Democrat Annie Andrews, Libertarian Kasie Whitener outline contrasting approaches to major issues
By Delayna Earley
The Island News
South Carolina voters will choose a U.S. senator Nov. 3, with candidates offering different approaches to federal spending, health care, immigration, reproductive rights and the government’s role in the economy.
Democrat Dr. Annie Andrews and Libertarian Kasie Whitener responded to a questionnaire from The Island News addressing 10 issues facing Congress, including the national debt, Social Security, artificial intelligence and U.S. military involvement in Iran.
Republican incumbent Sen. Darline Graham was also invited to participate but did not submit responses before the newspaper’s print deadline.
Although Andrews and Whitener share concerns about federal spending, corporate influence and military intervention overseas, their proposed solutions differ substantially, particularly on the role of government in health care, retirement programs and economic regulation.
Background and qualifications
Andrews, 46, is a pediatrician from Mount Pleasant who has spent nearly 20 years caring for children, including approximately 15 years at the Medical University of South Carolina. She holds a medical degree from the University of Cincinnati and a master’s degree in clinical research from MUSC.
A mother of three, Andrews said her experience treating children and working with families has shaped her priorities, particularly concerning health care costs and financial pressures on working parents. She has not previously held elected office.
Whitener, 49, lives in Blythewood and is a clinical assistant professor of management at the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business. She also works as a radio host and is the author of two novels.
Whitener holds a doctorate in organization and management from Capella University and degrees in English from Winthrop and Clemson universities. She previously served as chair of the South Carolina Libertarian Party’s state committee and president of the South Carolina Writers Association.
Neither candidate has held public office.
Cost of living and federal spending
Both candidates identified the national debt and rising living expenses as major concerns, but they proposed different approaches to addressing them.
Andrews outlined an affordability plan focused on housing, child care, energy costs and corporate competition. She supports stronger antitrust enforcement, increased oversight of utility companies and measures preventing large data centers from shifting infrastructure costs to residential customers.
She also supports reducing taxes for working families, opposing tax increases on households earning less than $500,000 annually and eliminating certain tax breaks for large corporations.
Whitener attributed much of the nation’s affordability problems to federal spending and the national debt. She supports reducing spending across federal agencies, simplifying the tax code and removing regulatory barriers that she believes discourage entrepreneurship and competition.
She proposed exploring a tax exemption for the first $100,000 in annual revenue for new businesses during their first five years.
Whitener also supports reconsidering federal labor regulations, including the traditional 40-hour workweek and employer-provided health insurance.
On federal budgeting, Andrews supports eliminating wasteful spending, restricting congressional perks and stock trading, and requiring greater accountability for government contractors.
Whitener favors zero-based budgeting, which would require federal programs to justify expenditures annually rather than building upon previous budgets. She also supports auditing the Federal Reserve and reforming government procurement.
Both candidates oppose tariffs, with Andrews warning that broad tariffs increase costs for consumers and businesses and Whitener calling for their repeal.
Health care, Social Security and Medicare
Health care represents one of the clearest differences between the candidates.
Andrews supports protecting and expanding Medicaid, maintaining Medicare benefits, reducing prescription drug prices and making enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies permanent.
She said Medicaid expansion would provide coverage to additional South Carolinians while helping sustain rural hospitals and nursing homes.
“I’ve seen parents put off health care treatment until it was way too late,” Andrews wrote, describing families forced to choose between medical expenses and other necessities.
Whitener advocates reducing government involvement in health care and expanding competition among providers and insurers.
She supports separating health insurance from employment and encouraging alternatives such as direct primary care practices and privately supported free clinics.
“The best way to make healthcare more affordable and accessible is to decouple health care from health insurance,” Whitener wrote.
Their positions also differ on Social Security and Medicare.
Andrews supports raising the cap on wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes, allowing higher earners to contribute more. She opposes raising the retirement age or reducing benefits for current retirees and those nearing retirement.
Whitener supports establishing a nonpartisan commission to recommend changes to Social Security, including determining whether the program should function primarily as a government retirement system or a safety net.
She also supports limiting Medicare spending and argued that separating insurance from employment could eventually eliminate the need for Medicare.
Immigration and border security
Both candidates support immigration reform, although they differ on enforcement and labor policy.
Andrews supports securing the border, combating drug trafficking and human smuggling, improving asylum procedures and establishing better pathways to citizenship for immigrants contributing to American communities.
She said immigration policy should address workforce needs while protecting American workers and wages.
Whitener argued that both major political parties have failed to resolve immigration problems and instead use the issue for campaigning and fundraising.
