Fern Leard
DemocraticQ1 PFAS chemicals are widely used in consumer products but have raised health concerns due to their persistence in the environment and humans, and some Pennsylvanian legislators are considering restrictions on its use, such as in House Bill 2145. Should Pennsylvania restrict PFAS in consumer products? What scientific evidence would you use to inform your decision?
Yes. Pennsylvania should restrict PFAS in consumer products, especially when safer choices are available. People should be able to trust that the products they buy and bring into their homes are safe. PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” because they can stay in our bodies and our environment for a very long time. Research has linked some PFAS to cancer, immune system problems, and other serious health concerns.
I would look at peer-reviewed research and information from trusted sources like the EPA, Pennsylvania DEP, and independent scientists. I would also keep listening to new research as we learn more.
We should follow the science and focus first on PFAS that pose the greatest risk and on products where safer choices already exist. Pennsylvania families should not have to find out years from now that something they used every day was putting their health at risk. When the science shows there is a real danger, we should act before people get hurt, not after.
KEYWORDS: Public Health, Scientific Evidence, PFAS Regulation
Q2 Measles vaccination rates in Pennsylvania have declined in recent years, from 95.5% in 2020 to 92.5% in 2025. At the same time, measles outbreaks have emerged across the state, with 62 confirmed cases in PA in 2026. As a policymaker, how do you approach engaging with communities that have concerns that center on infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, and what policies, if any, would you support related to these issues?
People should be able to ask questions about their health and get honest answers. We do not build trust by talking down to people or ignoring their concerns. Parents and families should be able to talk with their doctors, ask questions, and make informed choices about their health. The science shows that the MMR vaccine is safe and works well at preventing measles. We also know that measles can be very serious, especially for young children and people with weak immune systems.
As a lawmaker, I would work to make vaccines easy to get for people who want them. I would also make sure families have clear facts and that our local health departments are ready to act when an outbreak happens.
Good public health starts with trust. Government should listen to people, give them the facts, and be honest about what we know. Our health policies should be based on strong science while respecting the people those policies are meant to serve.
KEYWORDS: Public Health, Informed Choice, Medical Science
Q3 There have been avian influenza outbreaks in Pennsylvania, with potential impacts on poultry and dairy operations, both industries that provide billions of dollars of economic value to the state. What policies, if any, do you support to strengthen the state’s preparedness and outbreak response? Are there specific strategies you would prioritize to protect farm workers, agricultural communities, and the broader public?
Pennsylvania farmers work too hard to have an outbreak wipe out everything they have built. We need to be ready before that happens, not scrambling after it does. I support strong testing so outbreaks can be found early and stopped before they spread. Farmers and farm workers should have quick access to testing, safety gear, and clear information about what is happening and what they need to do.
We also need to make sure farmers are not left with the bill when the state takes action to stop an outbreak. If animals must be destroyed to protect the public and other farms, farmers should get fair and fast help for their losses.
Most of all, state government needs to work with our farmers, not make their jobs harder with more red tape. We should listen to the people who work in agriculture every day, follow the science, and give them the tools they need to protect their farms, their workers, and our food supply.
KEYWORDS: Family Farms, Early Detection, Farm Workers
Q4 Pennsylvania is the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas and nuclear energy, as well as the third-largest producer of coal, per the Energy Information Administration. In contrast, PA currently ranks 45th in the country in terms of wind, solar, and hydropower energy production. How do you think these energy sources should be distributed across PA’s energy production portfolio, and what policies, if any, would you support to facilitate this?
Pennsylvania is one of the biggest energy-producing states in the country. Yet families here keep opening electric bills they can barely afford. Something is wrong with that picture.
I believe we need a mix of energy. Natural gas, nuclear, and coal are part of Pennsylvania and support thousands of jobs. We should also grow solar, wind, and other cleaner energy. We do not need to pick one and shut everything else down.
What I care about most is how these choices affect the people who live here. Working families should not be paying higher bills while big energy companies get tax breaks and special deals. I support making more of our energy here, improving our power grid, and growing new energy sources when they make sense for our communities. I will also fight to make sure the cost is not dumped on families.
Pennsylvania has powered this country for generations. Our workers and communities have paid a price for it, too. They should be the ones who benefit from what we produce here.
KEYWORDS: Lower Utility Bills, Pennsylvania Jobs, Energy Independence
Q5 Pennsylvania has proposed more reporting, utility oversight, and zoning guidance for large data centers, along with shifting some generation, capacity, and reliability costs onto data center developers rather than ordinary ratepayers. How should the costs and benefits of large data center development be divided between developers and the public, and what requirements, if any, would you support on power, water, and public reporting before a project moves forward?
I do not support performative bills that make it look like Pennsylvania is doing something about data centers while still letting them move forward.
Telling us how much power and water a data center used after the fact does not protect us. By then, the project is already here. Moving some of the costs around does not solve the bigger problem either.
I support a three-year statewide moratorium on data centers. We need to stop this buildout before more projects are approved. We need time to understand the full impact on our water, power grid, electric bills, land, and communities.
I also support Senator Katie Muth’s proposal to stop data centers from becoming public utilities. Private data center companies should not be given special powers meant for utilities that serve the public. Until the state acts, our towns need the strongest local rules possible to protect themselves.
I am not looking for a way to make massive data centers work in Pennsylvania. I am fighting to protect our communities from them.
KEYWORDS: Three-Year Moratorium, Stop Data Center Expansion, Local Control