Latest Sen Kirsten Gillibrand News | Fox News

After Dobbs, the right to personal privacy no longer exists for anyone

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:00:36 -0400

Just a few months ago, many of us were horrified to learn that a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio was forced to delay medical attention and travel to Indiana to get the reproductive health care that she needed. Sadly she is just one example of how our fundamental right to bodily autonomy has been stripped away following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Yet, as dangerous as this ruling is for more than half of the U.S. population, its impact on the right to privacy is much more far-reaching than you might think.

Fundamentally, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, along with many other Supreme Court rulings including Roe v. Wade, deal with the right to personal privacy, which is an "unenumerated" right — meaning it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT'S ROE V. WADE DECISION: READ THE DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH RULING

Abandoning nearly 50 years of precedent, the Dobbs court said if a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, it needs to be "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition," and defined "deeply rooted" by relying heavily on whether it was widely accepted by those in power at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Of course the right to personal privacy and reproductive health care, as well as a number of other rights, were not accepted by those in power at a time when women and many others were excluded from the legislative process. And if that’s the test for when a right is constitutional, then what about the right to contraception? The right to certain forms of sexual intimacy? The right to same-sex marriage?

The Supreme Court’s majority clearly knew these were obvious questions raised by their overall argument. And they even tried to tell us that we shouldn’t worry about these other rights — that the Dobbs opinion only applies to reproductive health care. But Justice Clarence Thomas proves that statement wrong when he says in his far-reaching concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should reconsider the constitutionality of those other rights.

AFTER DOBBS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST PREDICTS PRIVACY WILL BE 'ABOLISHED,' DESEGREGATION NEXT

So, if the majority is laying the groundwork for the argument that the right to personal privacy doesn’t exist for these cases — because a right to personal privacy didn’t exist for a lot of people in 1868 — then presumably the right to personal privacy doesn’t exist in most modern contexts.

That could include things like the right to privacy in the mail or email; the right to privacy in movement or travel; the right to privacy with medical procedures and conditions; the right to privacy in parenting decisions; the right to digital and data privacy.

Unfortunately, we are already seeing how the right to personal privacy in these other contexts is being taken away.

In Tennessee, lawmakers just passed legislation to prohibit doctors’ offices or pharmacies from sending certain prescription medications in the mail. This is especially dangerous to those who rely on their prescriptions to stay healthy like those with lupus, arthritis, and Crohn’s disease.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

In Nebraska, police have criminally charged a mother for helping her teenage daughter seek reproductive health care after Facebook handed over their private messages.

This case represents an outrageous breach of both digital and parental privacy and raises the more universal questions: Do you have digital privacy? What can stop the government from accessing other digital data to use against you? Are all parental rights to help children access health care and get help also criminalized? The answer is already clear in some states – your right to privacy is not protected.

In Texas, James Weller rushed his wife Elizabeth to a nearby hospital to treat a dangerous pregnancy complication. But doctors said they couldn’t administer care until either Elizabeth got very ill, or the fetus died. James and Elizabeth were making travel arrangements to another state when Elizabeth’s health deteriorated enough that doctors were willing to induce her delivery. But if James and Elizabeth had been forced to travel to another state to receive care, both of them could have been held liable by those working to restrict travel across state lines for reproductive care.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

At the end of the day, the Dobbs ruling creates a dangerously open legal field. It is not just about one single medical procedure. It is about whether or not a government can interfere in any private personal matter.

Which raises the biggest question of all: can any of us — men, women, children, liberal, conservative — really feel comfortable and safe knowing we now have no guaranteed right to personal privacy in our own communities, in our own backyards, in our own homes?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

Burn-pit bill gives veterans health care to overcome ongoing crisis

Fri, 27 May 2022 05:00:19 -0400

Among the great injustices of recent American history is the government’s continued failure to provide care and benefits to military veterans suffering from toxic burn pit exposure. Finally, after years of inaction, that injustice is potentially coming to an end.

When America’s military service members willingly risk their lives for their country overseas, they do so with the understanding that they will be cared for when they come home. However, that does not always happen as it should.

BIDEN SIGNS TWO NEW BILLS INTO LAW THAT AIM TO HELP BURN PIT VETERANS

While serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond, millions of U.S. troops lived and worked in the vicinity of toxic burn pits. These pits, which the military has used for decades to dispose of everything from human waste and trash to electronics and jet fuel, spewed forth a dangerous mix of airborne particles that pose a serious health risk.

Since their exposure, many of the more than 300,000 service members who have added their names to the Burn Pits Registry have developed permanent injuries and illnesses, ranging from chronic bronchitis to brain cancer — and that is not counting those who remain unregistered. There is little doubt these conditions are the result of inhaled toxins.

The government authorized the use of burn pits, so it is the government’s responsibility to care for the victims of toxic exposure. But instead of helping our veterans, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has spent years denying them the care and benefits they need and deserve.

