Nancy Northup is a CLS alum, Center for Gender & Sexuality advisory board member, and the President of the Center for Reproductive Rights. She shares the exciting news that the Center for Reproductive Rights won a landmark reproductive rights case in Poland below:

(CENTER PRESS RELEASE) Today, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Poland violated a woman’s human rights when she was repeatedly denied a prenatal genetic examination after a doctor discovered fetal irregularities during a sonogram. The test would have informed the woman’s decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. For the first time in its history, the Court specifically found that an abortion-related violation amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment. The Court also cited a violation of the woman’s private life and ordered the Polish government to compensate her.

“Today’s decision is a groundbreaking victory for women across Europe. Governments cannot let doctors impose their anti-abortion ideology on pregnant women who are seeking genetic testing,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “The court has recognized that withholding information or lawful health services from a woman deprives her of the ability to make extremely important and private decisions about her own life.”

Poland has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, but the law does allow for abortion in cases of fetal abnormality. In the ruling, the Court also noted that Poland needs to effectively implement its law by ensuring women’s access to diagnostic procedures.

R.R.*, the woman who filed a petition against Poland, was repeatedly sent to numerous doctors, clinics and hospitals far from her home and even hospitalized for several days without explanation – all in an effort to prolong her pregnancy. In the end, her pregnancy surpassed the time limit for abortion on fetal impairment grounds. R.R. is represented by lawyers from the Polish Federation for Women in Family Planning and the University of Warsaw Law Clinic with the Center for Reproductive Rights.

“Unfortunately, R.R.’s experience is a common one in Poland. The exceedingly restrictive and unclear abortion law framework in the country continues to expose women to serious human rights violations. It’s time that the Polish government enforces its laws and protects the human rights of its citizens,” said Christina Zampas, senior regional manager and legal adviser for Europe. ”

In R.R. v. Poland, R.R. argued that her rights to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment, private and family life, access to justice, and nondiscrimination were violated and asked that Poland change its practice for prenatal examinations and women’s access to abortion and its policy on conscientious objection.

*The initials used are a pseudonym used to protect the identity of the client.


  1. European Court Issues Landmark Decision Against Poland, Says Women Entitled To Prenatal Genetic Testing http://t.co/SYLFJAH

  2. European Court Issues Landmark Decision Against #Poland, Says Women Entitled To Prenatal Genetic Testing http://t.co/1LjjBSB

  3. Keep up the fantastic piece of work, I read few blog posts on this site and I conceive that your weblog is very interesting and contains lots of fantastic information.

Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.