ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Kirsten Gillibrand”

LGBT

Congress Reintroduces Bill To End LGBT Discrimination In Adoption And Foster Care

By Christopher Frost, Guest Blogger and Katie Miller, Guest Blogger on May 8, 2013 at 10:30 am

Yesterday, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced that they plan to reintroduce the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which would prevent child welfare agencies from discriminating against LGBT Americans who wish to become foster or adoptive parents.

There are currently 400,000 children in the foster care system and studies show that removing barriers that prevent LGBT people from fostering and adopting children could significantly help solve nation’s foster care crisis.  Researchers estimated that as many as 2 million LGBT people are interested in adoption.

Whereas some states outright ban LGBT people from adopting, a vast majority of states are merely silent on the issue, which means it is perfectly legal for child welfare agencies to discriminate against potential foster and adoptive parents who are LGBT. This is especially problematic when states in need of adoptive homes for children consistently report finding interested, qualified families who want to adopt as one of their biggest obstacles. Discriminating against LGBT people willing and able to provide loving, stable homes to foster youth puts the best interests of vulnerable children at stake.  The Every Child Deserves a Family Act would limit federal funds to agencies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, and give children a greater opportunity to find foster and adoptive homes.

The agencies and programs that discriminate against LGBT people allege that it is not in a child’s best interest to be adopted by a same-sex couple, a concern which is not only insulting but completely unsubstantiated. In October, UCLA released a study that found that same-sex parents are just as effective at raising foster children as heterosexual couples and concluded that there is no scientific basis to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents. This holds true with the conclusions drawn by the American Sociological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and a host of other reputable groups that, “whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on the child’s wellbeing.”

If passed, the bill would also prevent child welfare programs from discriminating against children who are LGBT. LGBT youth are overrepresented in the foster care system, in part because of the discrimination they experience in their schools and families of origin.

Christopher Frost, intern, and Katie Miller, Special Assistant, are part of LGBT Progress.

Security

Dem Senator Pushes For Change In Military Response To Sexual Assault

By Hayes Brown on Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 pm

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is bringing the ongoing crisis of sexual assault in the military into the spotlight, hoping to use a recent outrageous case as a springboard to change.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel, chaired by Gillibrand, met on Wednesday to begin the process of reforming the military justice’s handling of sexual assault cases, speaking to panels of both survivors of sexual assault in the military and top military law experts.

Gillibrand appeared on MSNBC on Thursday to present the hearing’s findings, leaving host Andrea Mitchell stunned. Over 19,000 allegations of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) were made in 2011 alone, but as Gillibrand informed Mitchell there were only 2,400 cases where action was taken. The disparity, according to Gillibrand, comes from fear of retaliation and “not being able to stay in the military and having no ability to be promoted.”

Both women shared their disbelief that the military justice system could take such a lax approach to a clear problem:

MITCHELL: I don’t understand the Military Code of Justice, in that it was a reason for dismissal for expulsion from the military until last year, if you violated Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Yet, if you were found guilty in a military court of a criminal assault, of rape, you could go back to your unit. How is that possible?

GILLIBRAND: It’s outrageous and it’s something that should outrage every American. When we look at our best and bravest, our strongest, our most courageous. When you enter the military, you may expect to lose a limb. You may expect to lose your life. But no one should be expecting to be assaulted or raped by one of their colleagues.

Watch their exchange here:

The permissive culture towards sexual violence Gillibrand described was underscored by the testimony of former Sgt. Rebekkah Havrilla. Havrilla told the subcommittee of the U.S. Army’s failure to provide proper assistance following several instances of alleged sexual assault and rape. At one point, an Army chaplain told Havrilla “that the rape was God’s will and that God was trying to get my attention so that I would go back to church.”

“Rape and assault are violent, traumatic crimes, not mistakes, leadership failures or oversights in character,” Anu Bhagwati, Co-Founder of the Service Women’s Action Network told the panel. Bhagwati offered a series of possible reforms to the military criminal justice system to the senators, including opening civil courts to military sexual assault victims.

Currently, the Uniform Military Code of Justice features an article that allows a commanding officer through his or her “convening authority” to overturn the conviction of a jury in courts-martial. Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin used that ability last week to overturn Lt. Col. James Wilkerson’s conviction of sexual assault, waive the one-year prison sentence, and reinstate Wilkerson in the Air Force. Under the law as written, Franklin’s decision can’t be overturned by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Air Force.

Wilkerson’s reinstatement has sparked outrage from both houses of Congress and prompted a review of the statute in question by the Department of Defense’s top lawyers. A bill has already been introduced in the House of Representatives related to the Wilkerson case. Reps. Jackie Spiers (D-CA), Bruce Braley (D-IA), and Patrick Meehan (R-PA) put forward the bill on Tuesday to strip commanders of their ability to overrule juries and lessen sentences.

NEWS FLASH

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Backs Filibuster Reform | In a Tweet Thursday, Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand (D-NY) joined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) call for filibuster reform. New York’s junior Senator — re-elected Tuesday by landslide 72 percent majority — joined Sen. Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and seven Democratic Senators-elect in endorsing such a change:

LGBT

The 11 Most Pro-Gay U.S. Senators

By Josh Israel and Adam Peck on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Patty Murray (D-WA)

Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Patty Murray (D-WA)

In recent days, ThinkProgress has identified the most pro- and anti-LGBT members of the U.S. House of Representatives. While in this Congress anti-gay forces have been relatively quiet in the Senate — only Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has proposed an overtly anti-LGBT bill or resolution — Senators in support of equality have proposed sixteen bills pro-LGBT bills since the start of 2011. Eleven Senators have sponsored or co-sponsored at least ten of those measures.

Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI), John Kerry (D-MA), and Patty Murray (D-WA), tied for the honor of most pro-LGBT Senator: they put their names on 13 of the 16 bills each. Akaka, a fourth-term Senator who will retire at the end of 2012, authored the Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2012 (a bill to improve tracking of health data for LGBT people and other minority groups). Murray, a fourth-term Senator, spells out on her LGBT issue webpage that “Equal protection under the law is a fundamental right in our country. No one should suffer discrimination because of their race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” And Kerry, now in his fifth term in the Senate, is chief sponsor of the Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act of 2011 (which seeks to help at-risk LGBT youth) and the HOME Act of 2011 (which protects LGBT citizens from housing discrimination).

Eight other Senators — seven Democrats and one independent — signed on to at least 10 pro-LGBT proposals, putting them just behind Akaka, Kerry, and Murray. They are:


Read more

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.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up