Austin Graham

Yes, Pennsylvania should restrict PFAS in consumer products, especially where those chemicals are intentionally added and safer alternatives are available. PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” for a reason: many of them persist in the environment, build up in the human body, and create exposure pathways that families never knowingly signed up for. When we are talking about products like cosmetics, dental floss, menstrual products, and children’s products, the burden should be on manufacturers to prove those chemicals are necessary and safe, not on the public to absorb the risk.

The scientific case for action is strong enough to justify restrictions now. I would rely on three kinds of evidence. First, exposure science shows that PFAS are highly persistent and that many people already have measurable PFAS in their blood. Second, human epidemiology reviewed by EPA, ATSDR, and the National Academies links PFAS exposure to higher cholesterol, reduced vaccine response and other immune effects, pregnancy-related harms, lower birth weight, and increased risk of some cancers. Third, toxicology reviews, including the National Toxicology Program’s work on PFOA and PFOS, show credible evidence of immune-system harm. Science is still evolving across the thousands of PFAS compounds, but that uncertainty is a reason to be more careful with non-essential uses, not less.

That is why a targeted approach like House Bill 2145 makes sense. As of July 24, 2026, the bill has passed the House and is in the Senate after being referred on June 11, 2026. It focuses on intentionally added PFAS in a defined set of consumer products and includes carveouts for things like FDA-approved drugs and medical devices. That is a practical, science-informed way to reduce avoidable exposure while still recognizing that some uses may require a different regulatory path.

I would start from two truths at once: measles is a serious public-health threat, and trust matters. If people have concerns about vaccine safety, the answer is not to mock them or wave them off. It is to meet them with clear facts, honest risk communication, and trusted local messengers like pediatricians, family doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and community leaders. People deserve straight answers about what measles does, what the MMR vaccine does, what side effects are known, and what claims are simply false.

On policy, I support a practical prevention-first approach. That means making vaccines easy to get through school-based clinics, mobile clinics, extended hours, pharmacy access where appropriate, and strong catch-up outreach for families who missed doses. It also means real-time outbreak communication, support for local health departments doing contact tracing and exposure notices, and making sure schools and child care centers are following existing immunization rules consistently. I would defend medical exemptions, but I would be cautious about expanding loopholes that make outbreaks more likely. When vaccination rates fall below the level needed to prevent spread, everyone pays the price, especially infants, immunocompromised people, and families who did everything they should but are still exposed.

The science here is strong. The MMR vaccine has been studied for decades and is safe and highly effective, with two doses about 97% effective against measles. There is no credible evidence linking MMR vaccination to autism. Measles, on the other hand, is extremely contagious and can cause pneumonia, encephalitis, hospitalization, and in some cases death. Using Pennsylvania’s official school data, statewide kindergarten MMR coverage was 95.5% in the 2020-2021 school year and 93.7% in the 2024-2025 school year, which is a meaningful decline. Pennsylvania also now has a live measles dashboard because of active 2026 spread. My approach would be simple: treat people respectfully, tell the truth clearly, and make the healthy choice the easy choice.

Pennsylvania should take avian influenza seriously as both an agricultural threat and a public health threat. My approach would be to stay ahead of outbreaks instead of waiting until farms, workers, and local economies are already taking the hit. That means strong surveillance, fast reporting, clear quarantine protocols, and real support for producers who are being asked to absorb the cost of doing the right thing. It also means recognizing that poultry and dairy workers are often the first people exposed, so worker protection has to be part of the response, not an afterthought.

I would prioritize a few practical steps. First, strengthen testing and monitoring, including support for Pennsylvania’s dairy herd monitoring and mandatory milk testing programs, rapid diagnostics, and clear reporting lines between farmers, veterinarians, PDA, DOH, USDA, and the Game Commission. Second, help farms implement biosecurity with grants or cost-sharing for protective gear, sanitation supplies, traffic control measures, isolation space, and training, especially for smaller operators and backyard flocks that may not have the same resources as large commercial facilities. Third, protect workers with multilingual safety guidance, PPE access, exposure protocols, flu vaccination outreach, and the ability to stay home or seek care without fearing lost wages or retaliation. Fourth, make indemnification and recovery assistance move faster when flocks are culled or movement restrictions disrupt business. If the state asks producers to carry the burden of containment, the state should help carry the cost.

