The Pittsburgh Steelers had a 2026 NFL Draft that was, well, perplexing to put it nicely. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat when it comes to the draft process, and in three to four years, there’s a chance we look back on the class and the prevailing notion was dead wrong. 

So today, we are going to name the three biggest overreactions to what the Steelers just did over the course of the weekend. Let’s jump in.

Overreaction No. 1: Max Iheanachor is another Broderick Jones

Look, if we want to reprimand what happened in the first round and the phone-gate debacle, that’s fine. But as Omar Khan said after the draft, the Steelers stuck true to their board and went with their highest rated player once Makai Lemon was poached by the Eagles.

Advertisement

And yes, Iheanachor is raw. Yes, he didn’t start playing football until very recently and was mostly a soccer player. But the truth is, there might not be a tackle with higher potential and a greater ceiling than Iheanachor.

The feet, the length, the traits, it’s all there. Sure, the Steelers will need to be patient, but this isn’t a player who is fundamentally flawed the way that Jones was. This is a player who you don’t have to fix; you have to build up. So it’s far too soon to write off Iheanachor.

On paper, Connecticut is economically thriving – jobs are at an all-time high with over 1.7 million positions in the state, as reported by the state Department of Labor (DOL). With over 5,000 jobs added for the month of January in various industries, as well as a projected surplus upwards of over $164.5 million for the Fiscal Year 2026, it’s a promising trajectory for our state and should demonstrate that Connecticut labor is as strong as it’s ever been. 

But while it’s true that from an economic standpoint Connecticut is doing well, I look to our workers —our everyday people— to truly determine how successful we are at meeting our residents’ needs. 

And right now, there are significant problems in our state that need to be addressed, from the well-known crisis in affordability to the seemingly intractable limits faced by many low-wage, hourly workers in scheduling and organizing that are so longstanding, they may seem invisible.  

But there are also problems that thousands of Connecticut workers face that we can easily tackle in this session. At the top of that list is the issue faced by contracted workers, most of them building cleaners, who regularly lose good jobs without any fair reason or fair warning.   

Throughout my life of advocating for safer, fair, and just workplaces, I am constantly met with the same recurring issue: new contractors who waltz in and completely usurp the status quo, terminating the jobs and upending the lives of workers who preceded them, no matter how long or how well they’d served the building’s occupants. Often, this happens once a building is sold or there is a transition in management, which results in the replacement of the building’s entire workforces.  

The people whose lives are upended are often parents, spouses, and caretakers who have performed the job for decades, workers with unmatchable institutional knowledge. Such abrupt terminations can also result in a loss of health insurance and other benefits, a psychological shock that is worsened by the turbulence of war, tripling inflation, and Connecticut’s already high cost of living. 

I’ve worked alongside several unions in Connecticut, as well as worked for a few myself prior to becoming state senator, and I have seen this shock issued by new contractors and building owners again and again. In 2024, I fought alongside 14 former custodians at ARKA group who were abruptly displaced when the company hired a nonunion contractor. It took over a year for many of these workers to get backpay for lost wages, and for some of them to return to their original postings.  

I’m seeing this again in Norwalk with the most recent grievance being handled by building service worker union 32BJ, part of the Service Employees International Union. Elsa Guerrero and Corina Palacio, two part-time workers who were recently let go by a new cleaning contractor who took over at 40 Richards Avenue in Norwalk.  

In the case of Elsa, in particular, the toll of losing her only source of income has been almost crippling. With her job, she was supporting a sister back home in Peru with a delicate health condition, and she is now left reeling, wondering how her sister will manage. For Corina, this was one of two part-time jobs she was working to make ends meet to support her and her child. However, with only one job now and daily expenses that keep adding up, the impact of her termination grows larger everyday. 

These are the real costs of companies terminating employees abruptly when taking over a new worksite.  

It is because of these situations that we’re urging the passage of effective, statewide worker’s retention laws in Connecticut, S.B. 358 and H.B. 5003. Both of these bills directly address this issue by protecting workers’ jobs for 90 days following a contractor change at their worksite, giving the worker time to find new work and the employer time to consider the value that worker brings to the worksite, without ending their right to ultimately hire whomever they choose.  

As it currently stands in Connecticut, workers employed by building-service contractors have no legal right to keep their jobs if their owner decides to replace the workforce. With proper worker’s retention laws in place, workers are given some agency. 

Connecticut would not be the first to establish such a framework; states like New Jersey, California, and Delaware share that honor. However, there has never been a more important time for a worker’s retention bill. 

We have an obligation as lawmakers do all that’s possible to support workers like Elsa and Corina by giving them access to a resource whose value is often incalculable –- time. 

State Sen. Julie Kushner of the 24th District is Deputy President Pro Tempore and represents Danbury and portions of New Fairfield and Ridgefield.

Maine legislators approved a budget on April 9 that is designed to protect family planning and reproductive healthcare, providing millions in annual funding for those services, according to a press release from Planned Parenthood. The budget is part of bill LD 335, sponsored by Rep. Amy Kuhn, which was left as unfinished business by the legislature. However, the bill has taken a new shape in the form of a budget amendment, which means that Maine is on track to become one of the first states to build an allowance for reproductive healthcare into the state budget. 

If enacted, the budget amendment would provide $5 million annually for reproductive healthcare, regardless of federal spending decisions. This comes after the release of the Trump Administration’s budget plan for the 2027 fiscal year, which includes defunding access to birth control and abortions across the nation. According to News Center Maine, taxpayers would likely fill the gap to fund the budget if federal spending were to be reallocated. 

Gianna DeJoy, a PhD candidate in anthropology and environmental policy at the University of Maine, provided written testimony for LD 335 before it became a budget amendment. She expanded on the purpose of the bill over email with the Maine Campus.

“My understanding is that LD 335 itself was reported out of committee but received no action from the full House or Senate, so it was left as unfinished business when the legislature adjourned last week. However, I believe an amendment based on that bill was included in the final supplemental budget,” wrote DeJoy. 

She added that, despite the bill’s lack of final action, its core provisions were incorporated into the supplemental budget.

“So, the budget includes safety net funding for Title X providers, establishes a fund to maintain access to statewide family planning services and pledges $5 million to that fund, which is exactly what LD 335 had aimed to do,” wrote DeJoy. 

She noted that adding the bill to the budget was the most logical route, considering the controversial nature of the bill. She explained that legislators are more likely to vote favorably on a budget plan than on a bill of this type. 

“It makes sense for the spirit of that bill to sort of find new life as a budget amendment since it was directing spending, and because it can be easier for some legislators to vote on controversial issues when they’re folded into a bigger budget package,” wrote DeJoy.

She also mentioned that the bill was publicly supported by various groups and professionals. 

“I just know there was an incredibly wide range of voices that came out in support of the bill when it came up before committee — including LGBTQ advocacy groups, the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, professional associations for pediatricians, nurses, obstetricians and gynecologists, public health professionals,” wrote DeJoy. 

She added that if passed, the budget amendment is likely to benefit those who cannot afford reliable reproductive healthcare services.

“[The bill] just highlights how the services offered by Maine Family Planning and Planned Parenthood are critical to the health and wellbeing of many different populations,” wrote DeJoy. She added that a women’s health clinic “might be a lifeline for the community,” and particularly for people in “medically underserved” areas. 

DeJoy emphasized the need for Maine’s continued support for reproductive healthcare in light of a “hostile and unpredictable federal stance” toward funding such causes.

“This action reaffirms Maine’s position as a safe haven for reproductive rights,” wrote DeJoy.