“Zurawski v Texas” (2024) is a documentary that starts with Amanda Zurawski’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2023. After she began to miscarry her child, Willow, Zurawski nearly died after her doctors could not perform an abortion because of the Texas Heartbeat Act, which was passed after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The film then follows the Center for Reproductive Rights’ Senior Attorney Molly Duane as they represent Zurawski and other plaintiffs against the State of Texas for failing to clarify the the act’s medical exemption. It ends soon after the Texas Supreme Court issues its decision.
“Zurawski v Texas” is a preach to the choir documentary with the agenda of converting people to believe that women should have access to health care, i.e. abortion, by covering the story from a human-interest angle. Unfortunately, abortion is such a political issue that the people who need to see it won’t, and the people who will are already on board. Because the personal stories are so innately compelling, the documentary will be successful if a sadly growing number of American women who find themselves in a similar position want to learn about how other women handled the predicament. In addition, it may be an effective tool for galvanizing the base.
“Zurawski v Texas” is not the equivalent of a courtroom drama. The first act is the case prep, but also introduces viewers to the four main documentary participants. Duane is shown at her office and home, interacting with colleagues, traveling around the country, holding press conferences, meeting with clients and arguing her case in court. Zurawski is introduced as a public figure and shows her private side, which includes reaching out to women facing a similar crisis. The film’s biggest surprise is Samantha Casiano and her family who are courageous enough to never hide their honest emotion, which includes when a pastor at her daughter’s funeral sidesteps her response that she was forced to give birth to a baby who died. If she could have fired him at that precise moment, she would have. Her partner, Luis, is similarly vulnerable as the film charts his turbulent virtual journey. While the others talk about how Texas has disrupted their lives, Casiano and her family show it. Dr. Austin Dennard is a professional who could not help her patients or herself, but had the means to leave the state to ensure that she could have babies in the future. The second act is a straightforward recording of their testimony with the camera focused on their testimony and the trial judge’s reaction. The third act covers the trial hearing’s aftermath.
Unlike most filmmakers who make documentaries of this type, directors Maisie Crow and Abbie Perrault are not afraid of ending on a down note and lay out how bleak this situation is though everyone is unbowed and still pushing forward. While no one is giving up or contemplating anything but civil, legal responses, the state government is no longer responsive to its citizens, and there are no legal options, which is usually when life gets dangerous historically. If people lose faith in the government, it can lead to people wondering if government is needed, which can eventually lead to chaos and unrest, but because women are assumed to be less innately violent, no one seems to be concerned about that. It is outside the documentary’s scope to look back at how Americans responded under similar conditions. Zurawski’s Indiana family does seem swayed to no longer vote Republican in front of the cameras, but only God and the Secretary of State will know if they will actually use their vote to avenge their family come November.
Otherwise “Zurawski v Texas” is a fairly conventional documentary. The filmmakers use skyline shots of the participants’ location to establish where the action is unfolding before showing the person interacting with others or being interviewed exclusively for the film. There is some innovative editing when it alternates between showing the participant in front of a computer screen engaging with someone virtually before screen casting the Zoom screen and showing the participant in a Brady Bunch like style. It provides a little variety to make the film feel dynamic and less static. It also makes the viewer feel as if they are invited to the meeting. There is the expected montage of various news reports about the events that the film witnesses firsthand.
“Zurawski v Texas” can be frustrating. A film is not just a product of advocacy, but any filmmaker should imagine that people decades or even a century from now will watch it. If filmmakers ask themselves if their future audience will understand what is going on, especially if it is a story about the impact of bureaucracy on the average every woman, it can make the narrative clearer for current moviegoers who may not be coming to the movie with a lot of subject matter knowledge. It is not until later in the film that the year is mentioned, and there is an assumption that the average person is familiar with the legal process, the name of landmark abortion cases, national and state government, etc. There is one scene where Zurawski’s husband is understandably outraged at the response of the Texas Medical Board’s President Sherif Zaafran, but the response is legally accurate. Legal is not the same as compassionate or the right answer. It is a waste of time to engage someone who literally cannot help you instead of figuring out another solution or agitating against those who have the power but refuse act. It does succeed in terms of optics and making the State of Texas seem recalcitrant. Of course, the same could be said about filing any legal complaint since the US’ federal judiciary is in the same position as the citizens in the State of Texas, and SCOTUS is unlikely to come to the rescue even if victory is achieved on the state level then appealed. It is unfortunate that the legal system is beginning to have more in common with post-World War II Polish kangaroo courts.