She supports simplifying legal residency and citizenship procedures, reforming visa programs and removing people who violate the terms of their immigration status.
Whitener also said children born to immigrants who violate residency requirements should not automatically receive U.S. citizenship, a position that would involve changes to existing citizenship law.
Iran and military intervention
Both candidates opposed the 2026 U.S. military campaign against Iran and expressed concern about the financial and human costs of overseas conflicts.
Andrews said the war increased fuel expenses for South Carolina farmers, shrimpers and working families.
She supports diplomacy, sanctions and cooperation with allies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while protecting international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Whitener opposes interventionist military policies and argued that overseas conflicts increase federal debt and undermine national security.
She proposed requiring presidential authorization from Congress for military interventions lasting more than 45 days and emphasized trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange as alternatives to military action.
Abortion and reproductive rights
The candidates offered opposing positions on federal involvement in abortion policy.
Andrews supports federal legislation restoring the protections established under Roe v. Wade, arguing that reproductive health decisions should remain between patients and their physicians.
She also supports expanding maternal health care access, particularly in rural communities.
Whitener supports the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returning abortion regulation to the states.
She opposes federal legislation either restricting or permitting abortion and does not support federal taxpayer funding for abortion.
Whitener also opposes federal restrictions on contraception and in vitro fertilization, maintaining that those issues should not be regulated by the federal government.
Artificial intelligence and data centers
Both candidates expressed concern about technology companies’ influence on consumers and communities, but their regulatory approaches differ.
Andrews supports a two-year national moratorium on new data center development, eliminating special tax breaks for those companies and requiring developers to pay for the electricity, water and infrastructure their facilities consume.
She also supports federal safeguards addressing artificial intelligence, including privacy protections, cybersecurity, discrimination, deepfakes and election misinformation.
Whitener said existing consumer protection laws should apply to artificial intelligence without creating additional federal regulatory structures.
She supports greater transparency in data collection and technology companies’ business practices, including consumer rights concerning purchased products.
Whitener believes decisions about data center development should remain with local governments, with county councils providing transparent information about zoning and development approvals.
Senate rules and government accountability
Both candidates criticized corporate influence in Washington and called for greater transparency.
Andrews supports banning congressional stock trading, restricting special-interest influence and overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
She also supports reforms requiring senators seeking to block legislation to maintain a talking filibuster.
Whitener opposes eliminating the Senate filibuster, arguing that the 60-vote threshold protects against unchecked majority control.
She supports restructuring Senate committees, strengthening congressional oversight of executive appointments and leaving election administration primarily to individual states.
Andrews has pledged to serve no more than two Senate terms if elected.
Whitener said she would focus on building alliances to reduce federal debt and encourage greater participation by independent and third-party candidates.
Looking ahead
In describing their priorities for a six-year Senate term, Andrews emphasized reducing household expenses, protecting health care access, supporting infrastructure and addressing government ethics.
Whitener identified reducing the national debt and challenging the influence of the two major political parties as her principal objectives.
Both candidates said they would seek to work across political divisions, although their responses reflect substantially different views about how much responsibility the federal government should assume for addressing economic and social challenges.
Graham’s positions are not included in this comparison because she did not return the questionnaire.
South Carolina U.S. Senate candidates
Annie Andrews, Democrat, 46, is a pediatrician and mother of three who lives in Mount Pleasant. She has spent approximately 20 years caring for children, including nearly 15 years as a pediatric hospitalist at the Medical University of South Carolina. She has not previously held elected office.
Kasie Whitener, Libertarian, 49, is a clinical assistant professor of management at the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business, a radio broadcaster and an author. She lives in Blythewood and previously held leadership positions with the South Carolina Writers Association and the South Carolina Libertarian Party.
Sen. Darline Graham, Republican, did not respond to the questionnaire.
Mark Hackett, Constitution Party, did not respond to the questionnaire.
Candidate questionnaire responses
The Island News sent identical questionnaires to the candidates for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat. Responses are presented alphabetically by candidate surname. Democrat Dr. Annie Andrews and Libertarian Kasie Whitener submitted responses addressing the cost of living, federal spending, health care, Social Security and Medicare, immigration, national security, reproductive policy, artificial intelligence and congressional accountability. Sen. Darline Graham, Republican, and Mark Hackett, Constitution Party, did not respond to the questionnaire.
Candidate statements and opinions are their own and have not necessarily been independently verified.
1. South Carolinians continue to feel pressure from the cost of groceries, gasoline, housing, utilities and other essentials. What actions within Congress’ authority would you support to make those costs more affordable? Please address energy policy, competition, taxes, federal spending, trade and tariffs, and explain how your proposals would affect prices, wages and jobs.
