Kirstin Gillibrand is one of more than 20 Democrats hoping to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020. She has a 100-percent pro-abortion voting record and recently voted against a bill to protect newborns from infanticide.
But the New York senator decided to drop after today after lackluster results, a low polling and fundraising standing, and the inability to make it to prime time debates.
The two-term senator for New York told the New York Times in an interview she would endorse another Democratic candidate, but she hasn’t yet decided. She will now try to keep her Senate seat.
“Today, I am ending my campaign for president. I am so proud of this team and all we’ve accomplished. But I think it’s important to know how you can best serve. To our supporters: Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Now, let’s go beat Donald Trump and win back the Senate,” she said on Twitter.
Gillibrand campaigned as an ardent abortion activist.
Gillibrand lumped pro-life advocates and racists into the same category during an interview with the Des Moines Register. Calling both decidedly immoral, the New York senator said she would never consider appointing anyone with such beliefs to a court if she was elected president.
“I will only appoint judges and justices that see Roe v Wade as settled precedent, because it is,” she said. She also claimed abortions are “basic human rights” for women.
Gillibrand said she respects “the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves,” but America does have a “separation of church and state.” She criticized the Trump administration for appointing “ultra-radical conservative judges and justices” who “impose their faith on Americans.”
“There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism,” Gillibrand said, “and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.”
By claiming the moral high ground, Gillibrand tries to justify her plan to appoint biased, activist judges to the highest courts in America. In her mind, there should be no question about whether abortion is moral – she insists that it is, despite polls consistently showing that a majority of Americans disagree.
Unlike Gillibrand, most Americans recognize that abortion is, at the very least, troubling because it kills an innocent human life. Like racism, abortion devalues some lives by allowing certain groups of human beings to oppress others for their personal gain. That oppression is what Gillibrand would support if elected president. By nominating only activist judges, she would use her power as a tool of oppression against unborn babies and the millions of Americans who believe unborn babies deserve to be protected under the law.