Steven R Feldman, MD, PhD-2024 candidate for U.S. Congress, NC’s 10th Congressional District

Abortion and Reproductive Rights

Work together to create a balanced policy

Abortion or reproductive rights is an issue for which there is no reasonable compromise. The government should—absolutely—not try to control women’s bodies. The government—absolutely—should not condone murder. These two “no compromise is possible” principles are at odds, and some balance must be found.

People on both the pro-Choice and pro-Life sides of this issue should advocate for their positions respectfully and try to understand each other’s point of view. People of good will may disagree as to whether a fetus is a baby. We should recognize and respect the beliefs of people who think that a fetus is or is not a baby. People who want to protect unborn babies do not want to control women’s bodies; they just want to prevent the murder of unborn babies. People who don’t want the government to force every woman to carry every pregnancy to term don’t want to kill babies; they just want women to have control over their bodies.

The government should not be in the business of forcing women to give birth, at all times, in all situations. Nor should a woman be permitted to end her pregnancy (kill her baby) indiscriminately, at all times, for just any reason.

Clearly, we should minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies. Beyond that, there is no position that would fully satisfy the beliefs of all people. A reasonable, balanced compromise policy can include:

• Government should not fund elective abortions.
• Medically necessary abortion required to save the life of the mother should not be restricted
• Making abortion illegal after a certain period of gestation, with proper consideration for the health of the mother, should be left to local community standards to best reflect the heartfelt beliefs of people in those communities.
• Government should not discourage or otherwise limit speech to peacefully convince others of their respective views.

Gun Rights and School Shootings

The best way to reduce violence is to make our culture less violent, not to take guns from law-abiding citizens

I don’t own a gun. I believe having a gun in my home would bring more risks than benefits, but that is only my personal perception. I don’t want to force my preferences on anyone else. The government should NOT take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

We all want to stop school shootings. Claiming that those who don’t want to get rid of guns— or that those who want to protect children by putting more guns in schools — don’t care about children’s lives is counterproductive, insulting, and contributes to our culture of hostility. Everyone wants our children to be safe.

Those of us who think there are too many guns should try to influence others by being role models. The solution starts with our modeling the respectful, peaceful resolution of disputes. Better care for the mentally ill, ending drug violence, creating a less confrontational culture, and ensuring a strong economy with low unemployment may also be more effective ways to address school violence.

Some regulations may be reasonable. For example, some gun enthusiasts argue in favor of restricting gun ownership by severely mentally ill people who would be likely to hurt others. Other gun owners tell me that better enforcement of gun crimes, background checks, waiting periods, and gun safety courses may also be valuable approaches. Gun enthusiasts should be involved in the development of these regulations so that we can maximize the intended benefits and minimize the undesirable secondary effects.

It is also reasonable to have different rules in different states, within the constraints of Constitutional law. This allows each state’s laws to reflect the will of the people in that state.