Shamefully, they are denying women veterans who have been raped or whose health is at risk the essential health care they need.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Connecticut
Richard Blumenthal
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes26%
No72%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Richard Blumenthal
U.S. SenatorDemocratConnecticut
SoupScore
Richard's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 102 sponsored · 558 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Republicans just voted to uphold an abortion ban for 462,000 women veterans—even in cases of rape, incest, or if their health is endangered.
Today, Republicans showed America they believe in abortion bans—& make no mistake, veterans will suffer as a result.
Sickeningly, the Trump Administration has implemented an abortion ban on women veterans, even in cases of rape, incest, or health endangerment. If my Republican colleagues believe in protecting women veterans, they must support my resolution overturning this cruel policy.
I would urge any member of Congress that continues to do Mark Zuckerberg’s bidding to look at this verdict & their conscience. It’s time to enact the Kids Online Safety Act into law. 3
It is also powerful proof that the Kids Online Safety Act—to provide accountability & protections for all young people in America—is urgently needed. 2/
This verdict is the beginning of real justice for parents across the country that have suffered & faced heartbreaking loss from Big Tech’s greed. 1/
Our findings bely the Trump admin’s claim that they are targeting the ‘worst of the worst’ & reveal the devastating consequences of the Trump admin’s draconian policies. 3
My investigation with @robertgarcia.house.gov has documented the cases of 128 children who have been injured, assaulted, left unattended, or otherwise put at risk by DHS agents—clearly only a fraction of the victims. 2/ www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/u...
The Trump admin has pursued a lawless & cruel immigration agenda—brutally damaging countless children across the country. 1/
ICE at airports is just the latest tactic in Trump’s campaign of unchecked cruelty. We must continue to shine a spotlight on ICE’s tremendous abuses of power, which is why I am hosting a forum tomorrow to bear witness to the stories of children brutalized by DHS agents.
I was privileged to know Robert Mueller as a friend & fellow law enforcement officer—a dedicated, courageous patriot, skilled prosecutor, & tireless investigative leader. A tough mind, but generous heart.
Thanks to Trump’s war with Iran, U.S. flagged & U.S. crewed commercial vessels are currently trapped in the Persian Gulf. I’ve written to Admiral Cooper, demanding action be taken to protect & support these crews as they sail under sustained operational & psychological stress.
Sickeningly, shamefully stupid—lifting sanctions on oil sales by Russia & Iran, fueling their war machines with windfall cash. A minimal benefit to oil prices, but huge boost to sworn enemies.
Once again, Trump is showing that he cares more about Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman & his Silicon Valley cronies than American families. This weak proposal is dead-on-arrival in the Senate—I & my Democratic colleagues will block it.
States have passed groundbreaking laws, on a bipartisan basis, to stop child exploitation, require transparency & protect civil rights & civil liberties. This proposal blocks those state laws & offers very few actual enforceable federal rules on AI companies.
he White House’s AI legislative framework is pathetic & a non-starter—a wish list for Meta & OpenAI with little to protect families worried about how AI will impact their livelihoods & safety. apnews.com/article/whit...
As March Madness kicks off, wishing the best of luck to the UConn men’s & women’s basketball teams & the Fairfield women’s basketball team! Excited to cheer on the athletes as they demonstrate why our state is the basketball capital of the world.
It’s added to his $1.5 trillion DOD FY27 request already made & would be spun as Congressional approval of the war itself.
This $200 billion Supplemental seems like a total nonstarter. It supports a deeply unpopular war that Trump has never asked Congress to approve, as Constitutionally required—without clear statement of objectives or strategy, disclosure of accurate cost info, or public hearings.
I’ll hold Senator Mullin to his word that ICE agents will no longer be instructed to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judicial warrant.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-41) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (78-19) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-20) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-32) |
| 2025-03-06 | S. 331 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-12, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-30) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-03-05 | S.J. Res. 28 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-47) |
| 2025-03-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 28 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 3 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 3 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-27) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 3 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-03 | S. 9 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-27 | H.J. Res. 35 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 35 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 12 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 10 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 10 | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-52) |
| 2025-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 11 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (54-44) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.