Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion (review)

Unborn in the USA traces the activities of antiabortion activists in thirty-five states, documenting a range of antichoice activism, from exhibiting photo displays of aborted fetuses to a folk artist who creates life-sized sculptures of fetuses at various developmental stages. It offers only one side in the abortion war—those opposed to the procedure—and only those who attempt to derail support for abortion by presenting images of aborted fetuses, even though, curiously, the cover images depict the pro-choice activists who appeared almost accidentally. Activists hoping to change opinions on abortion through pictures may be a significant part of the pro-life movement, but they are likely not representative of its entirety. The film presents a movement, however, that is dominated by a male leadership who are surrounded by adoring female followers, and the approach highlights the Right’s lack of interest in actual living human beings, caring only about the unborn. It interviews, for example, a n ultrasound technician at a pro-life clinic who operates three-dimensional ultrasound machines, under the assumption that if women and couples who were considering abortions only have seen the contents of the woman’s uterus as a child, they would be unable to go through with the operation.

This particular tactic of t he antichoice movement bears some thought. It is based on the assumption that if people see the physical result of abortion—the bloody, visceral remains of fingers and toes—they would be forced to become pro-life activists in the same way that people shown pictures of the bloody, violent aftermath of a car wreck might try to end drunk driving. Images of the wreck might very well lead to efforts to reform the circumstances that precipitated it, but chances are viewers would not recommend that we outlaw cars. Metaphors aside, this pro-choice, feminist scholar would argue, as have numerous others, that if you do not like abortion, give women better choices when it comes to preventing pregnancy or being able to afford to raise children through access to health insurance and affordable day care, among other needs. This single mother would also advocate state-subsidized kitchens to provide fully cooked dinners that could be picked up on the way home from work. To focus on the body parts suggests that women’s rights and needs only matter after everyone else has had their turn; that focusing on unborn babies is yet another way to erase and render living women invisible and unimportant even though they still are responsible for the majority of reproductive labor that allows children and even husbands and parents to survive on a day-to-day basis.

This focus on diverting abortion-seeking women by horrifying them with graphic pictures leads to what seemed to me one of the most significant moments in the film. A middle-aged male “sidewalk counselor” admitted that when he began confronting patients outside women’s health clinics with pictures of aborted fetuses, he believed they would be compelled to reconsider their actions. He was surprised, he said, when the women replied that they knew what the fetus looked like but intended nevertheless to go through with their planned abortions. This interchange highlights what pro-choice activists have long argued: that women do not naively decide to terminate pregnancies under the belief that they are eliminating a “lump of tissue.” Women know that the “tissue,” if left alone, would become a baby. Instead, they choose abortion because circumstances make it impossible for them to bear and care for a child. Abortion to them is the least bad choice in a range of bad choices. Graphic pictures are irrelevant because they do not improve any of pregnant women’s choices.

All that said, this documentary is utterly impossible to use in the classroom. The sound editing is atrocious, and the audio of interviews with all the talking heads are impossible to hear. Perhaps pro-life activists...