Editorials from around New England:

CONNECTICUT

Some tragedies easily averted

Republican-American

Oct. 16

Monday, a year-old girl in Tampa, Fla., became the 48th child to die this year in the United States as a result of being left in a hot car. While the public clamors for protection from lesser dangers, technology for preventing child deaths in hot cars exists today - yet it remains years away from widespread implementation.

That technology is called the backseat reminder. General Motors introduced optional backseat-reminder systems in Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC models in the 2017 model year. Other automakers have followed suit since then. GM’s system detects whether a rear door has been opened prior to a drive. After the car is stopped and the engine is shut down, a chime sounds and a warning message is flashed across the Driver Information Center, advising the driver to check the back seat.

In a Sept. 4 news release, the Auto Alliance, an industry group focusing on such issues as automotive safety and environmental concerns, stated: “At a minimum, these prompts will include a combination of auditory and visual alerts that will activate after a driver turns off the vehicle. With this pledge, the auto industry commits to having the rear seat reminder feature in essentially all cars and trucks by Model Year 2025 or sooner.”

That’s right, 2025 - eight years after GM judged this technology ready for prime time in modern motor vehicles. And many more years will pass before older cars lacking backseat reminders are taken out of service, or retrofitted.

“Although this individual commitment by automakers applies to new vehicles in the future, there are also several cellphone apps available as well as some child car seats that include alarm features,” the Auto Alliance noted in the Sept. 4 news release. Information on such apps and devices is easy to find via the internet. But redundancy, a lifesaving feature of airliners and military aircraft, is worthwhile in backseat-reminder systems as well.

Hospitals, pediatricians, retailers who sell car seats and other baby supplies, and organizations catering to young parents should educate themselves on the rear-seat-reminder alternatives available now, display them prominently in stores and on websites, apply vigorous salesmanship to put these products into the hands of new parents, and lobby automakers and politicians for quicker action on built-in automotive warning systems. Meanwhile, automakers should not wait for the U.S. government to force them to install backseat reminders in every model they sell - and the key word should be “sooner,” not “six years from now.”

Online: https://bit.ly/32sRZsD

___

MAINE

Maine’s plan for lobster lines an improvement

Portland Press Herald

Oct. 18

A federal proposal to cut fishing lines off the Maine coast was dead in the water to lobstermen, who said it would put either their lives or ability to make a living at risk.

We agreed, arguing that there was no evidence that the plan, aimed at saving the endangered North Atlantic right whale, would hit its target, though it would certainly cause distress in Maine’s $485 million lobster industry.

The lobster industry felt the same way. Now the state Department of Marine Resources has put forward its own proposal.

Aimed at addressing the risk to right whales “where it actually occurs,” according to Commissioner Patrick Keliher, the plan, the state says, meets goals for reducing mortality risk among whales while lessening the burden on the lobster industry. It’s a good counterproposal to the federal government’s plan, and it deserves serious consideration.

The federal proposal, released this summer, called on Maine to reduce the number of surface-to-seabed buoy lines by 50 percent in both state waters, which run out to three miles from shore, and federal waters, which extend from there.

The goal was to reduce whale injury and death by 60 percent. Between 2017 and 2018, 20 right whales died - a staggering 4 percent of the population - mostly from entanglements with fishing lines. Experts say even one death a year could doom the population, which has fallen to about 400.

However, lobstermen said the plan would cause them to either cut the number of traps, which would hurt operations that rely on volume, or put more traps on each line, adding weight that would put smaller crews at risk.

And while fishing entanglements are to blame for about 85 percent of right whale deaths, none of those deaths has been conclusively tied to the Maine lobster industry. The whales are a very rare sight, fishermen say, particularly in the waters closer to shore.

A number of other factors have been floated for the deaths, too, including changes in water temperature that have caused the whales to change feeding grounds, as well as more lax conservation laws in Canadian waters.

With all this in mind, lobstermen were right to be wary of the proposal. And since industry buy-in is necessary to make any plan work, the state was right to put forward its own proposal.

The state’s plan would eliminate 25 percent of buoy lines set by state lobstermen in federal waters by requiring they add more traps to each line, “trawling up” more and more as they get farther from shore, where a right whale is more likely to pass through.

