When it comes to abortion rights, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) seems hell-bent on establishing herself as the Democratic party’s most unconditional supporter of a woman’s “right to choose.” She’s made a number of alarming statements in recent weeks to prove it.

In the immediate aftermath of the fetal heartbeat bills that were signed into law in Georgia and Alabama in May, the 2020 presidential candidate told the Washington Post that being pro-abortion should be a “non-negotiable” position in the Democratic party:

“As a party, we should be 100 percent pro-choice, and it should be nonnegotiable,” Gillibrand said in our interview. “We should not settle for less, and if our party cannot support women’s basic human rights, their fundamental freedoms to make decisions about their bodies and their futures, then we are not the party of women. … I will not compromise on women’s reproductive freedom.”

During a press conference around that same time, Gillibrand invoked her Christian faith in an attempt to shame Christian voters who are pro-life:

“If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenants of our faith is free will. One of the tenants of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort,” she said at a press conference.

She also said in an interview with MSNBC that “action” must be taken against Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch if they don’t uphold Roe v. Wade:

“That is the law of the land, and I think both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Judiciary Committee when they said they would uphold precedent. And if they then go back on this — this statement they made during their confirmation hearings — I think we should look towards what we will do to address it, because we need far more oversight and accountability over these Supreme Court Justices, and if they lied in their hearings, then we should take action.”

Gillibrand, who is also on board with the movement to purge pro-lifers from her party, did not specify the type of “action” she believed should be taken, but presumably she was talking about impeachment.

During a campaign swing through Iowa earlier this month, Gillibrand sat down for an interview with the Des Moines Register and went on an extreme rant, equating appointing pro-life judges to appointing judges who were racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic:

“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable,” Gillibrand said during an interview with the Des Moines Register on Tuesday

“Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic,” she continued. “Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America … I don’t think those are political issues anymore.”

She then tried to turn her argument into one that revolved around “the separation of church and state”:

“We believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state,” she said.

[…]

“All these efforts by President Trump, and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution, and that’s what this is,” Gillibrand said.

Because only people of faith can be opposed to abortion on demand? That’s a ridiculous argument, and she should know better.

Her comments on disqualifying pro-lifers from being judges, and equating being anti-abortion to being a racist, homophobe, or anti-Semite sparked outrage among conservatives and others who are pro-life. Gillibrand was asked last week on New Hampshire Public Radio if she stood by her remarks:

Radio host Peter Biello asked Gillibrand about her comparison.

“You’ve seemed to suggest recently that appointing a judge who opposes abortion rights is akin to supporting judicial nominees who hold racist views. Suggesting that there is no moral other side to the abortion debate. Is that what you believe?” Biello asked.

“So the point I was making is that we believe in settled precedent in this country,” Gillibrand responded. “And we have settled precedent to make sure we value everyone and don’t discriminate on race, gender or religious backgrounds.”

Gillibrand added how it was important for judges and judicial nominees to respect precedent including recent precedent on marriage equality for the LGBT community.

When Biello pressed her on the comparison, Gillibrand stated that her comments had “nothing to do with personal views,” and instead was about “settled precedent.”

“I don’t think it’s legitimate to appoint a judge who doesn’t believe in women’s equality. I don’t because it’s settled precedent,” Gillibrand said.

Watch this segment from the interview below:

Because her polling numbers have been in the cellar, Gillibrand has been desperate to gain traction over the last couple of months. Clearly she views going the far left route when it comes to abortion as a way to move the needle.

In some ways she’s become the Alyssa Milano of presidential candidates, where there is no line she will not cross to justify her ghoulish absolutist position on the right to terminate an unborn life.

So far, it hasn’t helped her polling numbers. But though she badly lags behind in presidential polling, Sen. Gillibrand is the clear front-runner in the race to out-extreme other Democratic presidential candidates on the issue of abortion.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —