Meet Nancy Northup

Salon.com
April 9, 2008
"Seizing patients' private records is beyond the pale, even for anti-choice extremists," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center. "If the court ultimately decides in this grand jury's favor, it will not only be setting a very alarming legal precedent, but arming opponents of a woman's right to choose with a dangerous weapon in their crusade." —discussing the Center's efforts to stop a citizen-petitioned grand jury in Kansas from obtaining private medical records.

Human Events Online
January 17, 2008
"So, what would a post-Roe America look like? According to Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights: 'I can imagine a fifty-front war going on for the next thirty years.'" —discussing a Roe reversal after its 35 year Anniversary

U.S. News and World Report
January 7, 2008
"What we're seeing now is not just the chipping away at protections of Roe v. Wade," says Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, "but a full-scale attempt ... to recriminalize abortion." —discussing anti-abortion attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade by instituting new state amendments declaring a fertilized egg as a "person"

Feministing.com
December 22, 2007
"Gender inequality and discrimination harm girls' and women's health directly and indirectly, and neglect of their reproductive health needs prevents them from participating fully and equally in society. Full citizenship for women can only be realized when women participate with dignity as equal members of society with the autonomy to determine the course of their own lives. This is a fundamental truth for women in the United States and around the globe."
—discussing her views on reproductive rights and her vision for the future of the Center

New York Times
December 13, 2007

To the Editor:
"Teenage Birth Rate Rises for First Time Since ’91" (news article, Dec. 6) notes that the Food and Drug Administration made emergency contraception available over the counter in August 2006. Unfortunately, the F.D.A. instead approved sales of Plan B without prescription but behind the pharmacy counter, and it failed to make it widely available to the very women the article centers around: teenagers.

Testimony in continuing litigation makes clear that when the F.D.A. excluded teenagers from access to this safe and effective contraceptive, it ignored the recommendations of its own scientific review panel and all the compelling research verifying the drug's safety in order to appease the White House.

When sex education is partial and biased against contraception, and comprehensive reproductive health care out of reach for many teenagers, is it any wonder that teenage pregnancy rates are up in the United States? In this, we reap the rewards of policy choices that favor ignorance over knowledge, politics over science, and ideology over health.
—commenting on the Center's FDA case and the agency's failure to increase access to Plan B for teenagers

New York Times
November 30, 2007
"But Nancy Northup, president for the Center for Reproductive Rights, had a very different view. 'The Hyde Amendment was one of the cruelest injustices perpetrated on American women,' she said. 'For over 30 years, it has allowed anti-choice politicians to deprive poor women of medically necessary treatment.'" —commenting on the Hyde Amendment in the context of Henry Hyde's death

New York Times
November 17, 2007
To the Editor:

That men are shallow and fragile when it comes to selecting a mate -- or a date -- is more than just a sad stereotype. It is a view of gender relations propagated in federally financed abstinence-only curriculums.

For example, in one such program, WAIT Training, women are described as needing "devotion," "family commitment" and "financial support" from men, while factors that are taught to be important in men's choice of a wife are "physical attractiveness," "domestic support" and "admiration."

Our country is -- or should be -- committed to equality, including gender equality. In 2007, our nation's young people should no longer be indoctrinated to believe that girls should hide their lights in order to build boys' egos. And we, as taxpayers, certainly shouldn't be paying for it.
—commenting on Maureen Dowd's November 14th column, "Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?"

