ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Kirsten Gillibrand”

Health

Gillibrand Challenger: No One Would Notice If Roe V. Wade Were Overturned

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Feb 24, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Wendy Long, a conservative judicial activist challenging Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said yesterday that no one would miss Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion, if it were overturned. Long clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and served as a counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, but is perhaps best known for spearheading several inaccurate race baiting attacks against Justice Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation process.

Long made the abortion comment to Capital New York’s Reid Pillfant at the Manhattan GOP’s annual Lincoln Day Dinner last night:

“I think there is a universal understanding among the legal community that Roe v. Wade was a very flawed legal decision,” she said. “It’s a horrible decision from a constitutional law standpoint, and even liberal law professors will tell you that.

“I believe that the issue of abortion should be left to the people to decide. The Constitution doesn’t mention the word abortion. So I think that’s what it’s really all about. And if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, nobody would even notice, because the states are legislating their own laws about abortion, completely independent.”

Republican-controlled legislatures are attempting to restrict women’s access to abortion services, but Roe is preventing them from outlawing abortion entirely. Should the precedent be overturned, a lot of women would almost certainly notice as plenty of states would criminalize the procedure.

Economy

Sen. Gillibrand Introduces Bill Allowing SEC To Prosecute Members Of Congress For Insider Trading: ‘It Has To Be Illegal’

By Tanya Somanader on Nov 17, 2011 at 4:45 pm

With his ear to the ground in Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is bolstering his Wall Street reform cred with a new bill to stop members of Congress from participating in insider trading. Responding to a 60 Minutes report citing lawmakers who earned thousands from trading on information learned in private briefings, Brown’s Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2011 requires lawmakers to report transactions of at least $1,000 in bonds, commodities or stocks within 90 days. Today, Sen. Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY) took it one step further with a bill that will not only ban insider trading for congressional members but will “empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to prosecute lawmakers for insider-trading cases as well as make insider trading against the rules of the House and the Senate.”

Noting that “the American people don’t have a lot of trust in Congress,” Gillibrand told CBS’ Early Show host Chris Wagge that “it’s incumbent upon us to make the kinds of changes that the American people would expect we would make so that we live by the exact same exact rules that everyone else does.” While there is disclosure now, she said, “it has to be illegal, just like it’s illegal for everyone else.” Watch it:

House Speaker John Boehner (R), however, thinks that such laws are unnecessary as “there are already guidelines for congressional investments,” adding, “I have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities in my account and haven’t for years.”

LGBT

Gillibrand’s New Adoption Bill Hopes To Reverse Discrimination Against Same-Sex Parents

By Guest Blogger on Oct 28, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Our guest blogger is Crosby Burns, special assistant for the LGBT Research and Communications Project at American Progress.

Today, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced federal legislation that would bar discrimination against prospective LGBT adoptive or foster parents. The “Every Child Deserves a Family Act” prohibits any organization that receives federal assistance and is involved in adoption or foster care placements from discriminating against prospective adoptive or foster parents on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced the same bill in the House earlier this year, which currently has 76 co-sponsors.

LGBT couples looking to adopt currently face discrimination in more than 30 states, and if passed, Gilibrand’s bill would ensure that no child is left without a home because their adoption agency or foster care provider discriminated against prospective LGBT caretakers. There are currently approximately 400,000 children in the US foster system, with an additional 107,000 children nationwide waiting to be adopted.

This bill comes the same week that a broad coalition of LGBT and social welfare organizations released a comprehensive report, All Children Matter, that documents the ways in which state and federal laws hurt the more than 2 million children living with LGBT parents. For example, the report identified state and federal adoption policies that prevent children from leaving the adoptive and foster care system and entering into loving homes headed by LGBT couples. These policies have disastrous implications for our nation’s children, putting them at a higher risk for poverty, homelessness, incarceration, and early parenthood.

The report also offers numerous policy recommendations – such removing restrictions to LGBT adoption – to ensure that all children have the financial and emotional support needed to develop happily and healthily. Studies have consistently found that LGBT parents are just as fit and effective as straight parents, and their children are just as well-adjusted and physically and psychologically developed.

Economy

Would Having More Women At The Negotiating Table Have Helped Democrats Get A Better Debt Ceiling Deal?

By Guest Blogger on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm

Our guest blogger is Madeline Meth, a press intern with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Where did President Obama and the Democratic leadership go wrong? This is the question plaguing progressives following the passage of a debt-ceiling package that has been labeled, among other things, a Democratic surrender and a “ Satan sandwich.”

The principal players during the negotiations were Obama, Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), and the six male senators who made up the Gang of Six (who offered their own budget plan, which Obama endorsed, right in the middle of the negotiations). But would Congress have voted on a more balanced debt ceiling plan if women had been offered a seat at the negotiating table?

