In a republic, politics and policy are inseparable, but when Senate Democrats last week introduced their proposal to combat sexual harassment in the workplace, the political calculation seemed particularly dominant.

With the parties fighting in 2018 for control of a state Senate now split 18-18, with the House also within reach of a Republican takeover, and with a wide open race for governor, the ability to frame the debate will be critical to both parties.

Republicans want to focus on the state’s sluggish economy during the past eight years of Democratic control, on Connecticut’s continuing fiscal struggles and on the tax increases that have not solved the money problem.

Democrats will remind voters that Republicans had a hand in passing the most recent budget, which quickly went into deficit. More critical to their political hopes, however, they want to turn attention to wedge issues they see trending in their favor — immigration, gun control, and an energized women electorate focused, in significant part, on addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.

That was the setting for the Hartford press conference Tuesday introducing the “Time’s Up Act,” featuring five of the seven women senators in the Democratic caucus, along with President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven.

The act’s name references Oprah Winfrey’s galvanizing speech at the Golden Globes. Referencing powerful men who have silenced their sexual harassment victims, Winfrey declared, “Their time is up.”

Addressing the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, taking steps to expose the creeps who perpetrate it and assuring protections for those who speak out are all important goals. Some of the proposals should generate widespread support, such as making the complaint process more victim friendly, extending the time for making a complaint and improving education about worker rights.

Yet some aspects of this plan appear by design to put Republicans on the defensive.

The proposal calls for sexual harassment training for all employees, not just supervisors, as is currently the regulation. It would expose employers to higher punitive damages. But most dramatically, it would extend requirements that now only apply to businesses with 50 or more employees to companies with three or more workers.

On the one hand, the threat of harassment could be greater in a small workplace, many of them family businesses, because employees feel more intimidated to speak up than do those working in larger operations with human resources departments. In that regard, making small businesses meet all regulatory requirements makes sense.

But on the other hand, these small operations do not have the resources available to larger companies. If the law passes, for example, a business with three employees could confront a protective injunction issued by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, perhaps barring the only boss from the workplace, a legal hammer that only businesses with 50 or more employees now face.

Finding the right balance between workplace protections and avoiding regulations so onerous they inhibit business development and job growth has long been a part of the state’s and nation’s policy debates. But Republicans who question these provisions as being unreasonable for small businesses could play right into the hands of the Democrats, as they risk being attacked as weak on the issue of sexual harassment.

Sen. Republican President Pro Tempore Len Fasano, R-North Haven, noting there was no effort to get Republican input, sees a set up. He called the event “more focused on grabbing headlines than actually making a difference” and “more about politics then about the people of Connecticut we all want to help, support and protect.”

But note also that Democrats had Fasano responding to their proposal on a topic of their choosing.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.