The plan would affect about 1,800 of Maine’s 5,000 or so licensed lobstermen. Keliher said the state could work with captains of smaller vessels for whom adding too many traps would be dangerous.

Keliher said the department believes the plan meets the federal goal for risk reduction. That remains to be seen; environmental and conservation groups say it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

But it at least takes into account the impact on the lobster industry and acknowledges that drastic changes in some waters will do more harm that good.

That’s a step in the right direction, and goes a long way toward getting the lobster industry back on board with the effort to save the right whale.

Online: https://bit.ly/2BpkzyZ

___

MASSACHUSETTS

Turkey got what it wanted in ‘cease-fire.’ What did U.S. get?

The Boston Globe

Oct. 18

President Trump broke this nation’s policy in Syria and gave the Turkish government free rein to attack our Kurdish allies, but now insists things in that war-torn region are going to be just fine.

Only the very gullible believe that.

American troops had been holding together a fragile stalemate in Syria, combating the Islamic State with the help of the Kurds while also deterring Turkey from invading. That all fell apart in spectacular fashion when Trump withdrew U.S. troops so abruptly that the Pentagon’s been bombing its own bases in Syria to prevent them from falling into the hands of other forces. Given the green light by the president, Turkey immediately invaded and got to work slaughtering the Kurds, who had placed their trust in the United States.

After a five-hour negotiation with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Vice President Pence announced the start of a five-day “pause” in the fighting along the Syrian border that could lead to a permanent cease-fire. In doing so, the United States gave Turkey pretty much everything it wanted - a 20-mile “safe zone” along its border with Syria, the eventual lifting of sanctions against some of its top officials and businessmen, and the promise of “hundreds of millions of dollars” to rebuild communities within Syria.

And what “concessions” did the United States get, reporters repeatedly asked Pence - that is, apart from the opportunity to save face both with the international community and with members of the president’s own party who have not been shy about expressing how appalled they are at this administration’s foreign policy blunders? Evangelical Christian leaders have been particularly vocal about the danger the precipitous withdrawal of American troops and the subsequent Turkish attacks have posed to minority religious communities that had been protected by the Kurds.

“First this ends the violence,” Pence assured. “Great news out of Turkey,” Trump posted on Twitter. “Millions of lives will be saved!” he added, ignoring that it was his policy blunder that put those lives at risk in the first place.

But then, for Trump, this whole episode is “7,000 miles away,” and if Russians are now occupying territory once held by US troops, well, “They got a lot of sand over there. So, there’s a lot of sand that they can play with.” As for the Kurds, Trump insisted, “The Kurds are very well protected. Plus, they know how to fight. And, by the way, they’re no angels.”

Yes, that’s what passes for U.S. foreign policy these days.

Of course, cease-fires are always subject to interpretation. Turkey’s foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, said: “This is not a cease-fire…. We will pause the operation for 120 hours in order for the terrorists to leave.”

By “terrorists,” he’s referring to Kurdish fighters linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has launched attacks on Turkish soil. And he said that 20-mile deep “safe zone” would stretch more than 280 miles from the northern city of Manbij to the Syrian border with Iraq.

It’s not the first time the Syrian Kurds gave up land and were promised a cease-fire in return. An effort earlier this year was brokered by the United States and then quickly violated by Turkey. But then American troops were on the ground to halt that invasion. Now they are not.

So, Thursday the Trump administration got its headline - and perhaps that will be enough to appease some discontented Republicans of the deluded variety. Good for U.S. Senator Mitt Romney for avoiding that trap. He took to the floor of the Senate yesterday to denounce the deal with Turkey for what it was - a sham.

“The announcement today is being portrayed as a victory. It is far from a victory,” Romney said.

Erdogan got everything he wanted. Mike Pence got a photo-op. The Kurds remain in harm’s way. And US policy in Syria remains a national disgrace.

Online: https://bit.ly/2BlxQZo

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

State can do a lot more with RGGI money

Concord Monitor

Oct. 17

Lawmakers need to try yet again to restore some sense to the spending of New Hampshire’s share of the revenue earned by making electric utilities pay a price for pollution.

In 2008, New Hampshire joined with seven other states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Operating as a cooperative, RGGI caps the amount of carbon dioxide that the region’s power plants can emit and holds auctions to sell utilities what are essentially permits to pollute. At the last auction the cost of a credit to emit one ton of CO2 went for $5.20.

To be truly effective at combating climate change, the credit should be 10 or 15 times higher and should apply to the transportation sector as well. Nonetheless, the auctions raise a lot of money. Earlier this month the cooperative issued a state-by-state report on how that money was spent in 2017. New Hampshire wasted most of its share.

We understand that some will disagree with that characterization, but while every other state in the compact used all or nearly all of its revenue from the auctions to fund energy-efficiency programs New Hampshire did not. The state, the RGGI report said, received $11.1 million from the 2017 auctions. It put $3 million in the state’s energy efficiency fund to pay for conservation measures like insulating municipal buildings and low-income homes. It gave $7.8 million back to utility customers in the form of “direct bill assistance.”

That assistance doesn’t, as far as we could find, show up on customers’ monthly bills. It amounts to pennies per month. Pretty much no one knows that they received the money so it does nothing to alter behavior by say, replacing incandescent light bulbs with LEDs. Direct bill assistance using RGGI money, save for programs to assist low-income customers, should be scrapped.

RGGI was designed to combat climate change on two fronts. Charge utilities to pollute and they’ll be more likely to invest to limit their emissions. Spend the money raised on energy efficiency. That reduces the amount of electricity that needs to be generated and greenhouse gas emissions. It was a two-fer, but in 2012, with Republican ideologues and Tea Party zealots in control of the Legislature, a move to force the state to leave RGGI looked like it could succeed.

In a compromise to keep New Hampshire in the compact, lawmakers agreed that only the first $1 of the auction price would go to conservation; the rest had to be returned to customers.

Two more states, Pennsylvania and Virginia, appear likely to join the compact and New Jersey, which dropped out when Chris Christie was governor, is poised to rejoin. Those states should not make New Hampshire’s mistake.

Gov. Sununu vetoed last session’s attempt to direct more RGGI money to energy-efficiency programs. He twanged the old saw and said “what about the retired woman teacher living on a fixed income in Manchester. She can use the rebate.” Maybe, but what that teacher and many others could really use is help from a program that insulates their drafty home or helps them replace an old energy hog of a refrigerator.

That kind of RGGI fund spending saves hundreds of dollars per year, not pennies.

Online: https://bit.ly/2Brn0Bk

___

RHODE ISLAND

Poor process for impeachment

The Providence Journal

Oct. 17

The House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump has broken so dramatically with precedent that some wonder whether it constitutes an impeachment effort at all.

In the past, such proceedings - against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton - were treated with solemnity and regard for the American people of both parties.

They were initiated by a vote of the full House of Representatives, recognizing that, under the Constitution, the House impeaches, not just the political faction in control. Since overruling the votes of the people for president is wrenching and divisive, it was always regarded as a very big deal.

As the Judiciary Committee noted in its Oct. 7, 1998 report to the House regarding the impeachment of President Clinton, after an independent counsel found he had committed perjury and obstructed justice: “Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming importance, the Committee decided that it must receive the authorization from the full House before proceeding on any further course of action. Because impeachment is delegated solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, the full House of Representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment.”

In addition, the committee made clear that the president had rights in that process: “The President and his counsel shall be invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings. The President’s counsel may cross examine witnesses. The President’s counsel may make objections regarding the pertinency of evidence. The President’s counsel shall be invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional evidence. Lastly, the President or the President’s counsel shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President.”

Furthermore, members of the president’s party had power to issue subpoenas for witnesses.

Due process, including the right to a defense and to confront one’s accusers, is the very essence of American justice.

The process under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been radically different. She has refused to hold a vote. A committee is holding secret meetings in the basement of the Capitol, bringing in witnesses selected only by Democrats. Neither the American people nor the president’s counsel is permitted to attend. Selective leaks are being issued. In some ways, the process has more the air of a Soviet procedure than an American one.

We endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and find President Trump odious and his behavior unfit for his high office. But, in opposing him, it is important that we not dispense with American ideals or undermine our republic. (For similar reasons, we oppose junking the Electoral College or packing the Supreme Court.) We will need our republic after Mr. Trump is gone, which could be very soon, after an election in less than 13 months. We don’t want one-sided tactics used against future presidents to overturn the will of voters.

