After Tiller is nearly as difficult to watch as it is to write about. This 2013 documentary begins with the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, one of only four known doctors who would legally perform third-trimester abortions. Tiller, whose office has previously been the target of bombings, has previously been shot in the arm, and was ultimately shot and killed in his church.
It’s impossible to say that the film is not situation on one specific side of the Roe v. Wade argument. It is clearly pro-choice, but the ultimate goal of the film is to explain that late-term abortions are not commonplace procedures — they “account for fewer than 1% of all abortions in the United States” – but that they are also last resorts.
After Tiller’s death, there are only three known doctors in the country who will legally perform late-term abortions. Each of these doctors is interviewed and follows as they encounter various patients and scenarios that might lead to the decision to perform a late-term abortion. At times it is difficult to agree with each decision – whether on it is the patients’ or the doctors’, but the film does it’s best to explain why the doctor will or won’t provide the procedure.
The most popularized information in the documentary centers on the belief that procedures will only be performed if the child’s or the mother’s life is in danger. Exceptions are also made if the children will be born “with horrific fetal abnormalities,” like total paralysis or completely undeveloped brains.
It is not my intent to offer an analysis of what constitutes quality of life; nor is will I debate the Nebraska Abortion Law that prohibits late-term abortions on the grounds that there is “substantial evidence that an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.” This is a job best suited for the film.
My concern with the film is the existence of an issue that is too easily glossed over. At one point, a pregnant women who has decided to abort her fetus because it will have serious physical abnormalities asks what she should tell people when she returns from the clinic, as she was pregnant when she visited the doctor and she won’t be when she gets back home.
The doctor advises that the patient tells her family “the baby was sick; the baby didn’t make it.” All in all, this is the truth, and it’s a way for the patient to avoid lying to her family. At the same time, it’s a lie of omission and it is such because of the stigma attached to late-term abortions. Often, the procedure is depicted as a capricious one, one chosen out of fear, laziness, or irresponsibility. I won’t attempt to convince you otherwise, but I will suggest that burying the event in ambiguous language only makes it more nefarious. In this country, many rapes go unreported because the woman feels ashamed or feels that she will be dejected if she confesses to be a victim. Often, the onus of the blame ends up on her shoulders. The same can be said for the way in which late-term abortion – or abortion in general – is discussed. The woman – because it is her body – is riddled with the responsibilities, and, in turn, if she elects to have a late-term abortion, she is responsible for the fetus’ demise – regardless of the reasons for her choices. Perhaps they are irresponsible, though the film suggest a number of times that these procedures are not done willy-nilly. Perhaps the reasons are to prevent a child from growing up in a near catatonic state or in a world with no quality of life. Most of us will never know, but it is, in part, because we saddle someone else with the responsibility to choose and then refuse to hear about their actions or the factors that impelled them.