BURN PIT ADVOCATE INVITED TO BIDEN'S STATE OF THE UNION SPEAKS OUT ON HEALTH CARE PUSH

In the late 2000s, when medical researchers discovered the link between burn pits and adverse health conditions, the VA tried to cover it up. When the connection was no longer deniable, the VA demanded veterans in search of care prove their conditions were caused by burn pit exposure.

That demand is unreasonable, since proving direct causation in cases like these is virtually impossible. The real reason for all the red tape is that the federal government did not want to bear the cost of its mistakes.

We refuse to stand by and let the VA neglect veterans in need. So last year, we introduced a bipartisan bill to fix the problem. Our Presumptive Benefits for War Fighters Exposed to Burn Pits and Other Toxins Act would force the VA to presume that soldiers who were exposed to burn pits in the line of duty and are now suffering from associated injuries and illnesses merit government care and benefits.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

That bill helped start a movement, in Washington and across the country, to get justice for burn-pit victims. Finally, it looks like our mission may be nearing completion. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that contains the presumption enforcement from our 2021 bill. And now, the Senate is poised to do the same by passing the bipartisan Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act.

When that bill becomes law, phased-in reforms will allow veterans to finally get treatment and benefits for 23 toxic exposure-related conditions. VA claim processing will also be streamlined, and more research on the health effects of toxic exposure will take place.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

This victory cannot make up for the years veterans spent suffering without care. However, it is a victory nonetheless and one that Americans should be proud of. For a long time, we have failed to do right by those who have made great sacrifices on our behalf. No more — justice for America’s military men and women begins now. We call on our colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation without delay.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. MARCO RUBIO

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has represented New York in the U.S. Senate since 2009 and earlier served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans abuse filibuster as Democrats fight for the right to vote

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 06:00:36 -0500

There are countless issues where ideological differences between the two parties are understandable, but voting rights shouldn’t be one of them.

Every elected official in America should be working to defend the right to vote of every eligible voter—regardless of their political background. That is the cornerstone of our democracy. The voting booth is the one place all Americans are equal and have an equal say in the future of this country and their place in it. No one should be kept from it by politics.

BIDEN SAYS THOSE WHO OPPOSE DEMOCRAT VOTING RIGHTS BILL ARE ON THE SIDE OF JEFFERSON DAVIS

Our founders established a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—but too often, lately, the government has been in the business of deciding which people, exactly, get to participate. That’s not democratic and it’s not American.

I don’t want anyone to have to wait hours in line to cast their vote, or to have to struggle to find a polling place, or make sure they haven’t been purged from the voter rolls, whether they are in my party or not. We don’t have to agree on who to vote for, but we have to agree on the fundamental importance of the vote.

COTTON USES SCHUMER'S OWN WORDS IN DEFENSE OF THE FILIBUSTER ON SENATE FLOOR

This is a watershed moment for our democracy, and we must set aside our differences to meet it. The right to vote should always be an issue that transcends partisan politics—for decades, it was. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush all supported voting rights during their time in office. And when the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act extension in 2006, it passed 98-0.

Legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act should have that same kind of unanimous bipartisan support today. These are pieces of legislation with a noble, simple goal: to ensure that you are able to vote knowing your vote will be counted and respected.

SEN. TIM SCOTT: BIDEN'S VOTING RIGHTS SPEECH WAS 'OFFENSIVE' TO ME AS A SOUTHERNER AND AN AMERICAN

Instead, these pieces of legislation are being blocked by those who would rather traffic in baseless, disproven claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. The American people deserve better. They know that there’s only one way to truly provide "election integrity" and it is to stem this tide of attacks on our democracy.

We have worked for months to build bipartisan support for these bills. Unfortunately, every time we try to move these bills forward, we are met with partisan resistance. Too many of my colleagues across the aisle won’t even support a vote to open debate, abusing the filibuster—a once rarely-used mechanism that has now become gum in the works of democracy.

If something as fundamental and important as protecting voting rights can be slowed or stopped by the filibuster, then it is time for us to reconsider the filibuster’s role in the Senate. The rules for using the filibuster have been changed before, such as when then-Majority Leader McConnell lowered the voting threshold for Supreme Court nominees.

The filibuster is not a product of the Constitution or a pillar of our democracy, but the right to vote is. In a moment such as this, when so much is on the line, it is clear—if we need to reform the filibuster rules to protect the right to vote, then we must.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Before civil rights hero and Congressman John Lewis passed, we worked together on a bill called the Voter Empowerment Act. Congressman Lewis, who knew more acutely than most the power of the right to vote, said "the right to vote is precious, almost sacred." I agree, and I’m confident that nearly every American feels the same.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

We need principled men and women of both parties who support the rule of law to stand up for democracy and for the right to vote. Voters, and the people they vote for, must reject the lies—big and small—being told about our elections and remember that our rights and our futures are linked together. In order to protect our ability to be heard at the ballot box at the next election, we must make ourselves heard now.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND