By: Matthew Hallick
The irony of Ms. Zoratti’s “review” of Unplanned is stunning. In her—aptly labelled—opinion piece, Zorrati lambastes the Pure Flix production for being a piece of pandering pro-life propaganda. She then proceeds to regurgitate the same old hack-kneed pro-abortion talking points throughout the remainder of her article. Perhaps she has spent too much time in her echo chamber to recognize her cognitive dissonance?
Ms. Zoratti tips her hand as a partisan hack from the beginning. She couldn’t even bring herself to describe the thesis of the movie without launching into a question-begging epithet. She employs slanted language to suggest Abby Johnson has clearly devolved in her position on abortion: Planned Parenthood “helps women,” naturally implying that those who oppose the organization “harass” them.
Ms. Zoratti complains that the film unfairly portrays Planned Parenthood as greedy for financial gain. The reality she conveniently glosses over is that Planned Parenthood and its workers profit from abortion. Abortion is indeed big business. According to Forbes, Planned Parenthood had a surplus of $99 million for the fiscal year of 2017. Its highest earner—presumably the recently ousted president, Leana Wen—took home an astonishing $744,833.
But, protests Zoratti, abortion is only a fraction of the services Planned Parenthood provides. She suggests abortion is only “3.4 per cent” of the “reproductive health services” rendered by America’s largest abortion provider. Unfortunately, for Ms. Zoratti, this figure has been thoroughly debunked, even receiving three Pinnocio noses from the Washington Post’s fact-checker and a harsh critique from Slate. Planned Parenthood manipulates this percentage by stacking services and counting all services, no matter how small, equally. By its own figures, the number of services provided by the organization considerably outnumbers the number of patients served: 9.7 million services rendered to 2.4 million patients. Those same numbers show that out of the 2.4 million patients, 323,999 patients had an abortion. This means that roughly 1 out of 8 patients, not 1 out 33, obtained an abortion. Simple math using the organization’s own statistics proves their deceitfulness.
Nevertheless, even if one accepts Planned Parenthood‘s 3.4 percent figure, only an organization as morally perverse as Planned Parenthood would justify receiving over half a billion dollars in tax-payer funds by boasting that killing humans is only a small percentage of what they do.
In reality, Planned Parenthood is first-and-foremost an abortion provider. But don’t take my word for it. The recently canned President Wen admitted as much in a Buzzed article when she suggested expanding abortion care was the “core mission” of the organization. Planned Parenthood is an abortion corporation that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year off the procedure, which can range anywhere from $390-1,500 per abortion. It’s by no means an exaggeration for the film to state that Planned Parenthood has made a fortune off killing the pre-born—its their low-cost high-profit item.
Zoratti’s piece proceeds to raise further complaints about Unplanned‘s “unfair” portrayal of abortion. She criticizes the film for presenting abortion as “dangerous” and “scary.” This, however, proves the accuracy of the film, not its inaccuracy. The fact of the matter is that abortion is dangerous and scary. “Successful” abortions rely upon the killing of an innocent, whole, human being. What kind of “healthcare” is only successful when one of the patients dies every time? Conveniently, Zorrati and her ilk, avoid this question entirely by ruling out the life of the unborn a priori—begging the question yet again.
As much as Zoratti accuses Unplanned of being inaccurate, getting the facts right doesn’t appear to be as important to her as proving her pro-abortion bona fides. For example, she out-right lies when she states the film claims that 13-week old fetuses feel pain: it doesn’t. Is the abortion at the beginning of the movie of a 13-week old? Yes. But the film never makes the claim attributed to it.
Herein lies the problem; Abortion advocates refuse to ask the hard questions. They refuse to stare reality in the face. It is imperative to their cause that they utilize euphemistic language as a means of obfuscation—look at the name Planned Parenthood, for instance. Pro-aborts use language such as “reproductive rights, health care, and freedom,” and the most commonly applied “pro-choice” to present abortion as a benign service. They attempt to avoid the crux of the issue by any means necessary. One need not look any further than Zoaratti’s article to see a glowing example of such propaganda.
The reason pro-aborts protest Unplanned, and all those who would dare let it get a fair showing, is that it exposes an inconvenient truth: abortion is the direct and intentional killing of distinct, innocent, whole human life.
This fact isn’t controversial. Again, don’t take my word for it, listen to the words of “pro-choice” advocate Kathleen McDonnell, “Abortion is in some sense an act of violence, and indisputably results in the termination of a life.” Here McDonnell echoes the same sentiments expressed by other abortion advocates such as Naomi Wolfe, Judith Arcana, Julie Black, Willie Parker, and the list goes on.
The acknowledgement of the fact that abortion is the killing of a human being is just one aspect of the evolving views of pro-aborts. Pro-aborts today are far from their former position that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Despite their admission that abortion is killing, and therefore unsafe, the new cry of the “progressives” is abortion should be “legal, tax-funded, often, and without shame.” This cry is implicit in the latter portion of Zoratti’s article.
The litany of mischaracterizations, inaccuracies and glosses embodied in Zoratti’s article achieve her desired end: sluffing off Unplanned as irrelevant. You ought not take her word for it.
Far from being irrelevant, Abby Johnson’s testimony is just one of many examples of those who have gone from ardently “pro-choice” to vehemently pro-life. These converts include such high profile individuals as former abortionists Anothy Levitino (appears in Unplanned) and Dr. Bernard Nathanson. The list also includes both Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”) and Sandra Cano (“Jane Doe”) from the two landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
Unplanned’s biggest strength is in showing the violence of the act of abortion and the humanity of the pre-born lives. Only those as callous as Ms. Zoratti can deem such things irrelevant. Regardless of what one thinks of the movie’s artistic display, it represents a growing and increasingly vocal, pro-life movement in North America and around the world. This movement, despite all odds and even death threats, successfully petition movie theatres around the world to lift their boycott. Regardless of Unplanned’s staying power, the strength of the pro-life movement is not so easily dismissed or forgotten.
Zoratti’s opinion piece is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. It is an example of prejudicial conjecture writ large. It’s not just fiction, It’s a pro-aborts fever dream that will only appeal to “people (who) like having their beliefs reinforced and reflected back to them—even if those beliefs are built on a foundation of lies and misinformation.”