A new documentary produced by Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and actress Jennifer Lawrence centers on the so-called ‘cruel‘ Texas pro-life law, and three of the women who sued the state over that law. The emotionally charged subject matter seeks to persuade viewers to support legalized abortion throughout pregnancy, primarily because it both showcases the pain of the families involved and avoids the truth — that induced abortion (intentionally killing their children) was not the solution to any of their medical concerns.

Induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of children in the womb — is not the standard treatment for any of the medical situations the women behind the lawsuit faced. Nor is it a treatment for any health condition.

Rather than intentionally killing the baby and then delivering a dead body — either whole or in pieces — doctors can carry out an induced preterm delivery or an emergency C-section and pediatric specialists can work to save the premature baby.

The obvious major flaw at the core of the film — “Zurawski v Texas” — is that it was built on the widespread lie that Texas’ pro-life law prohibits anything other than the direct killing of preborn children.

Here’s the truth: Induced preterm delivery carries the intention of saving the mother’s health and life. Induced abortion carries the intention of ensuring the baby is dead. 

The backstory

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization freed states to enact pro-life laws protecting preborn children from abortion, which it defines as “the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant.” In other words, an abortion does not include any act that ends a pregnancy, but any act that ends a pregnancy by intentionally and directly killing the baby/ensuring that the baby dies.

In Texas, preborn children are protected from abortion after six weeks; however, the law states:

(a) If an abortion is performed or induced on a pregnant woman because of a medical emergency, the physician who performs or induces the abortion shall execute a written document that certifies the abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency and specifies the woman’s medical condition requiring the abortion.

The law allows abortion when the mother’s life is considered at risk — which would mean that if any of the women in the documentary had been at risk of dying, abortion would have been legal for them. The doctor carrying out the abortion would have had to “place the document described in Subsection (a) [above] in the pregnant woman’s medical record; and maintain a copy of the document…” He would have to specify what the medical condition was that led him to abort the baby and provide his “medical rationale” as to why the abortion was necessary to save the mother.

Shot in the dark, here, but maybe certain doctors don’t want to do or weren’t trained to do the more time-consuming job of monitoring the mother and child and working to save both lives. Perhaps they’d rather abort the baby and send the mother on her way. But they know that induced abortion is not medically necessary and they know they are required to — but can’t truthfully — compose the required document regarding the medical condition and the rationale used for committing the abortion, so they avoid all responsibility by sending the woman off to an abortionist in another state and blame the pro-life law for their failure to care for both of their patients.

This would make sense given that none of the women behind the lawsuit could definitively argue that their condition or their child’s condition required an induced abortion. The Texas courts saw this and ruled against the women. Yet, “Zurawski v Texas,” paints a very different, very dishonest picture. Despite the Texas law allowing room for unnecessary abortion to save the mother’s life, the film erroneously claims that the Texas law presents a risk to women’s health and denies women their right to health care.

Facts vs. sensationalism

The film follows a lawsuit brought on by women who felt they should have been allowed to kill their babies; the film could evoke deep emotions in viewers. The audience watches as those women discuss what led them to want to end the lives of their wanted babies.

Variety magazine featured a piece on the documentary, claiming, “But as ‘Zurawski v Texas’ lucidly spells out throughout its economic running time, smartly trading in facts instead of heavy-handed sensationalism, the exemption law is so ambiguous that doctors are left in the dark about whether they can legally provide abortions to their patients, even in medically and logically no-brainer situations — non-viable pregnancies where the baby wouldn’t survive birth, and the mother’s long-term reproductive health would be irreversibly compromised.”

And yet, the entire reason the stories made headlines was sensationalism.

These stories are exploited to promote legalized abortion with no restrictions — and the facts are avoided at all costs.

Doctors are not “left in the dark” by the life of the mother exception, which is easy to find with a quick Google search. If they read the non-“ambiguous” exception they would know whether or not they could legally abort a baby and then document their reasoning. Furthermore, if they cared to learn the difference between induced abortion and induced preterm delivery, they would understand that induced abortion (killing) isn’t health care at all. But they likely know that, and don’t care — and they saw no reason to save these children’s lives.

