Hit piece against ‘Baby Olivia’ warns viewers not to be ‘seduced by the facts’

On Tuesday, The Hechinger Report published a ‘hit piece’ against Live Action’s “Baby Olivia” video, the catalyst for prenatal development education legislation passed in six states and introduced in multiple others.

Teen Vogue republished the article, presumably in a dishonest attempt to convince teen girls that the video is mere propaganda. But the real problem behind all the rhetoric and hyperbolic objections is that “Baby Olivia” reveals the inconvenient truth: when a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant with an actual human being.

Key Takeaways:

• Abortion proponents are angry that several states have introduced legislation named after “Baby Olivia,” adding prenatal development education to public school health/sex ed classes.
• Most of the legislation does not specifically require the Live Action “Baby Olivia” video to be shown to public school students; the video qualifies as one of the options that may be used.
• The article was written by a group which purports to be “independent” while receiving financial support from pro-abortion foundations.
• The idea of showing “Olivia” to students beginning in third grade is presented with an alarming tone, yet the omission of what is currently encouraged in sex education at this grade level and younger by Planned Parenthood and its sex ed partners leaves readers no opportunity to make a fair comparison.
• An ACOG representative falsely claims that the “Baby Olivia” video “attempts to advance anti-abortion policies.”
• Another person quoted in the article warns viewers of the video not to be “seduced by facts.”

The Background:

“Baby Olivia” is a medically accurate, 3D-animated prenatal development video created by Live Action with the support of world class visual artists and medical experts.

Much of the information in the video is sourced from the Endowment for Human Development (EHD), a self-described “nonprofit organization dedicated to improving health science education and public health” that is “​​committed to neutrality regarding all controversial bioethical issues.” Its award-winning prenatal development DVD, which uses the same milestones and timelines for prenatal development (from fertilization) as those featured in “Baby Olivia,” is distributed by National Geographic.

Since its release, “Baby Olivia” has enraged abortion advocates, who have labeled it everything from “misleading” to “Christian nationalist indoctrination.”

The Details:

Follow the Money

An article published by The Hechinger Report, which touts itself as a “nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education,” took aim at “Baby Olivia” this week. But this allegedly “independent” news group is financially backed by some of the deepest pro-abortion pockets in the world — like The Gates Foundation, The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, among others — and it shows.

When Facts Become a Threat to Prevailing Ideology

Mentioned in the article as an overarching concern about the video from pro-abortion individuals is the fact that it is — wait for it — produced by Live Action (known for its undercover investigations into the abortion industry). But this is just one of many red herrings mentioned with regard to the video which has nothing to do with its actual content. And as already noted, the developmental milestones mentioned in “Baby Olivia” are largely universal, and not unique to that specific video.

Also mentioned with a tone of alarm is the fact that some state legislators are “proposing that students as young as third grade [typically around age 8-9] watch fetal development videos,” yet fails to say why this should alarm anyone.

Author Sarah Butrymowicz also fails to mention that the nation’s top abortion business, Planned Parenthood, collaborates with groups like Advocates for Youth (AFY) to create and promote sex ed that includes gender ideology and other sexualized topics — even for young children. AFY’s AMAZE Jr. sex-ed website includes content for children ages 4-9 which, as Live Action News previously reported, “normalizes sexual behavior with adults,” “shows explicit, detailed images of genitalia, making sure to note that some areas are ‘sensitive,'” “promotes and normalizes masturbation,” and more.

Yet the videos and materials from AFY are approved by the Future of Sex Ed Coalition — a collaboration of SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, and Advocates for Youth (AMAZE), which all hold the view that children are “sexual from birth.” This view was also held by the “Father of the Sexual Revolution,” Alfred Kinsey, who recruited pedophiles to molest children and record their observations as ‘scientific research.’ Kinsey then used this ‘data’ — which recorded instances of children and infants screaming, fighting, and fainting as examples of alleged ‘orgasm’ — to build the foundation for our nation’s current “sex education.”

Also, as previously reported by Live Action News, in 2023, 9-year-olds in a Washington school viewed sex-ed curriculum provided by “Teen Council, a peer-led sex ed program from Planned Parenthood with an adult giving the lesson in this case,” which reportedly included “drawings of pubic hair shaped like an animal, and students were told they could pick from a number of contrived genders to identify as. Some of the materials promoted medication to block puberty.” But this wasn’t all:

In addition to being asked what pronouns ‘feel good’ to them, the students were given a “gender wheel” worksheet that included different so-called identities including “trans,” “intersex,” “drag king,” “trans femme,” “agender person,” “boi grrl,” and “nonbinary.” Possible pronouns included he and she but also “they,” “ze,” and “tree.”

Drawings of vaginas and penises were also included with pubic hair “art” such as a cat and a heart. Other drawings featured “examples of intersex variation.”

“Baby Olivia” contains none of the above; it simply displays a developing human being in the womb. Not sex of any kind. Not masturbation. Not explicit photos of genitalia.

“I’m sympathetic if someone says we wouldn’t want any organization that has any point of view creating any materials for our public school system,” Noah Brandt, Vice President of Communications for Live Action, told The Hechinger Report. “But I would just say that’s not the reality that’s happening across the country. It’s tough to find curriculum that is from a group that no one would oppose.”

The reality is that videos about prenatal development may be the least ideological videos shown to children in public school sex ed/health classes.

