But the poor actions of her opponents does not absolve Dr. Wicklund of her responsibility for the deaths of half of her patients — specifically the unborn. If Doctors have sworn to “do no harm”, and there are Doctors who specialize in the health of unborn children, how can she in good conscience specialize in killing these same unborn. The only difference between the aborted child that she grieved over after discovering that it was not the result of rape, and her other abortions is the story that surround it’s. In both cases she is killing a child.

By the same token Dr. Wicklund applauds the Supreme Court decision that says that the Federal government cannot forbid abortions, but yet she reserves for herself the right to make that same decision for her patients. It doesn’t make sense that a decision over something as sacred as the life or death of a (to date healthy) human should legally be left to an individual third party as opposed to being regulated by the State (aka: society).

It’s clear that she is sincere in her beliefs. I argue that this sincerity masks some obvious contradictions which are as clear as those of her patients who are pro-life.

It would have been nice to hear WBUR mark Roe v. Wade by also having as empathetic of an interview with an author from the Pro-life side too.

I came away feeling that there are two stories being told in this film. One is the feel good fairy tale, and the other is about what life is like for orphans in India. I was horrified at the whole orphanage scene. Ms. Chaudhari spoke of the anxiety she was feeling. I, too, felt very anxious. By the end of the film, I realized that I had been gripping my cup-holder for most of the film.

Ultimately, I think one’s reaction to the film depends on which story one focuses on. We did not leave the movie theater feeling good about the unrealistic fairy tale after seeing the reality of so many orphans in India.

Sincerely,

karen stevens