Q&A with Alaska U.S. House candidate Ted Heintz

The Anchorage Daily News asked candidates for U.S. House running in the special primary election to answer a series of questions. Read all of their responses here.

TED HEINTZ, Libertarian from Anchorage

What in your background qualifies you to represent Alaskans in Congress?

I’m a life long Alaskan, a veteran, still serving in the (National) Guard, with law enforcement training and am deeply passionate about public service as well as protecting civil rights and reining in government abuse and excess. I have experience as a teacher and instructor from which I have learned much. Having traveled the world extensively and lived in and attended university in Europe, I have a well-rounded view and some unique and fresh ideas and perspectives I can bring to bear on our difficulties.

Why are you running for U.S. Congress in Alaska?

People complain about career politicians, corruption, that nothing changes, etc. but then they don’t run. I am stepping up. I believe one person can make a difference. I believe I can be that person. I do believe in term limits and will fight for reform there as well. I believe I can leave a lasting positive impact.

What would be your top priority if elected to Congress?

Inflation must be reined in with reduced spending. Oil and gas production must be increased. Parents rights regarding education must be restored. Public and collegiate educational system reform is needed. Marijuana should be legalized, medical and recreational. Veterans and actively serving troops should have THC available as part of authorized medical care. Crime must be addressed and part of that means honoring self-defense rights.

What is your position on abortion?

Pregnancy usually requires sex, which is usually a choice with known and readily avoided risks — thus, prevention is preferred. Therefore, I support free birth control as well as free and streamlined adoption. In the case of rape, a free morning after pill if wanted. In general, I’m usually against taking life except to save life; accordingly, the life and safety of the mother would certainly be prioritized.

If legislation came before the U.S. House that would guarantee the same abortion rights nationwide as the Roe v. Wade decision, how would you vote?


If you oppose abortion rights, how should the federal government support a person who is forced to carry their baby to term against their wishes?

Other than rape, no one is forcing pregnancy on anyone. As I said before, in case of rape, a morning after pill is one solution. Prevention is key. See my previous entry. Also see my previous entry regarding free and streamlined adoptions.

Would you support a bill, if it came before the House, to expand the size of the U.S. Supreme Court? Why or why not?

No. That would lead to increased politicization and abuse. If something is dysfunctional, making it bigger or more powerful is never the answer. That applies to government bureaucracy and administration in general too.