Associated Content
November 12, 2007
"Across the country, a dangerous, but largely undetected movement is laying the foundation for a post-Roe world in which abortion would once again be a crime...And yet, Americans are virtually unaware of these stealth efforts. This is a frightening reality that should sound the alarm for all Americans who care about women's human rights." —speaking about anti-choice activists attempts to criminalize abortion

Women's eNews
November 9, 2007
"President Nancy Northup said the group updated the report to flag a quiet but 'dramatic and frightening attempt to create a post-Roe world.'" —speaking about the Center's 2007 What if Roe Fell Report

CBS News
August 13, 2007
"We have an alarmingly high rate of teenage pregnancies in this country — 750,000 each year, and that population also needs access to emergency contraception," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. —speaking about Plan B's age restriction

AllAfrica.com
August 6, 2007
"While this report is specific to Kenya, the problems documented are not. Increasingly, such reproductive rights abuses around the world are being recognized as human rights violations that governments cannot ignore and must address," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. —speaking about the Kenya Report: Failure to Deliver

Washington Post
July 13, 2007
"There's no medical basis for restricting teenagers' access to emergency contraception," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, which is suing the FDA to remove the age restriction. "This not about morality, it's about public health and cutting America's alarmingly high teenage pregnancy rates." —speaking about FDA age requirements to obtain Plan B

New York Times
June 26, 2007
To the Editor:

For someone who claims to have listened to women, Melinda Henneberger gives little credence to the voices of the majority of women, and Americans in general, who trust women to make the right decisions for themselves and their families, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

The right to make the most basic decisions about family, parenthood and bodily integrity is protected in one of the world's first human rights documents, the United States Constitution, and held dear by the vast majority of Americans.

And as countries around the world recognize, these human rights include reproductive rights. Respecting women means respecting these rights, not kowtowing to political opportunism or outdated notions of women being in need of protection from themselves.

If Ms. Henneberger were really listening, that's what she might have heard.
—speaking about Melinda Henneberger's June 22nd Op-Ed, "Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats"

Associated Press
June 5, 2007
"Women, not politicians, should make decisions regarding pregnancy," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Politicians crafted this ban in an attempt to eliminate safe, legal abortions at any cost."
—speaking about Michigan's attempt to ban "partial-birth" abortions with a too-broad ban

National Public Radio Morning Edition
April 25, 2007
"People who care about women's reproductive health and decision-making are also going to be pressing hard to pass freedom of choice acts at the state level. And these are acts that would codify Roe's protection for the right to abortion in state law. And while it can’t upend the federal criminal statute here, it can provide protection against more aggressive state laws being passed by state legislatures. And, in fact, there are states now that do have freedom of choice acts, and I think we’re going to see even more push for states to enact these."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

Washington Post
April 24, 2007
"We're concerned because the Supreme Court has taken a major shift in its jurisprudence, and the Court of Appeals could follow the Supreme Court."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

National Public Radio Talk of the Nation
April 23, 2007
Ms. NORTHUP: In fact, the Supreme Court's decision last week, you know, kicked a pillar out that was very strongly in place as part of Roe v. Wade, and that is that you can't jeopardize women's health when you're regulating abortion.
ROBERTS: But if there are other ways of performing second trimester abortions, why is this ruling so controversial?
Ms. NORTHUP: Well, both as a medical fact, which Dr. Stanwood has talked about. Doctors want to use the safest procedures for their particular patients. And then as a legal matter, that the court in turning its back on putting women's health first is really opening the door for a whole host of restrictions that are going to jeopardize women's health and that are going to put more hurdles between a woman and her ability to have an abortion in the second trimester.
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

CBS News Evening News
April 19, 2007
"So the doctor's going to either be doing things that are less safe or is going to be having additional steps that could pose more risks to their patient."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

Chicago Tribune
April 19, 2007
"The court has dramatically reduced the ability of doctors to provide services that, in their opinion, are the safest, best options to protect women's health. Every American who cares about women's health, and doctors' ability to treat their patients appropriately, should be alarmed by this ruling."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

ABC News World News with Charles Gibson
April 18, 2007
"The Supreme Court basically guts 30 years of protection for women's health in the regulation of abortion."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

Associated Press
April 18, 2007
"The impact of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement is painfully clear... The court has now kicked open the door for states to impose broader restrictions on access to abortions."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume
April 18, 2007
"This is a dark day for Americans who care about women's health and rights. In today's decision, the court, this new Roberts court, just a year after being pulled together, has reversed 30 years of constitutional law, which said that when you regulate abortion, women’s health has to come first."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

National Public Radio All Things Considered
April 18, 2007
"Today the court reversed over 30 years of commitment to making sure that abortion regulations do not harm women's health. ...It really opens the flood to new regulations. In the wake of this decision, we’re going to see a host of new states statutes that may be trying to go procedure by procedure by procedure to make abortion inaccessible to women."
—speaking about the Supreme Court Decision on Federal Abortion Ban

New York Times
February 27, 2007
To the Editor:

A woman facing the difficult decision of whether to end a pregnancy is the only one who should be weighing the complex issues involved -- not politicians or courts.