While each case is a “no-brainer” situation, it’s not because it’s a “no-brainer” to kill certain children (eugenics, anyone?) but because it should be a “no-brainer” that health care is meant to heal, not kill. It should be a “no-brainer” to medically trained professionals that a preborn child doesn’t have to be actively killed in order to be delivered early.

Zurawski’s story

The lead plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, was 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Doctors negligently said they could do nothing for her because of Texas’ pro-life law. Zurawski was suffering from cervical insufficiency (also called incompetent cervix) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). Induced abortion is not the treatment of either condition and never has been. Read more on that here.

Dr. Christina Francis, board member and CEO-elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, explained to Live Action News that, with cervical insufficiency…

Many times, if infection is ruled out, women can be treated with a stitch, called a cerclage, which is placed in her cervix to hold the unborn baby in until he or she can survive outside the mother. An attentive physician should be able to detect signs of infection early and, if present, provide the appropriate treatment –  which would be induction of labor. This treatment is not prevented by any abortion restriction in the country. 

Zurawski should not have been sent home. She should have been monitored for signs of infection. If her baby, Willow, had to be delivered immediately, she could have been. Willow did not need to be dismembered in a D&E procedure or receive a lethal injection before delivery. In fact, she wasn’t. Zurawski admitted that she underwent an “inevitable premature delivery.”

2nd Trimester Abortion | Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) | What Is Abortion?

But this skewing of the Texas law in both the lawsuit and the film has proven successful in its pro-abortion mission. Variety claims that Zurawski’s “formerly Republican family members” had a “political change of heart after having held Amanda’s hand through her battles.”

Countless Americans likely fell victim to this massive lie as well.

Samantha Casiano’s and Dr. Austin Dennard’s stories

The two other women in the film faced the diagnosis of anencephaly for their babies —  a condition in which the brain, skull, and scalp are missing, exposing the brain to amniotic fluid. Most children born with the condition do not live long outside of the womb, though at least one, Angela, lived for nearly four years.

Samantha Casiano learned during her 20-week ultrasound that her preborn baby had the condition. Dr. Austin Dennard, an OB/GYN, learned at 11 weeks that her baby also had anencephaly. They both wanted abortions. Dennard complained to the Senate that she was being “[f]orced to watch [her son] die, either in my womb, or in my arms.” She left the state to abort. Her son still died in his mother’s womb, but violently.

Casiano determined that knowing her daughter was going to die meant that she should be entitled to the right to kill her daughter before natural death could occur. She didn’t leave the state to abort. Her daughter, Halo, was born and lived for four hours outside the womb, during which Casiano said Halo “gasped for air.” This would indicate that Halo may have been denied palliative care such as oxygen supplementation because of her health condition.

Variety noted, “In one extremely difficult yet essential scene, Halo’s funeral (and her lifeless form) appears on the screen, but the shattering moment lands with raw compassion, not emotional exploitation.”

Yes, there is compassion for Casiano and all of the women, but, using a child’s health diagnosis and her tragic death to promote the direct and intentional killing of innocent preborn children is exactly that — exploitation. Casiano’s and Dennard’s abortions were wanted and elective. They were not necessary.

It is unnecessary to hurry up and kill a child in a misguided plan to prevent suffering for the adults, and research shows that carrying to term in such situations is better for a mother’s mental health than abortion.

The film shows Molly Duane, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, arguing that the exception in the Texas law “does not function in practice” and claims “no one knows who is entitled” to an abortion under state law.

That misconception is easy to clear up. No one is “entitled” to kill their preborn child or any other innocent human being. Each of the women involved in the lawsuit had the right to health care that would protect them and their children. They did not have the right to kill their babies.