I would also emphasize honest public communication. People need to know that pasteurized milk remains safe, that properly handled poultry products are safe, and that the bigger risks are occupational exposure, spread between animals, and preventable breakdowns in surveillance and biosecurity. As of July 24, 2026, Pennsylvania reports no cases in dairy cattle, but the state is actively managing poultry outbreaks and has quarantine, testing, and movement restrictions around infected farms. The goal should be simple: contain outbreaks fast, protect workers, keep farms operating safely, and prevent an animal health crisis from becoming a broader public health problem.

Pennsylvania should have a more balanced energy portfolio than it does today. Right now, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Pennsylvania’s electric power sector is still dominated by natural gas at 51.4% and nuclear at 39.2%, with coal at 7.4% and renewables at just 2.0% in 2024. That tells me we need to keep a diverse and reliable system, but also do a much better job growing renewables, storage, and efficiency instead of staying near the bottom of the country on wind, solar, and hydropower.

My view is that nuclear should remain a major backbone source because it provides steady carbon-free power. I understand why people have concerns about nuclear power. I grew up right next to Three Mile Island, so I do not dismiss those concerns. But I also think we have to be honest about relative risk. Newer, smaller, more efficient reactor designs are not the same as older generations of nuclear plants, and the risks of modern nuclear technology are lower than the long-term public-health and environmental damage we have accepted for decades from coal. Natural gas will remain part of the mix in the near term, but it should not be an excuse to delay cleaner energy or ignore methane leakage. Coal should continue to decline.

The biggest area for growth should be renewables, battery storage, grid upgrades, and efficiency, especially where they can directly lower costs for working families and local governments. One policy I strongly support is expanding state support for schools to install solar power. School taxes are a real burden for many Pennsylvanians, especially seniors on fixed incomes who already own their homes and are getting squeezed by rising costs. If we can help school districts replace one of their major long-term operating costs with renewable energy, that is a win-win: lower utility costs for schools, less pressure on local property taxes, and more clean energy on the grid. I would also support modernizing Pennsylvania’s energy standards, speeding up interconnection for viable projects, expanding community energy and distributed generation, and strengthening efficiency programs that lower bills before families use a kilowatt.

Large data centers can bring jobs and tax base, but ordinary ratepayers and local communities should not be forced to subsidize their power demand, water use, or land-use impacts. If a project needs major new generation, transmission, distribution upgrades, backup systems, water infrastructure, or emergency-response capacity, the developer should pay those costs. The public benefit should come from good jobs, local tax revenue, enforceable community benefits, and infrastructure that communities actually want, not from backdoor subsidies or pressure on municipal zoning. I support the basic direction Pennsylvania has taken in requiring large-load customers to bear the costs they cause and in requiring more disclosure before projects move forward.

I would go a step further on land use. I support treating large AI data centers as a regional land-use issue, more like landfills or power plants than an ordinary warehouse. A municipality that hosts a project should have real control, but surrounding municipalities should also have a voice because the impacts do not stop at the property line. If a town wants a data center and neighboring communities can live with the traffic, noise, transmission buildout, water demand, and visual impact, that is one thing. If the host community or surrounding communities do not want it, the state should not steamroll them.

Before a project moves forward, I would support clear requirements on power, water, and public reporting. On power, the developer should show a binding energy plan proving that new demand will not raise bills for existing customers, and that it will pay for any grid upgrades, interconnection costs, and stranded-cost risk if the project scales down or walks away. On water, the developer should disclose expected annual consumption, source of supply, wastewater impacts, and water-use efficiency, and complete a feasibility study where local water stress is a concern. On transparency, I would require early notice to the host municipality and surrounding municipalities, public meetings before key site decisions are locked in, disclosure of the actual end user and project footprint, and ongoing annual reporting on energy use, water use, and community-benefit commitments. If a company wants fast-track treatment or public support, it should meet a very high bar on transparency and accountability first.

As of July 24, 2026, Pennsylvania already has several live proposals moving in this direction. House Bill 1834 passed the House on March 24, 2026 and would regulate commercial data centers with PUC review and cost-allocation rules. House Bill 2150 passed the House on April 13, 2026 and would require annual energy and water reporting. House Bill 2151 passed the House the same day and would create model zoning ordinance assistance for municipalities. The Governor’s May 27, 2026 GRID standards also require developers seeking Commonwealth support to build, bring, or buy incremental electric capacity, pay project-caused costs, report expected peak power and water use, and notify impacted local governments. That is a good start, but I would put even more weight on local consent and regional land-use control.