The actual consequences of a Roe reversal would be drastic. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights study "What If Roe Fell?," 30 states would be poised to criminalize abortion within a year.

Many Americans don't realize that the legal building blocks are already in place in many states or are being erected. Without Roe, life for women would be thrown more than 30 years in reverse -- returning them to the days of second-class citizenship.

Unless a woman can make her own decisions about her life, she isn't in control of her future. Allowing states to take away women's fundamental human rights is not a "part of our freedom," as Ann Althouse writes, but rather the tyranny she fears.
—speaking about a potential Roe reversal

Ms. Magazine
November 9, 2006
"We are pleased that the court is not only allowing us to further explore seemingly inappropriate White House involvement in the FDA's decision making... Our months of discovery have revealed that FDA scientists attempted to carry out a scientific approval process, but higher level officials made a mockery of that process, by ignoring the results and bowing to political pressures."
—speaking about FDA decisions

The Wall Street Journal
November 8, 2006
"Throughout the 30-plus years of abortion jurisprudence, there has been a very clear standard that abortion restrictions not endanger a woman's health, [as determined in consultation with her doctor]. The question is whether this new Roberts court is going to follow this longstanding precedent."
—speaking about Federal Abortion Ban case

Atlantic Monthly June 2006
"I can imagine a fifty-front war going on for the next thirty years," says Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Be careful what you wish for."

USA TODAY
April 17, 2006
"It is going to make abortion the center of every local race for office, every state legislative race, of every state judicial race, of every state executive race, not to mention a battle for federal elections," she says. "It will be a never-ending battle."
—speaking about the implications of overturning Roe

Good Morning America
February 25, 2006
"The shift in the Court has emboldened anti-choice forces to try to put forth unconstitutional bills to test to see if Roe versus Wade can be overturned."
—speaking about South Dakota

World News Tonight
February 24, 2006< br> "I think you're going to see that it's going to embolden challenges in other states. There is going to be a tremendous uptick of activity with the shift on the court, with the uncertainty about where the Supreme Court is going."

New York Times
February 23, 2006
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the South Dakota action -- similarly broad bans have recently been proposed in at least five other states -- reminded her of a wave of state challenges to Roe in the years just before 1992, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed a core right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Voice of America
February 22, 2006
"It has been a very long commitment of the court to the constitutional proposition that women cannot have their health put at risk when having an abortion," said Nancy Northup, who heads an abortion rights group called the Center for Reproductive Rights.
—speaking about the Federal Abortion Ban

USA Today
February 22, 2006
Lawyers at the Center for Reproductive Rights, representing LeRoy Carhart and other physicians challenging the federal ban, noted the 8th Circuit said Congress lacked medical grounds for its findings. Nancy Northup, president of the center, said she believes the justices will require a health exception: "We think the court will show proper respect for its precedent."

World News Tonight
February 21, 2006
"For 30 years, we've had a very solid precedent that abortion laws may not endanger women's health. And we deeply, deeply hope that the new justices on the court will respect that important precedent."

Associated Press
February 21, 2006
"The stakes in this case are not whether Roe v. Wade will be overturned, but whether a major pillar of Roe v. Wade will be reconsidered," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents doctors who contested the law.
—speaking about the Federal Abortion Ban

LA Times
January 22, 2006
"What the public doesn't realize is that the building blocks are already in place to re-criminalize abortion if Roe is overturned," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York.

