Pro-choice film director finds shocking suppression of information regarding abortion-breast cancer link

Pro-choice film director Punam Kumar Gill, creator of “Hush: the Documentary,” has taken on the idea of an abortion-breast cancer link, discovering shocking evidence that information is being suppressed and research is being silenced. “This is not a story about the legality of abortion,” she says in the film, “It’s a story… about an issue associated with abortion.”

When Gill began investigating the adverse effects of abortion, she admitted that as a pro-choice woman, she felt “threatened, like I’m being drawn into a fight. I feel the need to side with one and to be suspicious of the other. My regularly inquisitive and objective nature goes out the window. ”

“Even though I had never had an abortion myself,” Gill states, “I held views that were much like many other women. Abortion is a woman’s legal right, hard won by the women who came before me. Beyond that, I hadn’t thought much about the topic. I presumed abortion was a difficult choice for a woman but that it was a safe and healthy choice.”

That presumption was shaken after Gill looked at research and spoke with women who had experienced abortion.

'Hush' documentary clip - Breast Cancer and Abortion

Gill admits she was suspicious when she heard pro-life legislation was requiring all possible long-term health risks associated with abortion to be revealed to a woman prior to her abortion. She, like other pro-choice women, assumed this was “an anti-abortion strategy” designed to “both create fears in a woman prior to her procedure, and to erode the legality of abortion.”

But when Gill heard the alarming statistic that 40-50 million women worldwide have an abortion each year — 125,000 each day — “the sheer number was alarming to me.” She asked herself, “What if there really were some health risks? What were women actually being told before their abortions? How were these women doing afterwards?”

Gill understood the need for genuine discussion about these risks, which should not be dismissed as mere “myth and propaganda.”

“I, too, was guilty of allowing my bias to overshadow my ability to listen and to identify a woman’s issue when I heard it,” she said. “Sure, I’m pro-choice. But before that, I’m a woman and a human being.”

To get to the answers, Gill assembled a team which included herself as pro-choice, executive producer Drew Martin as pro-life, and producer Joses Martin as neutral on abortion. The team investigated not only the abortion-breast cancer link, but the effect abortion may have on preterm births as well as the psychological effects abortion may have on women.

“We’re not talking about pro-life and pro-choice anymore; we’re talking about very serious claims,” Gill points out.

Gill labels herself a “product of feminism,” and insists that her motivation for the documentary was to get to the truth. The team agreed, writing online:

Tragically, this diverse team discovered that “the only people willing to speak to the subject came from extremes of the political spectrum.” The team also discovered that getting to the truth would be an uphill battle. “Any truly neutral scientists, doctors, psychologists and researchers who had looked at the subject chose to zip their mouths, ignored our calls, or deferred to others,” the HUSH website explains.

“So, how can we get to the point of answers around abortion as an elective medical procedure when we can’t even have a conversation?” the filmmaker asked.

In response, Gill and her team determined that they would have to hear everyone out, “no matter their political leanings, with an open mind, and a healthy amount of skepticism.”

The team also found few health and abortion experts were willing to go on the record. “Time after time we were denied interview by health organizations, researchers, abortion clinics, etc. Tough to do a doc or a full investigation when no one wants to talk to you!”

But one pro-abortion “expert” was willing. The team interviewed former abortionist David Grimes, described in the documentary as an “internationally renowned scholar on the subject.” Grimes was given prime real estate in the film, even though he insisted that there were no long-term effects from abortion.

Then, after the film was released, Grimes became HUSH’s fiercest critic, calling the film a “prototype of pseudoscience,” which he defines as “a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views,” because “they produce fake experts.” Grimes complained:

Although Grimes has performed abortions himself and therefore has a stake in the debate, he objected to Gill’s screen time given to pro-life experts, writing, “I advised the director in writing in September of 2014 of the poor credentials and discredited science of several anti-abortion activists interviewed for the film.”

The HUSH team responded to their critic, writing online, “The production team of HUSH stands behind the fact that we did everything in our power to create a balanced and honest documentary…. The scientific presentation of the film has yet to be addressed or contradicted by any critic, instead some critics have attempted to attack the legitimacy and motivations of the investigation. But we were thoroughly aware throughout the Production process of the individuals we were interviewing and how many have been related to either anti-abortion or abortion-defense agendas, and the film has attempted to be explicit about those biases for the sake of the audience. ”

The HUSH team was clear that they made every effort to speak with medical and research experts at the various agencies Grimes lists, but each one remained silent.

It is apparent from Gill’s own conclusion that researching this film had an impact on her:

“If women have the right to abortion, they should also have the right to know,” Gill states.

“Hush: the Documentary” is available for purchase here.