Emanuel Anastos (DFL) 7/11 Aligned | Answers: Y, Y, Y, OTHER #4, Y, OTHER #6, Y, OTHER 3, Y ,Y, Y, | NOTES: OTHER #4: "Only if the parents’ decisions are putting their child at risk of death or imminent danger, a child protection agency should be allowed to remove the child for the child’s safety." OTHER #6: "Only in the case of another severe pandemic (like Covid or worse) with life-threatening consequences, should a child not be allowed into the classroom because their parents refused to vaccinate them." OTHER #8: "They should only be free of discrimination if the condition they are being tested for is not life threatening or does not have severe and life-changing consequences. If the decision of the adult not to be tested puts others in imminent danger due to the threat of infectious disease, or some sort of mental handicap that could make that person a threat to others, then it is fully within the healthcare provider, employer, or learning institutions right to discriminate. We do have to be super detailed in determining a threshold for what actually puts others at risk of serious harm. On my job as an Indian Child Welfare Case Manager, differentiating between “imminent danger” and non-moment danger is critical to deciding whether a child should be removed from their parents’ care." Additional Comment: "Giving people full control over their own destinies is something I believe in with all my heart, and when I’m in Congress, I will work to make the law allow for as much personal freedom as physically possible."