Andrews: With the weight of rising prices pressing down on Palmetto State families like never before, my Affordability Plan delivers a decisive, across-the-aisle roadmap to combat the cost-of-living crisis head-on. This is not a collection of talking points, but a concrete, actionable strategy designed to restore economic stability for every South Carolina family.
My comprehensive proposal lays out a four-pronged offensive to ease the financial strain on working families: expanding housing accessibility, strengthening child care infrastructure to support working parents, driving down gas and grocery bills, and equipping local communities with the regulatory firepower to push back against unchecked corporate data centers from driving up our energy bills.
South Carolinians are working hard, but too many families are falling behind because the cost of groceries, housing, electricity and other essentials keeps rising faster than their paychecks. As a pediatrician and a mom, I know that financial stress affects a family’s health, stability and future. Congress must focus on practical solutions that put working families ahead of special interests.
Energy: I support an all-of-the-above approach that strengthens our energy supply, modernizes the electric grid and invests in affordable, reliable energy, including clean energy. Congress should hold utility companies accountable for excessive costs and ensure that large energy consumers, including data centers, do not shift their costs onto South Carolina families. Greater efficiency and a more resilient energy supply can help stabilize electricity bills and create good-paying jobs.
Competition: We must hold corporations accountable when they use excessive market power to raise prices. I support stronger antitrust enforcement, greater transparency and measures to prevent corporate consolidation from leaving consumers with fewer choices. Healthy competition helps families get better prices while giving small businesses a fair chance to grow and hire.
Taxes: Working families deserve a fairer tax system. In my Taxpayer Pledge, I support simplifying the tax code, cutting taxes for working Americans and opposing tax increases on families earning less than $500,000 annually. We need to stop the congressional gravy train by eliminating pay raises and pensions for Congress.
Federal spending: Congress must get serious about waste, fraud and abuse. I support stronger oversight of federal contracts, eliminating wasteful spending and holding government agencies accountable for results. Our national debt now stands at $40 trillion, an astronomical increase from 40 years ago. We are robbing from our children’s futures.
If families must balance their budgets, then so should the federal government. Fiscal responsibility should protect taxpayers without abandoning investments that help families and strengthen our economy.
Trade and tariffs: I oppose sweeping tariffs that raise the cost of imported goods, increase expenses for American businesses and invite retaliatory measures against our farmers and exporters. South Carolina manufacturers, farmers, small businesses and consumers need stable, predictable trade policies. We should negotiate fair trade agreements, address unfair foreign competition and protect American workers without imposing unnecessary costs on American families.
Wages and jobs: Lower prices are only part of the solution. Families also need good-paying jobs and opportunities to get ahead. I support policies that strengthen workers’ bargaining power, expand affordable child care, invest in infrastructure and help American businesses compete. We should encourage domestic manufacturing, workforce training and investments that create sustainable jobs here at home.
No single law will solve every affordability challenge, and Congress cannot control every price. But it can make responsible choices that reduce unnecessary costs, encourage competition, support workers and give families more economic security.
My priority is straightforward: South Carolinians should not have to work two jobs and still struggle to afford groceries, keep the lights on or buy a home. I will work with anyone willing to put families first and deliver measurable results.
Whitener: High prices are a signal that scarcity exists. We need to address the scarcity in housing, health care and elsewhere by removing barriers for entrepreneurs to bring solutions into markets.
I believe the primary driver of high costs is the reckless spending in Washington, D.C., resulting in our $40 trillion national debt. Everything is more expensive because of the debt. My first efforts in Congress will be to form alliances with senators who are working diligently on establishing better fiscal responsibility. We need to 1) simplify the tax code to capture more revenue, 2) reduce spending in all federal agencies and stop the growth of Social Security and Medicare spending, and 3) grow the economy by removing barriers to entry for entrepreneurs in the energy and health care markets.
When federal spending is under control, our creditors will start to believe we plan to pay back our debt and they will continue to invest in the United States. Those investments create jobs. South Carolina ranks fourth in the nation for foreign direct investment. We should also revisit the Fair Labor Act and consider restructuring workforce norms like the 40-hour week, employer-provided health care and other bad policies that have become obsolete. I am also in favor of relieving the tax burden for new businesses to a revenue threshold that would enable them to really grow before paying taxes; something like the first $100,000 of annual revenue is tax-free in the first five years of business, just one idea but would encourage more business ownership. I am in favor of entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy sector and think we should revisit the protectionist policies that have allowed our grid to atrophy and have prevented access to nuclear energy.
