����vlog����

BY ALEXANDRA GILLIARD

The Carr Center’s Human Rights in Film series aims to explore the human rights challenges faced by individuals around the world through documentary films, which are screened throughout the academic year at Harvard Kennedy School. As part of this series, a recent screening of was accompanied by a panel discussion moderated by Carr Center Executive Director Maggie Gates.  

�����ٳٱ��𲵰��dzܲԻ� i�� an urgently timely window into the intersection of abortion and politics in the United States, following three women who lead formidable anti-abortion organizations to witness the influence they wield. Filmed in 2020, during major Supreme Court cases attempting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the film also depicts those on the front lines of the fierce fight to maintain access to safe and legal abortion. 

As part of Harvard Kennedy School’s Candid and Constructive Conversations series, the panel featured representatives of both sides of the debate surrounding women’s reproductive rights and the right to choose. The speakers were , Cardinal Francis George Fellow with the Ethics & Public Policy Center; MaryRose Mazzola, Adjunct Lecturer at Harvard Kennedy School and Chief External Affairs Officer at Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; Sarah Wald, Adjunct Lecturer, Senior Policy Advisor, and Chief of Staff to the Dean at Harvard Kennedy School; and Founder & Former Executive Director of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising and one of the three featured activists in the film. 

At the Carr Center, we uphold the fact that the full scope of women’s health is a human right, and that abortion rights are human rights. We also believe in the importance of sharing differences of opinion, and we work hard to create safe spaces for people to feel comfortable sharing their voices. “This is an issue fraught with a lot of emotional highs and lows. I’m grateful that you’re interested in at least hearing the points of views of people, no matter what side you’re on, who you might happen to disagree with,” said FioRito during the panel. 

When the panelists were asked about their takeaways from the documentary, Wald expressed, “A takeaway that I had was how incredibly personal this issue is for everybody. It was clear that, for virtually everyone in the movie, this was part of their identity. It’s intensely personal.” Agreeing with Wald’s sentiment, Mazzola shared, “Being able to have an option for healthcare is truly important and knowing that half the women in this country now no longer have that option because of the activism you saw in this film hurt me personally.” Beyond representing deeply held personal values of an individual, however, an abortion is a fundamental medical procedure that is just as safe as other surgical procedures.  

Anti-abortion activists, though, may argue that the safety of abortion procedures—both surgical and chemical—are inherently dangerous, against widespread medical agreement. , where 28-year-old Amber Thurman died from rare complications after taking mifepristone, Bukovinac said, “We do want anybody who’s in a serious emergency medical situation to be able to get the healthcare they want. This is not about that; we’re trying to save lives. But the reality is that in many of these stories that we hear coming from the pro-abortion media saying these people died because of abortion bans, I think it’s really important that we look at the broader context of these stories.” 

She continued, “Amber Thurman died from taking the abortion pill that she was prescribed legally, and there was medical malpractice involved, and her family is literally suing the hospital—not the state, not the law.” Bukovinac was indicating that the abortion pill, mifepristone, was the cause of Ms. Thurman’s death, not any anti-abortion laws or state abortion bans. It is important to note that the abortion pill, mifepristone, has been safe and legal to use in the United States “since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the brand name Mifeprex nearly 20 years ago,” according to . The first generic form of mifepristone was approved by the FDA in April 2019, identifying it as a safe and effective way to end an early pregnancy, “with a safety record of over 99%.” 

Unfortunately, Ms. Thurman suffered a rare infection after using mifepristone that could have been helped by a D&C procedure. Had the state of Georgia not criminalized this procedure because of its relation to abortion, Ms. Thurman likely would have survived. Instead, because of Georgia’s strict abortion laws, doctors had to wait for extreme conditions to take Ms. Thurman into an operating room—but by that time, it was too late to save her. “Tasked with examining pregnancy-related deaths to improve maternal health, the experts, including 10 doctors, deemed hers ‘preventable’ and said the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure had a ‘large’ impact on her fatal outcome,” writes ProPublica about this case. 

When we look at states in the U.S. that have enacted abortion bans or strict anti-abortion laws following the overturn of Roe, we see evidence that women are much likelier to go without prenatal care or meet with an OB-GYN in these areas. In Texas, following its 2021 ban on abortion care, the number of women who died while pregnant , far outpacing the nationwide statistic of 11% in that same period.  

We must face the hard realities of legislating women’s reproductive health. In the past 30 years, the U.S. is that has actually made it harder to access abortion services. While the anti-choice movement is strong, the reality is that believe abortion should be legal in at least certain circumstances and one in four women say they would terminate a pregnancy. Yet, in stark contrast to this widespread national opinion, conservative judges continue to overturn abortion rights at the state and Supreme Court levels. This year, at least nine states will consider constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights on the ballot during the general election in November, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota.  

Discussing the pro-choice movement’s lack of strategy in the fight for Roe, Mazzola reflected on the dangerous effects of complacency. “I think we over-relied on Roe and Supreme Court precedent. There was this idea that it was settled law, and we trusted that. And we therefore didn’t organize in all the other ways that you should be organizing if you care deeply about a policy issue. There’s been a lack of coordination and strategy on the pro-choice side, and that’s one of the reasons that we ended up here—in addition to, I would say, an erosion of democratic precedent and values and process,” she said. 

For Wald, the protracted battle for women’s reproductive rights is reflective of a long-standing, overarching suppression of women’s rights in general. “I’ve been very involved in issues of women’s equity and equal place in the world for a long time. As a young lawyer, I worked on employment discrimination cases—women who weren’t hired because they were women or were fired based on gender. I was always fascinated to learn the history of how women have been treated in this country and treated as less than full citizens. Women originally could not own property, women couldn’t sign contracts, women couldn’t sit on juries until not that long ago. This continued in many ways even into the 1960s and ‘70s,” she said. “This seems, in my mind, to be part of a continuum of [limiting] women’s full participation in the world.” 

Abortion debates touch on very passionately held values for many, be they based in religion or politics or personal philosophy. Despite widespread public support for safe and legal abortion, the film and post-screening discussion indicated that access to women’s reproductive rights will continue to be in question, as the anti-choice movement is powerful, strategic, and has a strong global network.