Clearly, doctors could have done more to help these mothers and their children instead of selling them the abortion lie.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill

A new documentary produced by Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and actress Jennifer Lawrence centers on the so-called ‘cruel‘ Texas pro-life law, and three of the women who sued the state over that law. The emotionally charged subject matter seeks to persuade viewers to support legalized abortion throughout pregnancy, primarily because it both showcases the pain of the families involved and avoids the truth — that induced abortion (intentionally killing their children) was not the solution to any of their medical concerns.

Induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of children in the womb — is not the standard treatment for any of the medical situations the women behind the lawsuit faced. Nor is it a treatment for any health condition.

Rather than intentionally killing the baby and then delivering a dead body — either whole or in pieces — doctors can carry out an induced preterm delivery or an emergency C-section and pediatric specialists can work to save the premature baby.

The obvious major flaw at the core of the film — “Zurawski v Texas” — is that it was built on the widespread lie that Texas’ pro-life law prohibits anything other than the direct killing of preborn children.

Here’s the truth: Induced preterm delivery carries the intention of saving the mother’s health and life. Induced abortion carries the intention of ensuring the baby is dead. 

The backstory

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization freed states to enact pro-life laws protecting preborn children from abortion, which it defines as “the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant.” In other words, an abortion does not include any act that ends a pregnancy, but any act that ends a pregnancy by intentionally and directly killing the baby/ensuring that the baby dies.

In Texas, preborn children are protected from abortion after six weeks; however, the law states:

(a) If an abortion is performed or induced on a pregnant woman because of a medical emergency, the physician who performs or induces the abortion shall execute a written document that certifies the abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency and specifies the woman’s medical condition requiring the abortion.

The law allows abortion when the mother’s life is considered at risk — which would mean that if any of the women in the documentary had been at risk of dying, abortion would have been legal for them. The doctor carrying out the abortion would have had to “place the document described in Subsection (a) [above] in the pregnant woman’s medical record; and maintain a copy of the document…” He would have to specify what the medical condition was that led him to abort the baby and provide his “medical rationale” as to why the abortion was necessary to save the mother.

Shot in the dark, here, but maybe certain doctors don’t want to do or weren’t trained to do the more time-consuming job of monitoring the mother and child and working to save both lives. Perhaps they’d rather abort the baby and send the mother on her way. But they know that induced abortion is not medically necessary and they know they are required to — but can’t truthfully — compose the required document regarding the medical condition and the rationale used for committing the abortion, so they avoid all responsibility by sending the woman off to an abortionist in another state and blame the pro-life law for their failure to care for both of their patients.

This would make sense given that none of the women behind the lawsuit could definitively argue that their condition or their child’s condition required an induced abortion. The Texas courts saw this and ruled against the women. Yet, “Zurawski v Texas,” paints a very different, very dishonest picture. Despite the Texas law allowing room for unnecessary abortion to save the mother’s life, the film erroneously claims that the Texas law presents a risk to women’s health and denies women their right to health care.

Facts vs. sensationalism

The film follows a lawsuit brought on by women who felt they should have been allowed to kill their babies; the film could evoke deep emotions in viewers. The audience watches as those women discuss what led them to want to end the lives of their wanted babies.

Variety magazine featured a piece on the documentary, claiming, “But as ‘Zurawski v Texas’ lucidly spells out throughout its economic running time, smartly trading in facts instead of heavy-handed sensationalism, the exemption law is so ambiguous that doctors are left in the dark about whether they can legally provide abortions to their patients, even in medically and logically no-brainer situations — non-viable pregnancies where the baby wouldn’t survive birth, and the mother’s long-term reproductive health would be irreversibly compromised.”

And yet, the entire reason the stories made headlines was sensationalism.

These stories are exploited to promote legalized abortion with no restrictions — and the facts are avoided at all costs.

Doctors are not “left in the dark” by the life of the mother exception, which is easy to find with a quick Google search. If they read the non-“ambiguous” exception they would know whether or not they could legally abort a baby and then document their reasoning. Furthermore, if they cared to learn the difference between induced abortion and induced preterm delivery, they would understand that induced abortion (killing) isn’t health care at all. But they likely know that, and don’t care — and they saw no reason to save these children’s lives.