Scholars of public policy, female business, political, and media leaders alike answer yes. They argue that women — whether because of biology, society, or some combination — bring a different and potentially more advantageous style to negotiations.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), whose campaign, Off the Sidelines, seeks to engage more women in the political process, suggests that women ”tend to be more results-oriented and less concerned with getting the credit.” If this is true — and scholars like Swanee Hunt the Director of the Women and Public Policy program at the Harvard Kennedy School say it is — then a debt conversation that included women may have sidelined some of the politics that distracted our lawmakers from reaching a balanced deal.

But for those who do not buy the Gillibrand argument that “the female approach is more conciliatory and less combative,” there is still reason to ask whether the debt deal being signed into law would look differently if women had played a more serious role in crafting the legislation. According to the president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), nearly half of the $2.1 trillion proposed cuts will disproportionately affect women. She explains that “the agreement will impose $1 trillion in cuts to programs such as family planning clinics, food stamps, college tuition assistance, and child care.”

Ultimately, the unbalanced nature of the debt plan is not only a result of the lack of cooperative bargaining styles, but also because the negotiators were not a representative sampling of the American people. The only woman even tangentially involved in the negotiations, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), not only wasn’t directly connected to many of the talks, but can’t be expected to represent more than fifty percent of the U.S. by herself.

Just as the opportunity to improve the debt ceiling deal has not disappeared, neither has the chance to engage female leaders more seriously in the process. As Congress appoints members to a special congressional committee charged with finding ways to further reduce the federal deficit, it can strengthen the debt ceiling deal by taking a hammer to the glass ceiling.

Yglesias

Women, Ego, and Politics

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm

Kirsten Gillibrand’s desire to see more women in politics is laudable, but this sub-aspiration seems doomed to me:

In fact, Ms. Gillibrand goes a step further, arguing that an infusion of women into the political system would go a long way toward changing the tone in Congress, a male-dominated world of fiercely clashing egos.

“We tend to be more results-oriented and less concerned with getting the credit,” Ms. Gillibrand explained. “The female approach is more conciliatory and less combative. We tend to use a more civil tone.”

If it’s true that women are less egomaniacal than men (plausible), then this seems to me more likely to be a reason that women are underrepresented in political office than to be something that increasing women’s representation is likely to change. The system is biased toward egomaniacal people being more likely to succeed and get ahead. We may need to encourage more little girls to grow up to be ego-driven and combative if we want to see them running for office.

Justice

Republican Challengers Slam Gillibrand For ‘Pandering To Special Interests’ On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Igor Volsky on Aug 25, 2010 at 2:07 pm

Arranged by hight at last night’s GOP Senate debate (see 2:00 on the video), the three Republican candidates hoping to unseat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) condemned the the Senator for placing “special interests” ahead of the needs of the military in advocating for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

- Treasury Department official David Malpass: “The military commanders have to have a huge say in this matter. And so I dont’ agree with Senator Gillibrand on her having the strong view coming from New York state, without the experience in the military….We now have General Petraeus in the Afghanistan war…I would be listening to him, rather than as a Senator injecting myself into that type of debate as strongly as Sen. Gillibrand has done.”

- Long Island attorney Bruce Blakeman: “The Generals and Admirals of our military asked for a year to review the policy and make a report to Congress. Senator Gillibrand, pandering to special interest groups, jumped the gun within two months that they asked for that time…I believe if the military leaders asked for a year to review the policy, then we should wait for that report.”

- Westchester Congressman Joe DioGuardi: “My feeling is we need to wait for them to give us their judgment and I would trust that judgment.”

Watch it:

Of course, the actual repeal amendment does accomodate the military’s ongoing study of DADT and would preserve the policy until the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President guarantee that it does not undermine military readiness. The country’s most prominent military leaders — including Gen. David Petraeus, have expressed support for this process, suggesting that they would like to end the failed policy.

But beyond that, in watching this exchanges, it’s difficult to get beyond their assumption that gay people — by their very nature — are so incredibly disruptive to military service that to embark on a parallel track of congressional action and military study is just unthinkable.

Politics

Female Senators Say Women Politicians Have Fewer Affairs Because They’re Too Busy Doing Their Jobs

By Amanda Terkel on Mar 31, 2010 at 4:05 pm

NPR Senior News Analyst Cokie Roberts recently moderated a panel discussion with women serving in the U.S. Senate “about how they differ from their male counterparts.” Specifically, Roberts asked the senators — including Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison and New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand — about why there are fewer scandalous affairs involving women in public life:

Q: So is Sen. Hutchison right? Are women more focused on their jobs — at least the women politicians you’ve covered?

ROBERTS: Let’s put it this way, we don’t see a lot of scandals among women. And her [Hutchison's] point — oh my lord, you try to keep the kids straight and the job straight, and get back and forth between houses. And of course, she is a Republican woman from Texas, who —

She actually, interesting Michelle — as a senator, and now she is in her mid- to late-60s, adopted two little children, who are really young enough to be her grandchildren. So this was a new balancing act for her to have these children.

