Amelia Powers

Very strongly agree

Yes, parents have the fundamental right to shield their children from sexually explicit content.

This closely matches prominent Republican framing: parental rights and protecting minors from sexually explicit material, echoed in numerous GOP-led state bills and campaigns (e.g., Florida’s 2022 Parental Rights in Education law and broader 2021–2024 school content initiatives). Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes

In recent years many Republican officials and aligned parent groups have supported removing or restricting certain school library books (notably around sexual content and LGBTQ themes), reflected in state-level efforts and school board actions (e.g., 2021–2024 waves of challenges and removals). Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, but bans must be strictly limited to pornography, not books discussing race or gender.

Some Republicans would accept a narrow pornography-only standard, but many GOP-led efforts have also targeted books discussing gender identity or race (often framed as "sexual content" or "divisive concepts"), so the explicit limitation would reduce agreement. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, we should trust trained librarians to curate age-appropriate collections, not political activists.

Republicans often criticize librarians/educational professionals as part of an unaccountable bureaucracy and favor elected school boards/parents setting standards; while some may value professional curation, the anti-activist framing conflicts with GOP support for parent-driven challenges. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, parents can control their own child's reading, but cannot dictate what other students access.

Republican rhetoric emphasizes that public schools should reflect community standards and parental input, not just individual family choice; many GOP-backed policies empower districts to remove/restrict access rather than leaving it solely to individual parents. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

The contemporary Republican Party has generally opposed a blanket "no removals" stance, backing parental-rights and content-restriction policies in schools; this runs counter to the party’s recent platform messaging and state legislation trends. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, "protecting children" is often a smokescreen for censoring marginalized voices and erasing history.

This frames book removals as censorship of marginalized voices and erasing history—language strongly associated with Democratic/ACLU-style critiques and generally rejected by Republicans, who argue the issue is age-appropriateness and explicit content. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.