Towards Reproductive Justice and Debates on Abortion — Representation in Film
By: Megan Athaide
Tags: Rights, Film, Feminism, Analysis, Opinion

It’s my goal for this blog to be a safe, accepting, and open-minded space. It is important for discussions surrounding reproductive justice and abortion to be respectful. I am interpreting this film from a transnational, intersectional feminist perspective. Many of the ideas and thoughts mentioned in this post are ones that I am still reflecting, working towards building upon, and educating myself about.

Obvious Child (2014) is a romantic comedy about Donna Stern, a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy. This movie demonstrates common misconceptions of reproductive justice and takes on a view of abortion that plays heavily into the problematic paradigm of choice (Smith, 2005, p. 129).

One of the main headings used are “The choices we make.” This is reflective of Smith’s (2005) discussion on the choice paradigm as it focuses on the neoliberal individual and does not consider intersectionality in reproductive rights as individuals under various political, economic, and social circumstances are not able to make these choices. Donna decides to get an abortion, it is important to acknowledge the privilege of choice as abortion is accessible to her. Solinger argues that when it comes to moving towards reproductive justice it is critical to use the word “rights” instead of “choice” because a right is known as something that is all humans and is independent of additional resources (as cited in Smith, 2005, p. 128). The view of abortion as a choice that this movie embraces contributes to a narrative of abortion that does not acknowledge the marginalization and discrimination of women who do not get to make this choice.

The movie discusses and questions the reliability and accessibility of contraceptives. Donna discusses using a condom, highlighting the common ideology of contraception based on pro-choice arguments being that women should be able to choose the method of contraception they prefer (Smith, 2005, p. 131). Donna works two jobs and by this, it may be understood that the expense and furthermore, capitalist ideals surrounding the notion of pro-choice create a difficulty in accessing reliable and safe contraception.

This movie brings religious beliefs to the forefront in the discussion of abortion. Donna underlines the fact that her partner, Max is Christian whereas she is Jewish. Norrander and Wilcox (1999) argue that when it comes issues dealing with morality, individuals have more stable opinions, translating into state legislators having strong opinions and enforcement around laws on abortions. Donna’s weariness to inform her partner is based on this correlation as opinions are often prescribed by different religious organizations such as Catholicism (Norrander & Wilcox, 1999).

An inner conflict that Donna has is the debate of whether or not she should tell Max about her pregnancy and her decision to have an abortion. Further contributing to the dialogue on the individualization of choice, her friend suggests that she does not need to tell him because it is her choice. This is contrary to many of the laws surrounding reproductive rights by which third-party permission is a requirement in many countries. Ordolis (2008) discusses the constitutional decisions made in Colombia that focus on the equality of women in framing laws surrounding abortion recognizing women’s reproductive rights as human rights. According to Ordolis (2008), the Colombian constitution removed the requirement of permission from spouses, partners, or parents for a woman go through with getting an abortion, therefore, giving women agency over their bodies. Donna exercises agency over her body by deciding to get an abortion but chooses to let her partner know of her own accord. The film does not regard how women under different circumstances whether it be how they are positioned in society or the relationships they are in impact their accessibility to the paradigm of choice.

The main takeaway from this film is that it discusses abortion as a choice rather than a right, therefore, lacking an intersectional perspective and discourse about the marginalization of women with regards to reproductive justice. Of course, we can’t expect one film to talk about everything and that being said I think it was a start. It is beneficial to have films that create space for and destigmatize conversations about reproductive justice and the debate surrounding abortion. Storytelling is important and powerful. In the movement towards reproductive justice, it is integral to share, connect, build, and create positive change.

Disclaimer: This essay is meant to be a critique. The views and opinions expressed in this essay are my own.

References

Movieclips Trailers. (2014, May 9). Obvious Child Official Trailer #1 (2014) — Jenny Slate, Jake Lacy Comedy HD. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7uSIjFCa0

Norrander, B. and C. Wilcox. 1999. “Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy (Links to an external site.).” Policy Studies Journal 27: 707–722.

Ordolis, E. 2008. “Lessons from Colombia: Abortion, Equality, and Constitutional Choices.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 20(2): 263–288

Smith, A. 2005. “Beyond Pro-choice Versus Pro-life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice.” NWSA Journal 17(1): 119–140.