2. What changes would you support in federal spending, taxes or revenue to reduce long-term deficits and debt? How would you approach appropriations deadlines, government shutdowns and the federal debt limit?
Andrews: The national debt hit a record $40 trillion this year, more than doubling in the last decade. For decades, both parties have spent beyond the government’s means, leaving taxpayers with higher costs and interest rates that make it harder to buy a home, afford a car or keep up with credit card payments.
Washington has spent decades running up the bill and expecting our families to pay for it. Democrats spend billions on programs without asking whether they’re working, and Republicans waste billions on endless wars and handouts to big corporations. Politicians in both parties spend our money while looking out for themselves, trading stocks while casting votes that can affect their value, collecting taxpayer-funded pensions and enjoying perks the rest of us don’t get. It’s ridiculous, and it has to stop.
We’re not going to fix a $40 trillion problem overnight, but I’m not going to Washington to make excuses, rub elbows or become part of the problem. I’m going there to get to work.
That’s why I released my Taxpayer Pledge, 21 commitments to rein in spending, cut waste and fraud, end special perks for Congress and cut taxes for working families.
My Taxpayer Pledge plan includes:
END THE GRAVY TRAIN FOR CONGRESS
- End taxpayer-funded pensions and health care subsidies for members of Congress.
- Ban members of Congress from trading stocks.
- Stop congressional pay raises and block congressional pay during government shutdowns.
- Impose term limits and crack down on members who misuse taxpayer dollars.
GET SERIOUS ABOUT CLOSING THE DEFICIT
- Require Congress to balance the budget and stop adding to the debt.
- Cut waste, fraud and abuse across the federal government.
- End wasteful earmarks and hold government contractors accountable for wasting taxpayer dollars.
- Oppose costly foreign wars and foreign government bailouts.
CUT YOUR TAXES
- Oppose tax increases on families making less than $500,000 a year.
- Simplify the tax code and cut taxes for working families.
- Make No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Social Security permanent.
- End special tax breaks for data centers, companies that ship jobs overseas, private equity firms and hedge funds.
- Bring back free tax filing through the IRS.
Whitener: Congress needs to take back its authority for government operations by controlling the budget. Taxpayers should have visibility to and an understanding of the budget process. I expect to communicate monthly with South Carolinians over the big, high-level things we’re doing to rein in spending. I also expect to advocate for congressional leadership repealing tariffs, auditing the Federal Reserve and limiting corporate influence on regulations and legislation.
We have a corporatocracy to blame for the ineptitude of our government to govern. Political parties have allowed corporate interests to steer legislation, making competition harder in protected markets and driving up costs. As a Libertarian, I won’t have the same corporate interests paying my way via the political party. So I can stand up to bad legislation and work to reform the government procurement process so we end the gross waste at every level, in every department, on every fiscal budget cycle.
Our first priority needs to be to get back to a responsible annual budgeting process that begins with zero-based budgeting. Not adopting last year’s figure plus a certain percent, but starting over every year and justifying the expenses on every program. We need better oversight at every level of the budget process, but it ends at the Senate’s budget committee making hard choices on massive spending programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Our debt limit is meant to be a safeguard to prevent spending, but raising it every year is just Congress being derelict in its duty.
3. What would you do to make health insurance, medical care and prescription drugs more affordable and accessible? Please address Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the needs of rural communities.
Andrews: My two decades as a physician have shown me in a thousand heartbreaking ways how broken our health care system is. I’ve seen parents put off health care treatment until it was way too late because they were forced to choose between paying for care or paying for gas. I’ve seen seniors forced to ration their prescriptions because they can’t afford a refill. I’ve seen families bankrupted by greedy insurance companies.
And that starts with stopping the impending Medicaid cuts. Medicaid is the largest insurer of children in South Carolina, covers half of all births and helps fund the majority of nursing home beds. At a time when 15 South Carolina counties don’t have a single practicing OB-GYN, we should be expanding access to care, not taking it away.
On day one, I’ll call Sen. Tim Scott and ask him to sit down with me to find a bipartisan path forward to protect Medicaid. I’ll also work to lower prescription drug prices, protect Medicare and put patients and physicians, not insurance companies, back at the center of our health care system.
Children make up approximately 45% of Medicaid enrollment in South Carolina. I will fight for the reversal of Medicaid budget cuts and advocate for Medicaid expansion in South Carolina. Expanding Medicaid is a no-brainer. It would take advantage of federal funding that is already available to us, bring $7.2 billion into the state and cover 360,000 more South Carolinians. North Carolina is already taking advantage of this program, and we should too.
