2024 HOD Candidate Questionnaire Response

Name Alyson Reeves

Office Sought House of Delegates

Party Affiliation Democrat

District 89

Your Hometown Levels

Campaign Website reevesforwv.com

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. As a result, the WV legislature enacted a near total ban on abortion less than three months later. With no access to or Constitutional protections for abortion, what do you think abortion policy should look like in West Virginia?

In the words of Clinton (and I agree), abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  I also believe it should be free, and without stigma.  Anything else is bad for the economy of WV and creates inequality between people who may become pregnant and people who can't.

Several West Virginia municipalities have passed ordinances that expand the definition of racial discrimination to include discriminating against traditional or natural hair textures and styles. Would you support expanding this protection statewide?  Why or why not?

Why are we worried about what people LOOK like?  Yes, I most certainly think that no West Virginian (or person) should be discriminated against based on their hair style.  

Many states have created laws that seek to limit the teaching of "divisive concepts" or "critical race theory".  West Virginia narrowly missed passing a similar law during the 2022 Legislative Session.   What is the value or harm in teaching these topics and what role should the legislature play in determining this curriculum?

Education should be as broad as possible.  All sides of all issues should be questioned, explored and discussed.  The value of teaching these topics is in getting children to truly think about these things in a supportive, educated environment.  The legislature should support a broad education.  That said, topics need to be addressed in appropriate environments.  For example, "Intelligent Design" is not science and should not be taught in science class.  It can, and should, be examined in debate class, or perhaps philosophy. As I understand it, "critical race theory" is actually a college level topic and probably should not be addressed in K-12 education.

Currently there is no statewide law protecting people in matters of employment, housing, and public accommodations based on their sexuality or gender identity. Proponents claim these protections are necessary to end the ongoing discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Opponents claim that such protections infringe upon religious beliefs. What do you believe and would you support or oppose a statewide law?

I believe religion is a private matter and should not infringe upon public life.  Consequently, I feel the LGBTQ community deserves the same, anti-discrimination protections as everybody else, and yes, I would definitely support a law guaranteeing those protections.

During the 2024 legislative session, the Senate passed legislation mandating, “In God We Trust” be posted in all West Virginia schools and permitting teachers to discuss ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design creationism’ as part of public-school science curricula. What role do you think religion should play in the public school system, and why?

Comparative religion needs to be taught in schools.  No one religion (or lack there of) should be promoted over any other, but all need to be discussed.  I, personally, did not have this growing up, and I am at a disadvantage when discussing religion(s) with my peers as a result.  "Creationism" and "intelligent design creationism," as mentioned above should be discussed, examined, etc. -- but not in science class, and not beside evolution, as they are not scientific theories.  They should be examined, perhaps, in debate class, or in philosophy, as in: Why do humans feel the need (or not) to explain everything?  "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto of the U.S. until 1956.  As such, it should be taught in context -- what led to the motto being adopted? What was the political climate at the time?  Why didn't the Founding Fathers adopt the motto way back when?  Simply posting the motto on the walls makes it a religious statement that is most definitely not in line with all religions (or with atheists, agnostics, stoics, and the like).

In 2023, West Virginia lawmakers passed HB2007, severely restricting access to gender affirming healthcare services for West Virginians under the age of 18. Proponents of the legislation claimed it was about keeping kids safe, and opponents argued in favor of parental rights and medical freedom. What role, if any, do you believe government should play regarding medical decisions relating to gender affirming healthcare services, and why?

Keep the government out of the discussion.  Legislators generally do not have enough information to make informed decisions on these matters.  The people directly involved (the children, the doctors, the parents) absolutely do.  If anything, the legislature can fund broad, scientific studies to help transgender children go through life more comfortably.  If the legislature were truly worried about the kids, they would have asked *all* the transgender kids what they, specifically, wanted.  The legislature did not.

Though abolished in 1965, lawmakers have introduced multiple bills designed to reinstate the death penalty. What are your thoughts on capital punishment in general, and would you support or oppose the effort to reinstate the death penalty in West Virginia?

Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime, so it is ineffective, and therefore it shouldn't exist. What we need are effective deterrents to crime.  Learning theory tells us what works and what doesn't.  There are VERY FEW situations when corporal punishment is effective, and to be effective, it must be applied swiftly and consistently.  Let us work, instead, to educate people using the other three "quadrants": positive reinforcement, negative punishment (taking away something good in order to decrease the behavior), and negative reinforcement (taking away something bad in order to reinforce appropriate behavior).   At all times, our laws need to be written to be as effective as humanly possible.  Anything else is simply torture.  (And yes, there will be the occasional mass murderer who cannot be rehabilitated, but that is SOOOOOO rare.  Such people will need to be confined to be sure they are not a danger to others.  Note that this is not to discourage others from committing crimes.)  Many crimes have their basis in childhood trauma, so that needs to be worked on, as well.

There is increasing tension with communities of people who are unhoused or face housing insecurity. Police breakups of encampments are common, and municipalities have shown growing opposition to low-barrier housing and recovery housing. How would you address community concerns while protecting the rights of unhoused people?

First I would look to other countries to see how they have handled homelessness.  In fact, Finland has done a very good job of it, and education (counseling) has been a key part of their solution.  People who are 'unhoused' generally don't want to be in that predicament.  And housing 'gifts' by themselves (low or no-cost housing) are not the sole solution.  These people need life skills they were never taught.  Let us give them the help they need to become productive members of society.

Police violence has been in the forefront of national headlines for several years.  Some propose more civilian oversight of law enforcement through civilian review boards that could review incidents and policies.  Others view these boards as "anti-police" and point out that civilians are ill-equipped to understand the nature of police work.  Do you support the use of civilian review boards?  What other steps, if any, should the state take to provide transparency and accountability for police?

Distrust is central to this question.  Therefore, police and the people they police need to find common ground, work through their differences, and learn each others' cultures.  Combine police and community.  Civilian review boards are another 'us against them' tactic, and I don't see them working well.  All police should be well versed in things like non-verbal communication, inherent biases, and learning theory.  And they should all be a full part of the community they are policing.

Jails in West Virginia are above capacity and are bankrupting some counties.  Prisons are understaffed, making them dangerous for residents and staff alike.  What steps, if any, should West Virginia take to address these issues?

WV can start by recognizing that MOST criminals are not deterred by jail/prison time; even less so on the second offense.  Additionally, locking people up often makes the matter worse, not better.  Again, we should look to other countries for solutions to our crime problems.  The U.S. has one of the highest rates per capita incarceration in the world, and it is doing us no good.  The whole system needs to be reworked.

Currently, people coming out of incarceration on probation, parole, or supervised release for a felony conviction are unable to vote. When, if ever, do you think people should lose their right to vote?  When, if ever, should that right be restored?

The nature of the crime is, perhaps, the biggest factor in determining whether and when to restore voting rights.  Someone like Don Blankenship, who has abused the legal system for years, should not be allowed to vote, ever.  Nor should he be allowed to influence elections in any way.  Criminals who have not been following politics should get a full brief on current politics before being allowed to vote.  But no criminal should be allowed to hold office, especially if the crime is a so-called 'white collar crime'.  Drug offenders should need to wait until they've been off the drugs for a year.  I am not sure about violent criminals.  Maybe wait until they are out on parole before restoring voting rights.  Some types of crimes (like being too poor to pay a fine) should not result in the loss of voting rights.

Across the country, there is controversy about what is obscene.  Often these focus on sexual education, content that discusses sexual orientation or gender identity, profanity, and references to sex.  This controversy has led to renewed attempts to censor or restrict access to controversial material.  What do you think is the proper role of the government in restrict material like this and where do you draw the line at what is obscene?

Let us start by recognizing that conversations about sexual orientation or gender identity, profanity, references to sex and the like are best held in a supportive environment with informed adults.  Age appropriate sex education should start early -- perhaps as early as 4 years old, as even 4 year olds get sexually abused, unfortunately.  To try to censor the obscene is a lost battle, as social media is everywhere.  Even were parents to restrict their kids' use of social media, there is always the kid down the block who has free access.  Better the conversations be held openly, with adults present as well as kids, so that kids can understand the full picture.  What is obscene?  Gratuitous violence and/or abuse of any kind (including sexual abuse) is obscene.