Miami Herald
January 23, 2006
At least a dozen states do have criminal laws banning abortion. They can't be enforced as long as Roe v. Wade remains binding. In theory, though, they could take effect immediately upon a reversal, subjecting abortion providers to penalties ranging from 12 months of hard labor in Alabama to 20 years of imprisonment in Rhode Island.
"What the public doesn't realize is that the building blocks are already in place to recriminalize abortion if Roe is overturned," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York.

Inq7.net
(WOW launch)
December 17, 2005
At the launch, Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said all their work is based on their belief that "reproductive rights are fundamental rights governments are obligated to promote and protect." Especially governments, like the Philippines, that have signed and ratified international conventions like the ICPD and Beijing Women's Conference Programs of Action, the Millennium Development Goals, as well as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw).

Louisiana Weekly
December 15, 2005 (Ayotte)
"Women seeking abortions would be forced to fight court battles while they are facing emergency medical needs," said Nancy Northup, president of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, author of a friend-of-the-court brief on this point on behalf of 30 health, research and women's organizations.

Legal Times,
December 7, 2005
Despite the weakening of Roe, abortion rights advocates believe the case remains a critical precedent that must not be overturned. "It would be devastating to women's health care and to the pillar of privacy cases that limit the state's right to interfere with our lives," says Nancy Northup, president of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

Dallas Morning News
November 30, 2005 (Ayotte)
"The case is not about whether states may require a parent's involvement. The Supreme Court has said that states can do so," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion rights group. "The case is about whether these laws must allow physicians to protect their patients’ health by acting immediately in an emergency."

NY Sun
November 30, 2005 (Ayotte)
"This case is an excellent example of a state chipping away at Roe," the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Nancy Northup, said. "If they say that you don't need to have an emergency health exception, it would be like taking an ax at one of the core branches of Roe because for 32 years the court has said that women's health has always taken primacy."

Voice of America
November 30, 2005 (Ayotte)
Abortion rights supporters want the Supreme Court to find the New Hampshire law unconstitutional. "We are not talking about just chipping away if the court were to agree with the state of New Hampshire and the position of the Bush administration. It would be taking an axe to the trunk of the tree of the constitutional protection (of abortion) and cutting it down," said Nancy Northup, president of a group called the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Women's Enews
November 22, 2005 (Ayotte)
"Women seeking abortions would be forced to fight court battles while they are facing emergency medical needs," said Nancy Northup, president of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, author of a friend-of-the-court brief on this point on behalf of 30 health, research and women's organizations.

Associated Press
November 18, 2005
"For more than thirty years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a woman's health and safety must remain a doctor's paramount concern," said Nancy Northup, president of the center. "The federal abortion ban fails that test every time. This law robs doctors of the ability to protect their patients' health, while raising the risks to their health at the same time."

Washingon Times
November 15, 2005
"The GAO report confirms what our lawsuit has argued all along – the FDA broke its own rules ... and women have suffered the consequences," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York.

Baltimore Sun,
November 1, 2005
"We think it's important for the court to reflect the diversity of America, but the most important thing is that judicial nominees respect the rights and liberties of all American citizens," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "We are deeply troubled by the nomination of Judge Alito."

Village Voice
September 29, 2005
"With the court in transition, anti-choice forces are aggressively putting through legislation that could be used to test Roe v. Wade," explains Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Indeed, in just the first five months of this year, 20 states enacted 27 laws designed to restrict access to abortion and reproductive health.

Baltimore Sun
September 14, 2005
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement that Roberts had drawn "a large moat" around his views on the right to privacy.
"Unfortunately, we don't know any more today than we did yesterday about where Judge Roberts stands on whether or not the Constitution protects women's right to make their own private reproductive decisions," she said.

Knight Ridder
September 13, 2005
"He (Roberts) gave no assurance that he believes there is a right to privacy," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports abortion rights.