While the daily drumbeat of impeachment in the news may be driving down Mr. Trump’s poll numbers - polls differ - it remains unlikely a Republican Senate will provide the two-thirds vote to remove him from office. We fear that this process will end up solidifying support for Mr. Trump in his base while turning off moderate voters, weakening rather than strengthening Democratic prospects in 2020.

But if the House must impeach, it should follow established precedent.

Online: https://bit.ly/33KDYXt

___

VERMONT

All of us

Times Argus

Oct. 12

Once again, headlines from across Vermont have highlighted recent overdoses as a result of the opioid crisis. In a few cases, the individual’s addiction has become a signal to others.

An obituary for Megan Angelina Webbley, 31, was heartbreaking.

It stated, in part, “she died of an overdose, finally losing her battle with addiction. She was in Manchester, N.H., seeking treatment for her addiction.”

Webbley was the mother of four “who were collectively the light of her dark life,” her family wrote. The obituary details an accident in 2005 - a singular moment - that is believed to be the beginning of the final chapter of Webbley’s troubled life: the beginning of an addiction to pain killers. “She would be in and out of rehab - and jail - for the next 14 years.” She would also lose her children.

In the obituary, her family pleaded: “We, as a state, are overwhelmed by addiction. We have almost nowhere to turn. I encourage enhanced funding for treatment in general and using DCF as a gateway for mothers with addiction to get help. Because, as one would guess, once the mother is separated from her children, desperation sets in, even with the brightest and most determined of mothers - and Megan Angelina Webbley was that bright and determined mother. with a fatal disease and a dearth of treatment options.”

We all know people affected by this plague. We all know about the hub-and-spoke approach to treatment. And we all know how sinister addiction can be to a relationship, a family, a neighborhood, a community and a state.

We live it every day.

So it is a relief when precautionary steps are taken - at any level.

This week, U.S. health officials again warned doctors against abandoning chronic-pain patients by abruptly stopping their opioid prescriptions.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services instead urged doctors to share such decisions with patients. The agency published steps for doctors in a six-page guide and an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

According to that editorial, prescription opioid use continues to contribute to significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. In 2017, 17,029 of the 47,600 opioid-related overdose deaths involved prescription opioids. Nearly 2 million individuals in the United States have a prescription-opioid use disorder. At the same time, approximately 11% of U.S. adults report daily pain, and an estimated 3% to 4% use opioids long-term to help manage chronic pain.

In the 1990s, overprescribing started the first wave of the nation’s overdose crisis. Opioids - previously used mostly for patients with cancer, at the end of their lives or with pain after surgery - began to be prescribed for long-term pain such as backaches. Drug companies promoted that use, even as evidence grew of addiction and overdose.

Later, insurers and hospitals misinterpreted cautions about opioids in ways that harmed some patients. Some turned to street drugs such as heroin or fentanyl after doctors stopped prescribing.

In April, the Food and Drug Administration added new label advice to drugs such as OxyContin, Vicodin and dozens of generic pills after reports of suicide and other serious harm in patients who were physically dependent on opioids suddenly having the medicine stopped or their dose rapidly decreased.

In the new guide, health officials said slow, voluntary reductions of opioid doses can improve quality of life without worsening pain. Tapering the drugs slowly can take months or years.

The editorial notes: “While safe and effective opioid use and discontinuation can be challenging, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline and the HHS guide emphasize that clinicians have a responsibility to provide care for or arrange for management of patients’ pain and should not abandon patients. . More research is critically needed to define optimal strategies for opioid tapering. . Unless there is a life-threatening issue, such as imminent overdose, the benefits of rapidly tapering or abruptly discontinuing opioids are unlikely to outweigh the significant risks of these practices. However, following slow, voluntary reduction of long-term opioid dosages, most patients report improvements in function, quality of life, anxiety, and mood without worsening pain or with decreased pain levels.”

That is no consolation to the family of Megan Angelina Webbley. But because of steps being taken by the medical profession, and the courageousness of families who stand up to remind us that these addicts are our family members, friends and neighbors, we are staring down this plague with the indignation it deserves.

Online: https://bit.ly/32xs4Qo

Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.