But she was echoed by Kirsten Gillibrand, the young senator from New York, who has an 18-month-old baby and others. And Sen. Gillibrand says, “You’re in the middle of diapers and bottles and bills and votes and markups, how could you possibly think about doing anything else?” They’re joking on the one hand, but on the other hand they’re not. They take care of their families and take care of business.

Roberts also commented on Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace’s recent comments that he was hoping former Alaska governor — and fellow Fox News contributor — Sarah Palin would sit on his lap during their interview on his show. Roberts said his remarks were “appalling.” “You know, it’s the last place that men feel that they can just make jokes,” she said. “They would never make such jokes about a minority, you’d be in terrible trouble. But you can still make sexist jokes about women and get away with it.” Listen here:

In reaction to South Carolina Mark Sanford’s (R) extramarital affair last year, former Bush press secretary Dana Perino said the answer was to “[e]lect more women. No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one. They’re too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.”

Justice

Gillibrand: Dems Likely To Insert DADT Moratorium In Defense Authorization Bill

By Igor Volsky on Feb 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm

Last night, the Courage Campaign hosted a conference call about the pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Lt. Dan Choi. Gillibrand laid out a three options for repealing the policy, but said that she had yet to secure 60 votes for a repeal. “I think we can have an immediate moratorium, or immediate repeal, or immediate stop of funding, whichever vehicle we can get done first, I think is what we should do,” she said, suggesting that Democrats are coalescing around a strategy that would insert a moratorium into the defense authorization bill.

“The reason why a moratorium might be the quickest way is because there may be one or two senators who believe that because the military asked for a year, they want to show in some way that they’re giving them time.” “A moratorium might get you to the 60 votes, whereas a full repeal might be shy 59 or 58,” she added:

GILLIBRAND: I talked to Chairman Levin today again what he thought the best strategy was and he thinks if we can put it in the underlining bill, in the authorizing legislation, to put a moratorium on the policy for the next 18 months would be the best approach and so I’m going to start writing a letter to get signatures of my colleagues to really begin to develop the votes that I need to show that we can repeal this policy.

Listen:

Gillibrand sounded optimistic. “I think there are one or two other senators who are in play on this issue [besides Snowe and Collins],” Gilliband said. “I think on the Democratic side, when I asked all my colleagues and I asked all of them, nobody said that they would vote against repeal, nobody said that. They just said they were undecided…there may be one or two that would have trouble doing that, but they did not say they were against repeal.” She said that the President’s commitment and the military’s strong testimony in favor of the repeal emboldened her to ask wavering senators, “what’s your excuse now?”

Asked about what the President could do to end DADT, Gillibrand explained that Obama couldn’t issue an executive order repealing the DADT law, but could declare a “stop-loss,” “meaning we just don’t enforce the policy because we don’t allow anybody to leave the military or the President could create very high requirements for enforcement that noone would ever meet those requirements.”

“I feel it’s my calling, I feel, it’s something I’m built to do and I feel very passionate about it and as soon as we repeal DADT, we’re going to go straight for DOMA and we’re going to get an inclusive ENDA and we dont’ want to leave out the ‘T’ because it’s convenient for some people to leave out the ‘T’.

Justice

Gillibrand To Propose Spending Freeze For DADT Funding

By Igor Volsky on Feb 6, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) plans to introduce an amendment to the budget that would deny “funding to the military for the costs of pursuing inquiries, dismissal proceedings and other procedures associated with enforcing” ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The NYT’s Caucus blog reports that “Gillibrand has considered such a proposal before but held off because she felt she did not have the 60 votes needed to get the measure through the Senate.” Congress’ new emphasis on freezing wasteful spending and the military’s support for ending the policy could generate votes from more fiscally conservative members. As Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) — who opposes repealing DADT — himself admitted, “I don’t think any agency of the federal government should be exempt from rooting out wasteful spending or unnecessary spending. And I, frankly, I would agree with it at the Pentagon. There’s got to be wasteful spending there, unnecessary spending there.”

Studies have indicated that the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years varied from $190.5 million to $363.8 million (if the high cost of training officers and other factors are considered).

Gilibrand’s amendment also suggests that Congress will begin to chisel away at DADT this year without instituting a full repeal. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) has signaled that Congress might adopt a moratorium on discharges but seemed to accept that Congress would have to wait for the Pentagon to finish its review before reversing the policy. Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen have testified that they would need a year to study DADT and then at least another year to implement a new policy.

Still, the Democrats’ timeline for repeal is unclear. On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters that “she’s unsure whether the House will overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year” and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated that he would support a moratorium as an interim measure. Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday that “by this year’s end, we will have eliminated the policy.”

On Thursday Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) appeared on The Michelangelo Signorile Show to argue that Congress should proceed with the repeal before the review is complete. “By the time the bill can be signed by the President, and it’s going to take a bill and it goes through the House and it goes through the Senate and he has to sign it and it will be 6 to 7 months. As quickly as we can do this, it will be by toward the end of the year.” “So Gates has plenty of time to study whatever the hell it is he thinks he has to study,” Frank said.

Switch to Mobile