Shay Micco
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?
I believe Pennsylvania should continue moving toward restricting PFAS in consumer products where the scientific evidence shows they’re unnecessary and pose a meaningful risk to public health or the environment. As a nurse, I understand that protecting people’s health sometimes means acting before the damage becomes irreversible.
That said, I also believe policy should be driven by evidence—not headlines or politics. I would rely on peer-reviewed research, recommendations from independent public health and environmental scientists, toxicology data, exposure studies, and guidance from organizations like the EPA and National Academies. I’d also consider whether safer alternatives are available and what impact restrictions would have on consumers, workers, and manufacturers.
Good policy weighs both benefits and consequences. If the evidence demonstrates that a product creates unnecessary long-term health risks and safer alternatives exist, I believe we have a responsibility to act.
KEYWORDS: PFAS, Evidence-Based Policy, Public Health
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?
As a nurse, I’ve learned that people don’t respond well to being dismissed or shamed. If we want to improve vaccination rates and protect communities from outbreaks, we have to start by listening.
I’d support making accurate, evidence-based information easier to access through trusted local healthcare providers, schools, and community organizations while being transparent about both the benefits and potential risks of vaccines. Trust is earned through honest conversations, not mandates alone.
Measles is a highly contagious disease, and vaccines have played a major role in preventing serious illness for decades. I support ensuring vaccines remain readily available, affordable, and easy to access, while strengthening public health education and outbreak response.
Science should guide our decisions, but communication matters just as much. People deserve facts, respect, and the opportunity to ask questions without feeling judged.
KEYWORDS: Public Trust, Vaccine Education, Evidence-Based Health
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?
As someone who believes in preparing before a crisis instead of reacting after one, I support strengthening Pennsylvania’s ability to detect and respond to avian influenza quickly. Protecting our poultry and dairy industries protects farmers, workers, consumers, and our economy.
I’d prioritize strong disease surveillance, rapid testing, clear communication between state agencies and producers, and resources to help farms improve biosecurity. Farm workers should have access to education, appropriate protective equipment when needed, and testing if they’re exposed.
I also believe farmers shouldn’t bear the financial burden alone when they’re doing the right thing by reporting outbreaks. Timely support and fair compensation help encourage transparency, which ultimately protects everyone.
As with any public health issue, decisions should be guided by the best available scientific evidence while recognizing the real-world impact on Pennsylvania families and businesses. Our goal should be to stop outbreaks early, protect our food supply, and keep agriculture strong without creating unnecessary burdens.
KEYWORDS: Biosecurity, Preparedness, Agriculture
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 has been an energy leader for generations, and I believe we can continue to be one by embracing an “all-of-the-above” approach. Natural gas, nuclear, coal, renewables, and emerging technologies all have a role to play as we work toward affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy.
I don’t believe we should force one industry out in favor of another. Instead, we should invest in innovation, modernize our electric grid, encourage responsible development of renewable energy where it makes sense, and support technologies that reduce emissions while protecting good-paying Pennsylvania jobs.
Energy policy should balance environmental stewardship with economic reality. Families need affordable utility bills, businesses need reliable power, and workers deserve confidence that they’re not being left behind during technological change.
Pennsylvania has the opportunity to lead by diversifying our energy portfolio, strengthening grid resilience, and creating the next generation of skilled energy jobs right here at home.
KEYWORDS: Energy Diversity, Grid Reliability, Innovation
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 recognize that AI and the infrastructure supporting it are becoming an important part of our future. However, I do not believe Pennsylvania should pursue data center development at any cost. Economic growth should never come at the expense of our natural resources, farmland, or the people already living here.
Before any project moves forward, I support independent, science-based assessments of projected electricity demand, water consumption, environmental impacts, and effects on residential utility rates. Developers, not taxpayers or ratepayers, should bear the costs of infrastructure needed to support their projects.
Pennsylvania’s farmland, forests, waterways, and ecosystems are not renewable on a human timeline. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. With freshwater supplies becoming an increasing concern worldwide, we also have a responsibility to carefully evaluate whether large-scale water consumption is sustainable for future generations.
Innovation and conservation are not mutually exclusive. We should welcome responsible development, but only when it protects our communities, respects local zoning decisions, and leaves Pennsylvania’s land and water better, not worse, for the next generation.
KEYWORDS: Sustainable Development, Environmental Stewardship, Infrastructure Accountability