any ideas from the readers on how to solve the school funding crisis in our district. There is a lot of criticism and attack out there on this issue. Let's talk about SOLUTIONS.