LETTER: Who Would Staneski Really Represent?

To the Editor

I recently read a letter To the Editor questioning how “yes means yes” legislation would help women and prevent sexual assault. This was the defense used to explain why Pam Staneski didn’t vote for the legislation while a member of the legislature. It is a shame that the legislation was needed but “yes means yes” being taught to all students at Connecticut college campuses was and is necessary. As the recent events in the news regarding our newest Supreme Court Justice have taught us, there is still a culture in our society that needs to be changed. Sexual assault goes unreported more often than not. If ambiguity in a relationship among young adults is removed, then maybe it will prevent something bad from happening. I hold no illusions, this is not a cure all, but obviously something needs to be done. A law requiring seat belts was no different…it isn’t a cure all but it has saved lives.

The author further stated that Ms. Staneski doesn’t vote for “bandaid” bills. I question if she votes for any bills that protect women. She voted against removing guns in cases where a temporary restraining order is issued. This is a real bill that if it had passed earlier would have had real consequences by saving a woman’s life. I shouldn’t be shocked that Ms. Staneski voted against a gun bill. She votes with the NRA 100% of the time and wouldn’t even vote to ban bump stocks. Think of the more than 50 people that were killed in Las Vegas and what Ms. Staneski’s vote meant when you cast your vote. Who would she really represent?

Ms. Staneski wants you to believe she is here to represent you. The facts and her voting record tell a completely different story. Don’t fall for the fluff, just look at her record.

Signed

Jody Dietch

601 Harborview Rd

Orange, CT