By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha.
The Donna Stern character played by Jenny Slate in “Obvious Child”
It’s been a long time now, but I clearly remember the “take-aways” from a panel I was once a part of at a professional journalism association. There were two.
I was on with the owner of an abortion clinic. She simply made, how shall I put it, misstatements about abortion in general, what her clinic did, in particular. When I politely pointed out the egregious errors, you could have heard a pin drop.
Lesson: it helps to know what you’re talking about and especially what your pro-abortion counterpart might say and which rabbit trails they most likely will want the conversation to go down.
The other was when somebody said, “No one is ‘pro-abortion.’”
That panel conversation came to mind this afternoon when something I wrote this morning led me to re-read something I’d written about “Obvious Child,” the “abortion-themed romantic company.”
Why? Two reasons.
First, if you think back, what most of the early reviews of the movie, love most of all about Jenny Slate’s character (Donna Stern) is that contemplating, joking about, and actually having the abortion has no discernible impact on Stern. Message? No Big Deal.
Actually, there’s more, come to think of it. Everybody who is informed (including the clueless boyfriend) about the abortion is supportive and the women (of course) have had an abortion of their own. Message? Everyone’s doing it, so No Big Deal.
They—and the many that cluster around pro-abortion sites such as rewire.org—aren’t pro-abortion? Really? But what is their two-fold message?
First, nobody can ever say anything about any abortion, no matter how frivolous the reason, no matter how old the baby is, and regardless whether this is the first or the fifth abortion. It’s the woman’s decision.
And how can anything be “wrong” when it happens so often? The rebuttal to that 7th grade sophistry is too obvious to belabor.
Second, what is the title, “Obvious Child,” an allusion to? Who knows for sure but best guesses are that it refers to Donna Stern. She is “obviously” a child and therefore (a) it is absurd to pass judgment on her behavior, and (b) she is too young to be a mother.
So, director Gillian Robespierre has it both ways: The Stern character (a foul-mouthed stand-up comic) is too immature to be held accountable; and even if she weren’t a “child,” it would make no difference. Conveniently, the former gives cover, as it were, to the latter.
This led me to re-reread a review that ran in the New York Daily News, written by Laura J. Vogel. Get a load of this:
But in interviews, Robespierre and Slate clearly anticipate some criticism from the pro-life crowd.
“I would be lying if I didn’t say I have a bit of fear of how pro-life people will perceive it,” says the filmmaker. “However, I think they aren’t going to see the movie anyway, which is too bad, because I wanted to get through as much as I could without judgment.”
Truth be told, such people may not take kindly to a Saturday-night date movie that involves a drunken one-night stand that leads to a woman deciding to abort, without reservation or guilt.
“We wanted to show something that was straightforward — a woman not conflicted about having an abortion,” says Robespierre, 35. “Donna is a character who is not emotionally or financially able to have a child at this point in her life. We didn’t want a conflict about her decision.”
To which Vogel snarkily adds, “No conflict? About abortion? In America? Many still believe that such a decision should come with a scarlet A to sew on your clothes.”
“Without judgment”? “The pro-life crowd”? “A scarlet A”?
Just guessing I strongly suspect that Robespierre is no more worried about the “pro-life crowd” than Vogel is. Like the baby, we are just another punch line to emphasize the message that destroying defenseless life is trivial—so get over it!