Share this article

print logo


The News TV critic is so blinded by his own prejudice that he is unable to comment fairly on or judge the "Roe vs. Wade" movie either in form or content.

Overall, as a made-for-TV movie, it was better than most. The music was catchy and appropriate. The visual appeal of the various settings and scenes was well-conceived, mostly realistic and of high quality.

The acting was very good to excellent, with the annoying exception of Holly Hunter who really "overtwanged" her Texas twang. And we must applaud any producer/director/network that tries to elevate TV viewing by presenting a real issue in dramatic format.

Where does the movie fail? Every scene and almost every character is just too neat and clean. The bar scenes are too clean, the illegal abortion upper room is too neat, Ellen Russell is too trim and pretty. Additionally, some significant characters are not developed at all, including the pro-life DA, Henry Wade.

Is the treatment of the abortion issue fair? Absolutely not! The News critic claims that just because pro-life advocates are not pictured as pompous, self-righteous idiots that the movie is unbiased. Both points of view are presented, he claims. What journalistic hogwash!

There are plenty of relatively minor points, which could be delineated, that display a pro-choice bias. However, the major vehicle of bias is the subtle, yet pervasive, way in which the viewer is led to identify with and be rather sympathetic toward the girl who wanted to abort her baby and her "heroic" lawyer.

One question remains: Why is there no producer/director/network with the will and courage to make a high-quality prime-time movie that is just as blatantly biased in favor of the life of the unborn and against on-demand, convenience abortions?

At least the critic proves in his "Roe vs. Wade" column, beyond any doubt, that a few "fundamentalists" have not cornered the market on cheap shots and narrow-mindedness.


There are no comments - be the first to comment