D.C.’s recent Medicaid cuts will cost 51,000 South Carolinians their health insurance, force a quarter of nursing homes to close and put five rural hospitals in South Carolina at risk of closure, all to pay for tax cuts for data centers and billionaires. This is wrong. I’ll fight to repeal these cuts.
We must protect and expand rural hospitals to provide more access to critical care. Congress needs to enact legislation lowering drug costs and stopping Big Insurance from ripping people off with premium price gouging and denial of care. We need to provide more robust health care, including mental health, for our veterans, and protect our seniors by opposing efforts to cut Medicaid and Medicare.
For too many South Carolina families, premiums, prescription drugs, deductibles and even a basic trip to the doctor are simply too expensive.
In the Senate, I’d fight to lower prescription drug prices, rein in insurance companies and make sure Washington stops shifting more health care costs onto working families.
Congress also needs to make the ACA premium reductions permanent and fully fund the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF).
Permanent ACA expansions save the average family roughly $50 per person per month on health coverage, while lower-income South Carolina households could save several hundred dollars annually in out-of-pocket medical expenses. Fully funding nutrition and child care programs prevents low-income parents from being forced out of the workforce due to unaffordable care options.
Whitener: I believe we need abundance in health care, and we don’t get that with government intervention. More government in the health care sector has just squeezed the entire industry through costly regulations and compliance.
The best way to make health care more affordable and accessible is to decouple health care from health insurance. You shouldn’t need health insurance to pay for health care. Business models like direct primary care and free medical clinics (supported by philanthropy) are able to bypass insurance requirements and offer better care to patients. We need more innovation in that space, including innovation in insurance, and to get it, we must remove the government interventions put in place by Obamacare and Affordable Care and other government laws that made health insurance a requirement to receive care.
We should also decouple health insurance from employment. Insurance ought to be a free and open market with thousands of products available to meet the myriad needs of patients. If insurance and health care were abundant, patients wouldn’t have to find solutions; the providers and payers would chase patients, competing for our dollar the way airlines and car companies and cellphone providers do now. That’s how prices come down: more competition, less government oversight and costly regulatory burdens.
Years ago, when government started requiring electronic medical records compliance, we started down a path of regulatory burden that has shifted the focus of providers away from preventative care and toward billable procedures. The dance between insurance and health providers costs all of us too much money, and government is to blame.
4. What changes, if any, would you support to strengthen the long-term finances of Social Security and Medicare while protecting people who currently rely on them or are nearing retirement?
Andrews: Social Security and Medicare are promises we make to Americans who have spent their lives working, raising families and contributing to our country. We have a responsibility to keep those promises, both to today’s seniors and to the generations who will depend on these programs in the future.
For Social Security, I support raising the cap on wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes so that the wealthiest Americans contribute more to the system. I would not support raising the retirement age or cutting benefits for people who are already retired or nearing retirement. We should strengthen the program by asking those with the greatest financial resources to contribute their fair share, not by making working families and seniors bear the burden.
For Medicare, we need to protect benefits while bringing down health care costs. That means giving Medicare more power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, cracking down on excessive costs and protecting access to care, particularly in rural communities.
We can strengthen these programs without breaking our promises to the people who depend on them. The goal should be simple: protect the retirement security Americans have earned and ensure these programs remain strong for future generations.
Whitener: Social Security is the number one driver of our national debt. We must, must rein in the growth of this program. When it was originally implemented, Social Security had 16 payers for every one recipient. That ratio is now four payers for every one recipient. The age to collect was past the average life expectancy; it’s now about 12 years earlier. And the benefits are wage-adjusted, not cost-of-living adjusted, so we are paying more per beneficiary.
We have to decide if we want a government-run retirement plan or a social safety net for the poorest among us. Right now we don’t have either. We aren’t collecting enough for the retirement plan, but we’re paying out too much to be a safety net.
So what do we do? First, we form a nonpartisan commission to make recommendations for long-term stability, meeting either the government-run retirement or safety net model. Then we adopt those recommendations.
Medicare and Medicaid are the second-biggest drivers of the national debt. Once we decouple health insurance from employment, retirees will be able to keep their insurance after leaving the workforce; that will render the need for Medicare obsolete. Until then, we need reforms in Medicare to provide reasonable fair-market coverage, not unlimited benefits that drive up health care costs while providers order every possible test and procedure and bill for every action taken. We are being fleeced through Medicare, and it’s got to stop.