While each case is a “no-brainer” situation, it’s not because it’s a “no-brainer” to kill certain children (eugenics, anyone?) but because it should be a “no-brainer” that health care is meant to heal, not kill. It should be a “no-brainer” to medically trained professionals that a preborn child doesn’t have to be actively killed in order to be delivered early.

Zurawski’s story

The lead plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, was 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Doctors negligently said they could do nothing for her because of Texas’ pro-life law. Zurawski was suffering from cervical insufficiency (also called incompetent cervix) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). Induced abortion is not the treatment of either condition and never has been. Read more on that here.

Dr. Christina Francis, board member and CEO-elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, explained to Live Action News that, with cervical insufficiency…

Many times, if infection is ruled out, women can be treated with a stitch, called a cerclage, which is placed in her cervix to hold the unborn baby in until he or she can survive outside the mother. An attentive physician should be able to detect signs of infection early and, if present, provide the appropriate treatment –  which would be induction of labor. This treatment is not prevented by any abortion restriction in the country. 

Zurawski should not have been sent home. She should have been monitored for signs of infection. If her baby, Willow, had to be delivered immediately, she could have been. Willow did not need to be dismembered in a D&E procedure or receive a lethal injection before delivery. In fact, she wasn’t. Zurawski admitted that she underwent an “inevitable premature delivery.”

2nd Trimester Abortion | Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) | What Is Abortion?

But this skewing of the Texas law in both the lawsuit and the film has proven successful in its pro-abortion mission. Variety claims that Zurawski’s “formerly Republican family members” had a “political change of heart after having held Amanda’s hand through her battles.”

Countless Americans likely fell victim to this massive lie as well.

Samantha Casiano’s and Dr. Austin Dennard’s stories

The two other women in the film faced the diagnosis of anencephaly for their babies —  a condition in which the brain, skull, and scalp are missing, exposing the brain to amniotic fluid. Most children born with the condition do not live long outside of the womb, though at least one, Angela, lived for nearly four years.

Samantha Casiano learned during her 20-week ultrasound that her preborn baby had the condition. Dr. Austin Dennard, an OB/GYN, learned at 11 weeks that her baby also had anencephaly. They both wanted abortions. Dennard complained to the Senate that she was being “[f]orced to watch [her son] die, either in my womb, or in my arms.” She left the state to abort. Her son still died in his mother’s womb, but violently.

Casiano determined that knowing her daughter was going to die meant that she should be entitled to the right to kill her daughter before natural death could occur. She didn’t leave the state to abort. Her daughter, Halo, was born and lived for four hours outside the womb, during which Casiano said Halo “gasped for air.” This would indicate that Halo may have been denied palliative care such as oxygen supplementation because of her health condition.

Variety noted, “In one extremely difficult yet essential scene, Halo’s funeral (and her lifeless form) appears on the screen, but the shattering moment lands with raw compassion, not emotional exploitation.”

Yes, there is compassion for Casiano and all of the women, but, using a child’s health diagnosis and her tragic death to promote the direct and intentional killing of innocent preborn children is exactly that — exploitation. Casiano’s and Dennard’s abortions were wanted and elective. They were not necessary.

It is unnecessary to hurry up and kill a child in a misguided plan to prevent suffering for the adults, and research shows that carrying to term in such situations is better for a mother’s mental health than abortion.

The film shows Molly Duane, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, arguing that the exception in the Texas law “does not function in practice” and claims “no one knows who is entitled” to an abortion under state law.

That misconception is easy to clear up. No one is “entitled” to kill their preborn child or any other innocent human being. Each of the women involved in the lawsuit had the right to health care that would protect them and their children. They did not have the right to kill their babies.

Clearly, doctors could have done more to help these mothers and their children instead of selling them the abortion lie.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill