Kirsten Gillibrand and Mike Sapraicone clash in a heated Senate debate over Prop 1

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand caved, dodging a blistering attack from her GOP challenger Mike Sapraicone over her support of Prop 1.

Sapraicone took issue with Gillibrand on her claim that Prop 1 would protect abortion and women’s equality, arguing that the amendment was vaguely worded to allow boys to play women’s sports and to allow young children to compete without permission parents undergo gender reassignment surgery.

“It’s not about abortion. We must remember that this is New York State. We have had the most comprehensive abortion law in the country for over 50 years. This proposal does not change the way abortion occurs. It just takes away parents’ rights,” Sapraicone said during one of the most heated exchanges of the Spectrum News/NY1 debate.

“You’re absolutely wrong,” Gillibrand immediately responded, pointing to states like Connecticut and New Mexico that have equal rights amendments like Prop 1 is billed as.

“You have lawsuits saying that your Constitution has an equal rights amendment and that you cover all male reproductive care, but not all female reproductive care, like access to abortion, is fundamentally unequal,” Gillibrand said.

“What are equal rights, when I think about my daughter, when a man can go into the locker room and say he’s a girl and he’s going to compete with them,” Sapraicone retorted.

“Do you know how many examples there are in our state? It’s less than a handful. “You’re using a diversionary tactic,” Gillibrand responded.

Sapraicone said he is “pro-life” but would not support a nationwide abortion ban.

The two candidates also argued about immigration

Gillibrand called for “right-sizing” legal immigration to the U.S. and devoting resources to clearing a backlog of asylum seekers who benefit from current laws.

“We need a system that actually works, but right now it’s broken. “We need to right-size immigration to ensure that we have the right number of visas for the right number of jobs that we have in our communities, our states and our country,” Gillibrand said.

Sapraicone noted that Gillibrand spent 15 years in the Senate working on immigration, including a short-lived bipartisan deal that was in the works in the chamber earlier this year.

“I am sure you are a powerful, influential person in the United States Senate. Why couldn’t you even get this bill passed in the Senate,” he said.

When it came to Israel, the two struck a more similar tone.

Sapraicone said he would not object if Israel attacked Iran directly after a massive rocket fire earlier this month.

“I think we should support Israel as much as possible. “We shouldn’t control every last detail of what Israel does,” said the former NYPD detective and private security company owner.

Gillibrand was a little more roundabout in her answer, but ultimately agreed that Iran had already attacked Israel, which warranted moderate retaliation.

“If Israel decides that it needs to target some of Iran’s infrastructure for nuclear weapons or missile production or a cyber response, it is absolutely within its right to do so because it has already been attacked,” Gillibrand said.

According to recent polls, Sapraicone is well behind Gillibrand. In a Siena College poll released this week, Gillibrand was in the lead with 57% of the vote, compared to 31% for Sapraicone.

If successful, Gillibrand would serve her third full term in the U.S. Senate.

Wednesday’s debate took place at the University of Albany in the state capital.