Medicaid will have the same challenge, its coverage not well managed and its recipients growing as states realize they can earn more in federal subsidies through Medicaid reimbursements. Better health care business models and philanthropy-supported clinics can solve this, if government would stop writing blank checks to state agencies.
We need to stop thinking of government as providing for us and start thinking about government as protecting our right to provide for ourselves.
5. What changes would you support in border security, asylum, legal immigration and enforcement inside the country? How should federal policy address Dreamers and the workforce needs of South Carolina employers?
Andrews: I strongly support securing our borders and legal entry into our country. We can enforce our immigration laws, keep our communities safe and treat people with dignity. Those goals are not mutually exclusive. Washington needs to stop using immigration as a political talking point and start delivering real solutions.
I support investing in border security to stop drug trafficking and human smuggling, enforcing our laws and ensuring a fair and efficient asylum process. Congress also needs to enact better pathways to citizenship for people who are contributing meaningfully to our communities.
We need immigration reform that supports South Carolina’s farms, businesses and workforce while protecting American workers and wages. I believe we can uphold the law while treating people with dignity and respect.
Whitener: Better immigration law is needed, and there is no appetite for it as the major parties enjoy campaigning and fundraising on the issue. They need it to stay broken so they can keep promising to fix it and accusing the other side of making it worse.
I take no issue with border agents doing their job. I take issue with Congress not doing its job. We have secured the border, but we still do not have an economically sound immigration policy. We need to consider what jobs we need immigrants to fill, how we expect them to assimilate once they’re here and what the process for becoming a legal, tax-paying resident looks like. It should be easy, transparent and inexpensive to become a resident contributor in the United States.
Once again, government regulations make it difficult for hiring businesses to find good workers and provide them with fair wages. If employment did not carry the government regulations of a 40-hour week, full-time, part-time, minimum wage distinctions, if individuals were free to sell their labor for the rate they were willing to accept, and employers competed for good labor by offering benefits like shorter weeks, higher rates or better benefits, then we would have a free labor market. I support revisiting the Fair Labor Act for revisions that would better meet our existing workforce conditions.
Our visa structure is too complicated and rife with abuse. People who arrive on short-term arrangements and then start families or break laws to overstay should be removed. The children of those noncompliant resident aliens should not be considered U.S. citizens. A path from registered resident to citizen should be easy to follow, include milestones that are passed without burdensome government investigations and should not be able to be bypassed or altered by hiring attorneys or paying exorbitant fees.
6. Following the 2026 U.S. military campaign against Iran and the subsequent ceasefire, do you believe the military action was justified? What objectives and limits should guide future U.S. policy toward Iran, and when should the president be required to obtain congressional authorization for additional hostilities? Please also address protection of U.S. personnel and allies, Iran’s nuclear program, diplomacy, sanctions and the economic effects of conflict in the Strait of Hormuz.
Andrews: I do not support the war with Iran. Twenty-one Americans have lost their lives, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent, and South Carolina families have paid the price through rising gas and diesel costs.
I’ve met with farmers struggling to afford diesel to run their equipment, shrimpers paying more to fuel their boats and working families facing higher prices at the pump and grocery store. These are the real consequences of this war, and we cannot continue asking South Carolinians to pay the price for failed foreign policy.
Our priority must be protecting American service members and our allies, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and avoiding another endless war. That means pursuing diplomacy, enforcing sanctions and working with our allies to protect commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Congress must reassert its constitutional responsibility over matters of war and peace. We need to restore stability, prevent further escalation and put the safety and economic security of American families first.
Protecting America requires strength, but strength also means knowing our objectives, exercising sound judgment and recognizing that military action must serve a clear national interest. We owe our service members a mission worth undertaking, our allies a reliable partner and the American people accountability for the decisions made in their name.
Whitener: I did not support interventionist actions in Iran and would not support interventionist actions moving forward. Not only because interventionism makes us less safe, but because we cannot afford the cost of military action.
I understand the objective of the Iran intervention was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and understand that capability to have been neutralized. It is therefore time to withdraw. The Iranian economy is devastated (so we’re told), and they are well aware of our own debt vulnerabilities. Middle East interventions rarely work out in our favor.
Congress should require the president to seek authorization for any military intervention that lasts more than 45 days. We should rely on trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange to secure the United States and our interests. War behaviors, including arms deals with nations at war, make the U.S. less safe. Our military-industrial complex under the guise of the Wilson doctrine to protect democracy abroad has too often used politicians to drive business. It’s time we demonstrate restraint in spending and in war behaviors.
Our global economy is so interdependent that disruption of supply chains has far-reaching consequences. After our intervention in Venezuela, a ramp-up in our own oil production and the limitations on the Strait of Hormuz, it’s clear the United States is making a business play for the oil market. Combine that with the windfall earnings reported by investors, and it’s evident that war has become another way wealthy investors are using government influence to seek personal profit.
As I wrote on my website, war is not a game. The danger posed to lives and liberty is not to be taken lightly. Most of the miseries of the world were caused by war, and we should get out of the business.
7. What role should the federal government have in abortion and reproductive health policy? Please identify any federal legislation you would support or oppose, including policies involving contraception and in vitro fertilization.
Andrews: As a pediatrician, I believe health care decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors, not by politicians. I would support federal legislation restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade and protecting access to reproductive health care regardless of a person’s ZIP code.
Women should not have to risk their health or travel hundreds of miles to receive appropriate medical treatment.
Reproductive freedom must be accompanied by affordable, comprehensive health care. That means improving access to maternal health care, expanding services in rural communities and ensuring that families can obtain the care they need regardless of income.
Whitener: There is no role for the federal government in reproductive health care. With the Dobbs decision, the subject of abortion was turned back to the states. I support that. I would not support federal legislation restricting or permitting abortion, and I would not support federal (taxpayer) funding for abortion anywhere in the world. I would not support federal legislation restricting contraception or in vitro fertilization; as stated, the federal government does not have a role there.
8. What federal rules should govern the development and use of artificial intelligence? Please address privacy, cybersecurity, deepfakes and election content, discrimination, intellectual property, effects on employment and the appropriate division of federal and state authority. Data centers supporting AI require substantial electricity, water and infrastructure. What should Congress do to ensure their costs are not shifted to utility customers or taxpayers while preserving innovation, grid reliability, environmental protections and meaningful state and local oversight?
Andrews: South Carolina families should not have to pay higher electricity bills so Big Tech corporations can build massive data centers in their backyards. I’ve heard from South Carolinians across our state who are concerned about rising utility costs, their property rights and the impact these developments will have on their communities. We can embrace innovation without forcing working families to foot the bill.
That’s why I support a two-year national moratorium on new data center development, ending special tax breaks for these corporations and ensuring local communities have a real say in what gets built in their backyards. Data center developers should be responsible for the electricity, water and infrastructure costs their projects create, not South Carolina taxpayers and ratepayers. We must also protect our power grid, water resources and the rights of local governments to make decisions that affect their communities.
When it comes to artificial intelligence, I believe Congress has a responsibility to establish clear safeguards that protect Americans’ privacy, prevent discrimination, strengthen cybersecurity and address the dangers of deepfakes and election misinformation. We also need to protect workers and creators whose jobs and intellectual property may be affected by AI, while ensuring American businesses can continue to innovate.
Washington should be looking out for working families, not handing out special favors to powerful technology companies. We can support innovation, protect our communities and make sure South Carolinians aren’t left paying the price for corporate profits.
Whitener: We already have consumer protection laws that should and do apply to AI and the products created therewith. We do not need more government infrastructure in that space.
The current unregulated market of data collection, use and sale is worth reviewing for existing laws that are applicable to data as a product. We should also be diligent about the right to repair and the growing tech company tendency to make consumers dependent upon subscriptions and contracts to get full use of the products they purchase. Many of those concerns could be addressed with more transparency (not the lengthy terms and conditions that people bypass) that is achieved through investigative journalism and reporting. Also, university research and scholarship could shed light on some of the more nefarious practices of tech companies and cybersecurity, privacy and other issues related to everything from website cookies to Flock cameras.
We need diligent consumer reporting and visibility to consumer protection lawsuits and case law.
The building of data centers should be a local decision with transparency at the county council level showing the various requests and approvals the county receives. Citizens should inform themselves and engage in educated debates over the zoning permissions granted by their county councils. We elect people to govern on our behalf; hold them accountable to do so.
9. What changes, if any, would you support to Senate rules and practices involving the filibuster, nominations and executive-branch oversight? How would you approach election integrity, ethics and transparency in your own office?
Andrews: South Carolinians deserve a senator who answers to them, not Washington insiders or special interests. Congress needs to look in the mirror and start holding itself accountable.
I support banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, ending wasteful earmarks and increasing transparency so taxpayers know how their money is being spent. We also need to get big money out of politics, overturn Citizens United and put an end to a system where wealthy donors and special interests have too much influence over Washington.
If elected to the Senate, I will work to strengthen ethics rules, protect voting rights and restore accountability across our government. That means ensuring every eligible American can exercise their right to vote, holding Washington accountable regardless of which party is in power and making sure our government operates transparently and in the public interest.
In my own office, I will prioritize transparency, accessibility and accountability to South Carolinians. I have committed to serving no more than two terms because this seat belongs to the people of South Carolina, not any one politician or political party.
On Senate rules, I believe the Senate should protect meaningful debate without allowing procedural obstruction to prevent action indefinitely. I would support reforms requiring greater transparency and accountability in the use of the filibuster, including requiring senators who wish to block legislation to sustain a talking filibuster.
Whitener: I would not support removing the filibuster; it is a protection against the tyranny of the majority. Good legislation shouldn’t be afraid to gain the 60 votes needed. Our hyperpolarized party-driven politics are ruining the legislative process by branding every compromise as a betrayal of party lines.
We need a redesign of the Senate committee structure as it isolates legislation with complicit agencies, special interests and legislators and enables the continuing bloat of the government. I would support an effort to reform Senate operations and could lend some expertise with my advanced degree being in organization and management.
The legislative branch needs to exercise its primary levers of control: the budget and appointment approvals to rein in the executive branch. When an entire slate of nominees is approved along party lines, we know the Senate is not considering each person for the job (and the conflicts of interest) but is acting in accordance with presidential edict. That cannot be allowed, and Congress should be criticized for blanket approvals.
Federal mandates to standardize elections are a bad idea. Each state should be responsible for its own election process and expenses. Without funding, federal mandates are burdens that states should not have to bear. That said, a reasonable audit of election integrity could restore faith in the state infrastructure for elections. I would encourage our own Elections Commission to provide reporting that demonstrates rigor and procedural integrity.
Once again, the political parties are to blame for all of the fervor around which states can be trusted to have fair elections and which ones cannot. Like immigration, this is a conflict the parties use to fundraise and campaign. They will insist on more federal legislation, still not be able to prove integrity and continue to question election results using the blame and anecdotal evidence to drive wedges between the states. It’s not governance, it’s theater.
10. What do you believe you would bring to the U.S. Senate, and what should voters know about the results you would seek for South Carolina during the next six years?
Andrews: I would bring something Washington needs more of: the perspective of a mom of three and a pediatrician who has spent nearly 20 years caring for South Carolina families, not building a career in politics. I’ve seen firsthand how decisions made in Washington affect families long before they reach a hospital room, from parents struggling to afford their children’s medications to families forced to choose between paying their bills and putting food on the table.
My first priority would be making South Carolina a state that working families can afford. That means lowering health care and prescription drug costs, protecting Medicare and Social Security, keeping rural hospitals open and tackling the rising costs of groceries, housing, child care, gas and electricity. I would fight to suspend federal gas and diesel taxes, rein in wasteful government spending and stop massive data centers from driving up utility bills and threatening local communities.
I would also work to strengthen South Carolina’s economy by supporting our farmers, small businesses and working families, investing in our roads and infrastructure and making sure our children have the opportunities they deserve. And I would take on corruption in Washington by banning congressional stock trading, ending special tax breaks for powerful corporations and making sure taxpayer dollars are spent on the people they’re meant to serve, not special interests.
But just as important as what I would fight for is how I would serve. I’ve traveled to all 46 counties because I believe every South Carolinian deserves to have their voice heard and their vote earned, regardless of political party. I will work with Republicans, Democrats and independents to deliver results, and I won’t take my direction from Washington insiders. I’ll take my direction from the people of South Carolina.
I’ve committed to serving no more than two terms because this seat doesn’t belong to any one politician or political party. It belongs to the people of South Carolina. And over the next six years, my focus will be on making their lives more affordable, protecting their families and making sure Washington finally works for them.
Whitener: I bring integrity to the U.S. Senate. As a Libertarian, my party has no power and I therefore am not beholden to donors or PACs or party politics. I can do what’s best for South Carolina.
I will focus on the national debt, securing alliances in my first two years that will help create momentum for real reform. In the 2028 presidential election, encouraged by my victory and service, more independents and third-party candidates will be on the ballot. We can really elect change agents then to finally start to disrupt the stranglehold of the two-party system.
South Carolina can make history by being the first state to reject the corrupt ineptitude of the parties. To say we’re ready for people who will govern, not just campaign. I will govern on your behalf. Not at your expense.
Delayna Earley, who joined The Island News in 2022, formerly worked as a photojournalist for The Island Packet/The Beaufort Gazette, as well as newspapers in Indiana and Virginia. She can be reached at delayna.theislandnews@gmail.com.