It is a small point, but it would not have hurt to offer the name and position of every person who appears on screen. For the majority of “Zurawski v Texas,” Casiano’s deceased daughter, Halo, was mentioned more than her mother’s name, which inadvertently, subliminally reinforces the State of Texas’ position that the baby is more important than the mother. Her name never appears on screen, or if it does, it is a blink and miss it moment. Dennard’s name only appears in the denouement because her name diegetically appears during the US Senate Democrats Briefing State of Abortion Rights. These details reflect that the film leans into prioritizing certain racial images. Casiano is a woman of color.
“Zurawski v Texas” mostly reinforces gender norms. It is the equivalent of respectability politics in the Civil Rights Movement. Only Duane gets to almost exclusively be associated with images of having a career. To be fair, most of Duane colleagues shown onscreen are never identified except for her supervisor and one person posing questions offscreen during the trial. While Dennard gets to wear blue scrubs or give medical advice to patients on the phone, she must even the scales by exclusively nesting or caring for the baby. There is no way to soften her performance on the stand, which was a great way to see her as more than just the comfortable, acceptable nurturing woman. The most glaring moment was when Zurawski discusses how overwhelmed she is with preparing for the trial hearing, talking to other people in her situation and caring for her mother’s medical issues, she is simultaneously preparing a meal for her husband, Josh, and her brother-in-law Sam. To be fair, maybe she always does that, hates take out, and cooking relaxes her, but the movie includes it to show that these are good, traditional women who only want to have and serve their families, not baby murderers. Hate the player, not the game is hard. Maybe these men offered to lighten her load and offered to make food or take her out, but the film is not about proliferating images of men who are willing to engage in invisible and emotional labor. Nope, even with the weight of the world on her shoulders, women still serve men, and men receive. Luis’ highs and lows are more refreshing. He is the one who gets the recycling bin for his woman to puke into and supports her, but he also falls hard, and she lets him know it. Their relationship may be on the rocks, but the portrait is a realistic slice of life and more relatable to the average person. Borrowing from trad wife media images feels remote and maybe even elitist.
The filmmakers may not realize it, but “Zurawski v Texas” may have accidentally chronicled the evils of how the agentic state works. During the trial, the State of Texas’ attorneys are never named or shown, but the person sounds like a woman. Whereas during the most powerful section of the film, when Kate Cox, a woman in the throes of a medical crisis, has a Zoom hearing, the State of Texas’ attorney is shown and according to proper procedure, states his name. This person is a Black man. So, the insensitive face of anti-abortion is equated with a Black man, which may be accurate, but is not demographically representative. The State of Texas protects certain types of women and men, but not others, and unsurprisingly those lines are drawn in a predictable fashion when it is time to choose a face for the agentic state. It would be interesting to know the actual demographic numbers of attorneys who represent the State of Texas. Do Black men make up most State of Texas’ attorneys? These behind-the-scenes choices, even if subconscious or according to some preestablished procedure, are predictable and are as instructional as what the filmmakers are consciously trying to convey.
“Zurawski v Texas” tells a story that needs to be told, but it is such an important subject with so many people’s lives at risk that it feels as if falls a sliver too short by playing it safe. If Maggie Kuhn was a film reviewer, she may write “film the truth even if your camera metaphorically shakes.” If the film was a little less self-conscious and more comfortable with not being media perfect. While it uses the tools of cinema verité, it stifles the mere appearance of naturalism and spontaneity.
