Recently some have wondered what our response is to critics of the film who claim that the film is biased or misleading. So for the sake of those who are concerned about the legitimacy of the film, here is our public response:
“The production team of HUSH stands behind the fact that we did everything in our power to create a balanced and honest documentary. Working with a team that included a Pro-Choice Director, Neutral Producer/Editor, and Pro-Life Executive Producer was not easy, but it caused us to second guess every bit of research, every interviewee, and every edit. We are very proud of the approach that we’ve taken that is neither anti-abortion nor pro-abortion, and responses from viewers at international screenings have found this to be evident. HUSH allows viewers to maintain their personal views on the morality and legality of abortion, just as we three have maintained our personal views.
The scientific presentation of the film has yet to be addressed or contradicted by any critic, instead some critics have attempted to attack the legitimacy and motivations of the investigation. But we were thoroughly aware throughout the Production process of the individuals we were interviewing and how many have been related to either anti-abortion or abortion-defense agendas, and the film has attempted to be explicit about those biases for the sake of the audience. It is truly regrettable that we were not able to get more interviews from important organizations who have made statements on these issues. Instead we were forced to present in the film the wall of request denials that we faced which included the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, Canadian Cancer Society, Royal College of Obstetrician Gynecologists, Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute, the World Health Organization, the Komen foundation and many other Breast Cancer organizations, multiple individual abortion clinics in the U.S. and Canada, and a large number of specific researchers who had published studies around these subjects. In spite of denying to speak, we attempted to take the views of these organizations and include them in the presentation. If there is an imbalance of interviewees in the film, this is why; the ‘hush’ around this subject was evident.
The main goal of HUSH is to advocate for more research, better research, and more balanced research, rather than a closed and shut case to these topics as is often claimed. As with any documentary, it should be viewed with an open-mind, and taken with a grain of salt. We hope to encourage thoughtful and healthy discussion, disagreement, questioning and further research from our audiences.”