Joseph Sabia Jr
RepublicanQ1 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?
Pennsylvania should protect public health without imposing needless costs on families and small businesses. Targeted phase-outs of intentional PFAS in the product categories covered by HB 2145 make sense when the science shows clear pathways of exposure and viable substitutes. I would insist on:
Clear definitions limited to intentionally added PFAS (not unavoidable trace contamination). Realistic timelines so manufacturers can reformulate without sudden shortages or price spikes. Focus on high-risk products rather than sweeping industrial or essential-use bans that could harm jobs or critical applications. Coordination with federal EPA standards and neighboring states to avoid a confusing patchwork that hurts Pennsylvania competitiveness. Continued monitoring of drinking-water and environmental sources, which remain major exposure routes.
I will not support feel-good legislation that ignores economic reality or weak evidence. Nor will I ignore documented health risks to our kids and families. Decisions must be grounded in EPA assessments, peer-reviewed epidemiology, and practical alternatives—not politics. That is how we put the people of the 112th District first.
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?
Measles is highly contagious, and the two-dose MMR vaccine is highly effective (about 97% protection after two doses) with a strong safety record established over decades of use and monitoring. Declining kindergarten coverage below the roughly 95% threshold associated with community protection has contributed to outbreaks. At the same time, many parents have legitimate questions after years of eroded public trust in institutions. Dismissing those concerns or treating parents as the problem only deepens division. I would educate on the pro’s and con’s of taking a vaccine or not.
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’s poultry and dairy industries are pillars of our economy and way of life—worth billions and supporting thousands of family farms and workers. Avian influenza (HPAI/H5N1) has already cost our state millions of birds and put real pressure on producers. As a candidate who puts Pennsylvania’s agricultural communities first, I support practical, science-driven preparedness and rapid response that protects farms, workers, and the public without burying producers under red tape. Expand support for on-farm biosecurity upgrades, training, and equipment through grants and technical assistance. Keep our Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic Laboratory System (PADLS) fully funded and ready for high-volume testing of poultry and milk so we catch problems early.
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?
We rank near the top in natural gas, nuclear, and coal production for a reason: these sources deliver reliable, affordable power that supports manufacturing, keeps family energy bills in check, and creates good-paying jobs across the Commonwealth. Ranking near the bottom in wind, solar, and hydro does not mean we should force a radical shift that raises costs or threatens grid reliability. Wind, solar, and hydro as complementary, not primary: These sources can play a growing role where they make economic sense and can be integrated without undermining reliability. Intermittent generation requires backup and transmission investments; we should not pretend it can replace dispatchable power overnight. Pennsylvania’s geography and weather limit their potential relative to states with stronger wind or solar resources.
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?
As a candidate who puts the people of the 112th District first, I believe the costs that these projects create should be paid by the developers who profit from them, while genuine public benefits are welcomed under clear, enforceable rules. Ratepayers should not subsidize hyperscale facilities. If a substation, transmission line, or capacity expansion would not be needed “but for” the data center, those costs belong on the developer’s ledger—not on seniors, working families, or small businesses. Public benefits such as property tax revenue, construction jobs, and long-term employment are real and should be maximized through local agreements, but they do not justify shifting infrastructure costs onto the rest of us or placing industrial-scale facilities in residential areas.