By Marc S. Sanders
The topic of the harrowing documentary Zurawski V Texas is abortion. However, the debate is a different angle than I believe either side of the ongoing argument is accustomed to.
Filmmakers Maisie Crowe and Abbey Perrault provide extensive up to date coverage on attorney Molly Duane who represents a growing contingent of women who suffered complications during their pregnancies. The diagnoses might have varied but the commonality was that in most cases these circumstances became life threatening to the point where medical professionals deemed the best resolution was to follow through with an abortion so that an unhealthy child is not delivered and forced to suffer a brief life in agony. At least just as pertinent is to preserve the health and often save the lives of the mothers.
Amanda Zurawski from Austin, Texas is the first mother to make a claim. Thereafter, a parade of other women sought out her attorney, Molly Duane, to testify of their experiences and plead with the Texas courts to make exceptions to the state’s altogether blanket outlaw of abortions performed within the state. As soon as the prologue begins, we see Amanda testifying of her suffering at a congressional hearing. Close ups jump to the expressions of the government officials who appear intent on listening to Amanda’s plight where she describes having gone into septic shock with her life in serious jeopardy. It’s a very sad story, but Amanda demonstrates that she’s a stronger warrior than these men that she is facing. They can do nothing but sit there speechless. Who knows if they are even listening to the woman on the stand.
Later, as Amanda and Molly take their case to another court, the want to be mother describes how one of her fallopian tubes had to be closed up and her uterus needed to be reconstructed. Because she was not permitted needed abortion, she is unable to try again with another pregnancy.
Two other women are also focused on in the documentary.
Samantha Casiano is forced to carry to term, and then at the end of nine months, deliver an anencephalic baby with no chance of living. The experience comes at a cost of Samantha’s mental health and her marriage when her husband becomes withdrawn. Following this incident, Samantha follows through with a tubal ligation to avoid the risk of going through this ordeal again.
Another plaintiff is Austin Dennard, an OB-GYN doctor, who as a patient left the state of Texas to terminate her pregnancy following a risk-laden diagnosis. She eventually becomes a mother, but now she is a doctor not permitted to aid her patients with their ordeals.
A struggling roadblock continuously reiterated in Zurawski V Texas is the threat that any medical professional faces should they perform or assist in an abortion, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Molly Duane and her clients are arguing that if there any exceptions to Texas’ unreasonably strict laws that forbid abortions, it is unclear. The ladies are petitioning for a clarified explanation which never comes. Can’t they just get a straight answer on why exceptions for continued health care can not be executed?
I watched this documentary after I have already done my early voting ahead of the 2024 election. Amendment 4 is on the state of Florida ballot and it’s a clear Yes or No vote of whether abortions should be made legal. Zurawski V Texas goes beyond the typical Pro Life vs Pro Choice debate that will never satisfy this entire country. This age old argument is split down the middle, and now politicians and lawmakers seem to weaponize the topic to earn constituents’ favors and votes. In fact, it is the only reason I can figure for why Ken Paxton, the State of Texas Attorney General is always on the trail of each Molly’s wins within the Texas courthouses.
Molly will win her arguments while standing in front of one judge after another, but then the uncompromising Paxton will overrule the judgment literally within hours afterwards. Just as you are about to clap for her success, “Five hours later” appears on the screen.
The documentary covers the ladies’ families and friends who ask how can someone be Pro Life, while outlawing a medical procedure to save a life. Ken Paxton is the villain of this frightening story because any shred of reasoning from him is never provided while he exercises his stubborn authority. It’s monumentally unfair.
In the film, when Molly Duane takes the case to the Texas Supreme Court, it is astounding to see members of the court question why Molly and her clients are not going after the doctors who are denying the care that is needed. It’s a direct insult to the intelligence of these women who are suffering physically, mentally, professionally and even domestically. There are plenty of health care providers on the side of committing abortions to save the lives of the mothers and avoid any further suffering of embryos and newborns that cannot survive. However, how can doctors be expected to perform when the state threatens them with criminal charges, license suspensions, fines and incarcerations?
These professionals have earned the training to save lives. Yet a governing body is not allowing them to make fundamental, ethical and appropriate decisions for best interests of their patients.
Most documentaries will at least tell you in a byline that the producers reached out for comment from the other side, and usually that contingent declines to speak on the subject. I cannot assume that the filmmakers reached out to the opposition of this topic. People like Ken Paxton or even Governor Gregg Abbott and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. The film makes no claim to that idea. So, I wish there was an attempt to get an answer from the opposing parties. Still, we get footage of the naivety with governing figures asking questions that lack merit or substance, and worse, we get Paxton’s closeminded and unexplained reasoning for his overturning on cases legally ruled in favor of Molly Duane’s clients.
Maisie Crowe and Abbey Perrault have assembled an informative film that hopefully will influence votes and ongoing petitions for this important argument. The day after I post this article is Election Day, November 5, 2024. Abortions do not just fall exclusively into the category of reproductive rights and the right for women to decide what they want and do not want to do with their bodies. There’s even more at stake than that.
Zurawski V Texas presents a health crisis that never, ever should be a predicament. Our doctors have the knowledge and experience to do what is necessary to save the lives of mothers who carry with no fault or mistake or lack of sound judgment. They are women who chose or planned to become pregnant. Sadly, complications interfered like it can in any kind of health situation. Complications can occur during an appendectomy. Are doctors supposed to stop what they’re doing and check to be sure they won’t go to prison before they proceed any further? The same could be said with heart surgery or brain surgery. There are resolutions for these patients to escape terrible, life threatening risks. Yet, the weaponizing of a political argument for campaign wins stands in firmly in their way and disregards the simplicities of what can save human lives.
Last week, I declared one of the film’s at the 2024 AFI Film Fest was the best I’d seen this year, so far. That was Clint Eastwood’s Juror #2. Days later however, Zurawski V Texas stands at the top of the list.
This documentary might focus solely on the state of Texas, but the scenarios warn of a nationwide epidemic if the stringent rulings of our governing bodies continue to neglect basic health while the figures of authority work to prolong their political careers, at the cost of their constituent’s lives.
Zurawski V Texas is without a doubt the most important film made this year.
2 UNPAID MOVIE CRITICS!!!! 