Baby Olivia makes no statements about abortion

The article quotes abortionist Nisha Verma, credited as “senior advisor of reproductive health policy and advocacy for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG],” who believes that the “Baby Olivia” video “is designed to manipulate students’ emotions rather than to share objective facts about embryonic and fetal development,” going on to inexplicably claim that “The video attempts to advance anti-abortion policies such as fetal personhood and uses non-scientific language about conception, pregnancy, embryos, and fetuses to evoke an emotional response” (emphasis added).

If anyone can find where “Baby Olivia” actually “attempts to advance anti-abortion policies,” please let us know (hint: it doesn’t):

 

Perhaps an “emotional response” is actually a normal and healthy response to seeing the wonder of human development in the womb.

It is interesting that a representative from the pro-abortion ACOG group complains about “non-scientific language” being used to “evoke an emotional response.” Is that what ACOG was attempting to do here when it called an embryo a “baby”?

And just how strong is ACOG when it comes to presenting “objective facts” about human prenatal development, considering that it has changed definitions and terminology multiple times for ideological — not biological — reasons? Or considering the fact that it now officially supports abortion “without limits” (up to birth)?

Dating from fertilization is “manipulative”?

The Hechinger Report article also attempts to paint the video as “manipulative” due to the fact that “many doctors have raised concerns” about the video’s discussion of development from fertilization instead of dating the pregnancy based on last menstrual period (LMP).

But for the purposes of a video showing the development of a human being from fertilization onward, it is appropriate (and more precise) to date the preborn child’s age beginning at fertilization. The date of a woman’s LMP occurs an estimated two weeks prior to fertilization, before the new life even exists. Dating a child’s development based on fertilization is not inappropriate, nor is it inaccurate or “manipulative” to do so.

In fact, the Mayo Clinic notes on its website (emphases added):

It might seem strange, but you’re not actually pregnant the first week or two of the time allotted to your pregnancy. Yes, you read that correctly! Conception typically occurs about two weeks after your last period begins. 

To calculate your estimated due date, your health care provider will count ahead 40 weeks from the start of your last period. This means your period is counted as part of your pregnancy — even though you weren’t pregnant at the time.

The Endowment for Human Development also shows photos and videos of prenatal development based on weeks from fertilization, and it notes this on its website. In fact, EHD’s prenatal DVD, distributed by National Geographic, “explains the science and communicates the wonder of human development from fertilization through birth.”

‘Seducing’… with facts?

Stephanie Vazzano, a therapist from New Hampshire quoted in the article, explained, “My biggest concern is that [“Baby Olivia” is] set up to come from a moralistic and fear-based place as opposed to a medical or wellness model. They do have some facts. When you watch them you can be really seduced by those facts … but then these other things get slipped in.”

But typically, prenatal development is simply describing what’s happening in the womb — it’s not about being moralistic or fear-based. Let’s take a look at an example of how the popular BabyCenter website presents prenatal development.

Clearly, the word “BABY” is being used in the image below to refer to a preborn human. Is this “scientific”? Could this be considered “manipulative” or “moralistic”?

This description below of development at 14 weeks (which is 12 weeks after fertilization) talks about “facial muscles” and uses the word “baby” again. It even claims the baby can “squint, frown, and grimace,” and talks about how the baby can “punch” and “kick.”

That makes the baby in the womb sound much too human. Surely this must also be disturbing, fear-based propaganda.

And below, these images from the first trimester BabyCenter page even discuss the embryo as a “baby” and describe how the baby’s “heart has started beating” at “6 weeks pregnant” (which is four weeks post-fertilization). The heart begins to beat about 22 days after fertilization.

Would the people objecting to “Baby Olivia” object to BabyCenter’s prenatal development images and descriptions with claims of inaccurate language or manipulation?

Filling in the Gaps

At least one pro-abortion individual quoted in the article seemed to notice a glaring problem with the current sex-ed offerings in public schools: they don’t talk about how humans actually come to be.

UC Davis law professor Mary Ziegler stated, “Part of what they’ve exposed is that there are gaps in the way we’ve done sex education. There’s truth in the sense that sex education programs across the board, including those favored by progressives, don’t have enough information about pregnancy, childbirth, abortion or fetal development.”

The abortion industry and its cohorts currently control the narrative in sex ed, so why would they want to discuss prenatal human development? Why would they want to honestly present abortion as the destruction of that human life?

They’re still hanging on to the “clumps of cells” claim that’s made them wealthy. As many post-abortive women have stated, real education about prenatal development opens eyes to the propaganda sold to society at a horrific cost.

The Bottom Line:

The problem for abortion proponents who are trying to disparage Baby Olivia is that the video is accurate — accurate enough to educate/seduce viewers with the truth of fetal development and prevent future abortions.

And that, the article all but admits, is the real concern that pro-aborts have. Butrymowicz wrote, “After the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, public schools have become an increasingly important battleground in the fight over abortion rights.”

Bringing “Olivia” to public schools thus far dominated by Planned Parenthood’s unabashed pro-abortion ideology is, indeed, bringing her to a battleground.

But when exposing public school children to ultrasounds and prenatal human development education (in other words, scientific fact) becomes a threat to your ideology, it’s time to take a good hard look at which side you’re on and what you’re fighting for.

Follow Live Action News on Facebook and Instagram for more pro-life news.