By Chris Powell
With political journalism the questions that don’t get asked can be more important than the ones that do. Such was the case with the contrived controversy that arose in the last days of Connecticut’s campaign for governor.
In a television interview the Republican nominee, Bob Stefanowski, reiterated for the umpteenth time his support for abortion rights as codified in Connecticut law, a Roe v. Wade policy of unrestricted abortion prior to fetal viability and restriction of post-viability abortion to saving the life or health of the pregnant woman. But Stefanowski also remarked that he did not think abortions should be performed beyond the first trimester of pregnancy.
Connecticut law is not that restrictive, since fetal viability is generally believed not to occur until 10 weeks or so after the first trimester.
While in the interview Stefanowski did not advocate tightening the state’s abortion law, his trimester remark invited clarification. But none of the three journalists present asked for one, perhaps because they knew very well that Stefanowski’s oft-repeated position on abortion was Roe v. Wade. So the interview moved on.
The next day Democrats began expressing mock horror. Stefanowski, they shrieked, wanted to repeal abortion rights after all!
No, he didn’t. He quickly admitted having misspoken. But the Democrats continued the hysteria against him, as if there is much sentiment in the state for retreating from the viability standard in Connecticut’s abortion law.
Ironically, Governor Lamont and Connecticut’s members of Congress, all Democrats, [ITALICS] already [END ITALICS] had expressed support for [ITALICS] federal [END ITALICS] legislation that [ITALICS] would [END ITALICS] destroy the viability standard of Connecticut’s abortion law. That is, months ago the governor and the congressmen endorsed Democratic legislation in Congress, the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act, that would forbid states from restricting abortion at [ITALICS] any [END ITALICS] stage of pregnancy, requiring states to allow abortion right up to the moment of birth, when it is indistinguishable from infanticide.
While Connecticut journalists often have questioned Stefanowski’s position on abortion, they don’t seem ever to have questioned the governor and the congressmen about their support for abortion of viable fetuses even at the moment of birth. Nor has there been much if any questioning of the governor and congressmen about their opposition to requiring parental consent for abortions for minors, though state law requires parental consent for minors getting a tattoo.
Opinion polls in Connecticut and nationally show strong opposition to late-term abortion and strong support for parental notification, suggesting vulnerability for the governor and Connecticut’s congressmen if those issues are ever pressed.
But of course most journalists are liberal Democrats, and during an election campaign journalism in Connecticut can put troublesome questions about abortion only to Republicans. Democrats get a pass.
* * *
More questions that journalism doesn’t ask also may arise from the investigative reports recently published by Connecticut’s Hearst newspapers about the use by schools of restraint and seclusion to control disturbed and disruptive students.
The reports say some disturbed students have died after confrontations with school staff, but a new procedure, aiming to calm disturbed students before trying to restrain them, has substantially reduced physical and psychological harm. The procedure includes equipping school staff with foam shields to absorb blows from disturbed students.
So maybe Connecticut’s schools should pursue the new procedure and stock up on those shields. But it might be better to ask a few questions, in journalism and school administration.
For example, where are all the disturbed kids coming from — not just in schools but on the street as well, as with the explosion in car thefts, vandalism, and other offenses by juveniles?
Why are disruptive students allowed to impair everyone else’s education?
And must schools really function as mental hospitals too when, as national proficiency test scores showed again the other day, schools can hardly teach anymore?
Merely remediating social problems doesn’t eliminate them. Mainly it just makes the remediation industry more profitable.
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years.
-END-
Chris Powell column 