Nancy Keenan Quotations

On behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America - and our one million member activists - I am honored to be here to talk to you about what's at stake for women in 2012. I am proud to say that the Democratic Party believes that women have the right to choose a safe, legal abortion with dignity and privacy.

We believe in funding family planning because it helps to prevent unintended pregnancy. We believe that a woman considering an abortion should not be forced to have an ultrasound against her will.

I'm asking you to talk with your friends, neighbors, and relatives - even the ones you've never talked to about reproductive rights. That's how you can throw your number in the bucket, and stand with a president who has stood with us. Conversation by conversation, vote by vote, we will re-elect President Barack Obama!

We are ready to work hard, work together to re-elect President Barack Obama. We must do it because women deserve to make their own choices and determine the course of their lives.

I know this president. And I can tell you that he cares deeply about the next generation of young women in this country - his daughters, and everyone's daughters. President Obama had the courage to stand with Sandra Fluke. Without hesitation, he defended her right to tell her story.

We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record.

She really was one of those cross-generational leaders. She was there to discuss the issue of keeping government out of our personal decisions.

People want solutions. They're tired of the fight. ... There are ways to reduce the unintended pregnancies in this country. When you do that, you reduce the need for abortion.

Our people are angry and motivated, and they continue to believe that politicians should not be involved in a decision that's between a woman, her family and God.

President Bush has nominated Roberts to become the most powerful judge on the nation's highest court. The public has a right to see documents that will give us more information about his judicial philosophy. If the White House continues to stall, then it begs the question, 'What is the president hiding, and why?' ... I applaud Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold for stating they will ask Roberts the tough questions and expect clear answers. We are urging Wisconsinites who value freedom and privacy to call their senators and urge them to oppose Roberts' nomination.

Like such pro-Roberts groups as Progress for America, which began a significant advertising campaign within hours of Mr. Roberts' nomination, NARAL Pro-Choice America will continue to exercise our constitutional right to make sure the American people have an opportunity to hear all the facts about John Roberts' records during this process, ... We play an important role in engaging the American people in this debate about issues that affect their daily lives.

I think most Americans have been watching a stealth strategy. But now they're coming out from behind the curtain.

It is extremely important that the Senate scrutinize any nominee that comes to take the position of chief justice.

The actions of the South Dakota legislature are a chilling reminder of the lengths to which anti-choice lawmakers will go to interfere in our most difficult and personal decisions. This bill contains an inadequate exception to protect a woman's life and no other exceptions -- not for rape, not for incest, not even to protect the woman's health. Clearly emboldened by President Bush's judicial appointments, South Dakota has passed dangerous and unconstitutional legislation that its supporters admit is a direct attack on Roe v. Wade. Rather than continuing these unconstitutional assaults that threaten to endanger women's lives and imprison doctors, these legislators should commit to enacting commonsense legislation to prevent unintended pregnancy.

The American public deserves answers. Her record is so thin we don't know anything about her.

The American people need to know where this man stands on the issue of privacy.

The anti-choice folks across the country are feeling emboldened by the climate. You have an anti-choice president, you have an anti-choice U.S. House and Senate.

When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter. We will be very active in '06 and in '08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans.

Today's action means the core principle of protecting women's health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger.

We understand very clearly what's at stake. The president made a conscious decision to cater to the base and left Middle America out in the cold.

This will be a defining moment -- President Bush has to pick between what mainstream America wants and what the radical right demands. He can make good on his promises to unite the country by reaching out across party lines to find a consensus nominee who'll respect privacy rights, value women's freedom and defend constitutional traditions.

This represents a monumental step backward for personal privacy for women.

Women in New Jersey and across the country should be very proud of Rep. Rothman for leading this bipartisan effort to provide commonsense, compassionate care to rape survivors in the emergency room. When it comes to solving serious problems like unintended pregnancy, Americans want answers from their elected officials, not silence. I stand proudly with Congressman Rothman in calling on Speaker Hastert to allow a vote on his legislation without further delays.

We see that this is about more than just South Dakota. It's about the country. The bottom line in all of it is elections matter.

Even anti-choice Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist respect precedent, but that hasn't stopped them from explicitly saying they want to overturn Roe v. Wade .

The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a stark reminder of how President Bush and his anti-choice congressional allies have politicized the judicial process.

The Supreme Court disagreed with him. So you have the justices saying, 'No, this is too much, this affects women's lives far too much.' Then he was out of the mainstream, and he continues to be out of the mainstream.

A woman's right to choose is at a tipping point. The Supreme Court is narrowly divided, and by selecting John Roberts to succeed the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush has raised the stakes.

They are coming clean on how meaningless his evasive 2003 testimony was. It's now even clearer than before that the far-right activists who've been turning handsprings in celebration of Roberts's nomination are getting exactly what they wanted: a proven activist opponent of personal freedoms like a woman's right to choose.

I hope President Bush will spare the country the divisiveness of a controversial nomination for such an important office. But if that's the route he chooses, pro-choice Americans are ready for the fight.

He still must answer this vital question directly.

We have an anti-choice president, an anti-choice House and Senate. They might pass a national ban. It's already virtually impossible for people in some areas to get an abortion.

Women in America... cannot trust Mitt Romney to protect our health.

While Roberts wanted to give the impression he respected the right to privacy and the precedent of Roe vs. Wade, his answers look dangerously similar to the responses (Associate Justice) Clarence Thomas gave senators during his confirmation hearings 14 years ago.