USA Today
Abortion battles waged mostly at the edges
August 24, 2005
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York City, says that with a change in the Supreme Court, she and other abortion rights supporters expect "an avalanche of new laws from anti-choice groups, testing to see how far can they go" to restrict abortion.
"The biggest impact of tightening the noose around access to abortion (would) be to young women and poor women," Northup says. "They are the ones who (would) not have the time or the money" to go to states with fewer restrictions.

Dallas Morning News
If Roe goes, questions abound
What would happen if the high court throws out Roe vs. Wade?
August 1, 2005
With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the court, the majority for Roe was 6 to 3. Her retirement and the addition of Judge Roberts alone would not be enough to tilt the balance.
"But that puts it very close to the edge," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Judge Roberts' nomination coupled with the possibility of additional Supreme Court vacancies during the Bush administration have raised the possibility of a significant shift to the right. "Whoever replaces Justice O'Connor is going to be critical," Ms. Northup said. "There will be a flood of new legislation testing how far new restrictions can be imposed."

Baltimore Sun
Abortion stance becomes subject of speculation With little information, advocates on both sides are looking for clues
July 22, 2005
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said a spouse shouldn't be tagged with "guilt by association." "She (Jane Sullivan Roberts), obviously, is very well-connected to the anti-choice community," Northup said. "They are very excited about this nomination, and they may have reason to know more about his thinking on this."

On "Democracy Now"
July 21, 2005
"We are going to make sure that Americans realize that this is a very critical moment for people who care about reproductive health and rights of women, and we are going to be working with our allies to make sure that during the Senate confirmation hearings… we have a full exploration of [Roberts'] Constitutional views."

On "The Today Show"
July 20, 2005
"...At the end of the day if [Roberts] agrees with those arguments that Roe should be reversed, he should not be on the Supreme Court. We need a justice who will respect the freedoms and liberties of American citizens."

On National Public Radio
July 20, 2005
"Now that [Roberts] is up for a position on the Supreme Court, which has the opportunity to shape the contours of the constitutional law, he needs to be asked what his view is of the Roe v. Wade case, what his view is of the constitutional right to privacy, what his view is of the protection for women's health that has been recognized since the Roe decision was decided. Because now it's not about settled law; he's joining a court that shapes the law."

The Dallas Morning News
Legal world offers different types of conservative philosophies
By David Jackson and Allen Pusey
July 7, 2005
While Bush says he will sidestep judicial philosophy, many Democratic senators say they will take ideology into account in weighing his choice. With nearly a third of the 80 Supreme Court cases last term decided by a 5-4 majority, the newcomer could tip the court's balance for decades to come, they say.

"Questions about judicial philosophy and the views on Supreme Court precedent are appropriate in a confirmation process," she said.

"A nominee shouldn't express opinions about the constitutionality of a specific law (pending court review), because he or she hasn't heard the evidence," she said, "but it's absolutely vital that a nominee discuss his or her view on decisions such as Roe v. Wade that the court has already decided."

The Baltimore Sun
Future of abortion could be at issue; Roe v. Wade: The Retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor
By Stephanie Desmon
July 2, 2005
Conservative blogs are already teeming with worries about putting Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who they don't think is a big enough opponent of abortion, on the bench. Advocates for abortion rights will insist on someone who shares their desire to maintain the "right to choose."

"We should not have the senators playing Russian roulette, guessing where a nominee stands on critical constitutional protections," said Nancy Northup, president for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group that argued against the "partial-birth" abortion ban before the court in 2000.

New York Times
July 2, 2005
A Turning Point for the Court, and for the Nation
For a change, we find ourselves in agreement with those on the extreme right who want more "ideological clarity" from Supreme Court nominees. In our case, we want to know where the nominee stands on critical constitutional protections that the majority of Americans hold dear, including the right to reproductive privacy and decision making.

For many years, the court has been closely divided on these issues, with one vote tipping the balance in landmark decisions. Now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, and given the stakes, it is imperative that the Senate fulfill its responsibility and demand nothing less than full and open disclosure of the views of President Bush's nominee to replace her.
—in a letter to the Editor