WATCH THE TRAILER

SYNOPSIS

A pregnant person checks into a modest hotel room where they await their abortion procedure for twenty-four hours. Cycling through periods of activity and stillness, the subject begins to unravel with each passing hour, revealing the emotional and psychological depths of their experience. Veiled by the private room, we see the reproductive body as a contested site, their isolation transforms the mundane into a living taboo. With minimal spoken dialogue, the subject’s gaze and actions function as a narrative driver, allowing the story to unfold of a person in negotiation between their independence and confinement. The viewer must confront their own apathy and voyeurism.

1440 minutes, 24 hours
audio/subtitled

Director’s Statement

Reproductive health access is subject to volatile partisan politics influencing the availability and accessibility of services that impact the lives of millions. This is particularly true in 2023, as constitutional protections previously provided under Roe v Wade dissolve. In “blue” states where abortion remains legal, access to clinic care is sparse if not completely inaccessible for many who live as far as hundreds of miles to the nearest provider. In “red” states, abortion provisions have been classified as criminal, forcing those seeking surgical abortion care out of state, the cost of which is often insurmountable.

Each year, policymakers pass anti-abortion legislation that both benefits the political careers of legislative sponsors and reinforces the divide between those directly impacted by these policies. How can we measure the impact of forcing someone to travel out of state to obtain critical medical care when we refuse to consider the experience of those who have lived it? Not only do abortion restrictions fail to take into consideration the experiences of those forced to contend with them, they don’t even consider whether restrictions succeed in reducing the rate of abortion (spoiler: they don’t). Given this hard truth, one might ask, what is the purpose of these laws if not to punish and harm those whom they directly target?

An Undue Burden asks us to reconsider the impact of anti-abortion legislation, in particular, the burden of being forced to travel extreme distances for medical care and contend with additional barriers such as mandated waiting periods, parental approval, and state sanctioned ultrasound viewings. Does “choice” exist when access is unreachable? Should someone’s zip code, income, access to childcare, etc. determine who obtains care and who is left behind?

This film focuses on the lived experience of pregnant people who are forced to comply with anti-abortion restrictions. Rather than lingering in the debate between ‘pro-life,’ and ‘pro-choice,’ I encourage you to consider the moral responsibility placed upon all of us to reduce unnecessary suffering. Objectively, does anti-abortion legislation accomplish what it is intended to do? Is there an alternative approach to reducing unintended pregnancies that preserves the lives and dignities of all? Can we even begin to understand the experience of those directly impacted by these laws when their stories are nearly absent in the political debate? This film is intended to place the public in a position to reckon with these questions and provide an opportunity to meditate on the impact of our collective action (or inaction).