When I watched this classic from Republic Pictures, a scene between a female lawyer and her female client caught my attention:
LAWYER: Why didn't you tell them you were going to have a baby? It might have made a difference in the verdict.
CLIENT: I didn't tell because I didn't want it to be born.
LAWYER: But you realize you might have taken that baby to the electric chair with you?
CLIENT: Yes.
LAWYER: Why would you want to kill him? It was your crime, not his. He has a right to live just as he had a right to be born.
The dialogue seems anti-abortion in nature. Interestingly, the script was written in the late 1940s by a woman and a man, and it presents a conservative view of feminism. Not the radical left feminism that has since become popular.
The exchange occurs after the title character (Vera Ralston) has been found guilty of murder. Her execution has been postponed, because of pregnancy. The state will not allow an unborn child to be put to death. Ralston's character is still in prison. There is no get out of jail free card being played.
In the next part of the story the lawyer, played by Ruth Hussey, fights to have Ralston's case retried on appeal. Prosecuting attorneys (John Howard and Gene Lockhart) make strong arguments to the jury that they should not have sympathy for Ralston since she did in fact murder the father of the baby. With Hussey's help, Ralston gets off and is cleared of the murder charge.
What makes this film interesting is that we have a woman in peril represented by a career woman whose job comes at the cost of marriage and domestic tranquility. The twist is that Ralston and Hussey were both married to the same man (John Carroll).
As I watched the film, the scene I quoted really stood out to me...because the screenwriters are using the basic scenario to bolster the point of view that a child should still be born despite the murky circumstances of its conception. Later there's another twist involving the baby.
I think this is a film people should watch and judge for themselves. It has morally gray areas. A lot of men had come home from the war, hiding the fact that they'd been with other women abroad. In this story, the man had become a bigamist and was found out. The filmmakers do not fully demonize him. Instead they turn his quandary into a morality tale to preserve the sanctity of the American home.
LAWYER: Why didn't you tell them you were going to have a baby? It might have made a difference in the verdict.
CLIENT: I didn't tell because I didn't want it to be born.
LAWYER: But you realize you might have taken that baby to the electric chair with you?
CLIENT: Yes.
LAWYER: Why would you want to kill him? It was your crime, not his. He has a right to live just as he had a right to be born.
The dialogue seems anti-abortion in nature. Interestingly, the script was written in the late 1940s by a woman and a man, and it presents a conservative view of feminism. Not the radical left feminism that has since become popular.
The exchange occurs after the title character (Vera Ralston) has been found guilty of murder. Her execution has been postponed, because of pregnancy. The state will not allow an unborn child to be put to death. Ralston's character is still in prison. There is no get out of jail free card being played.
In the next part of the story the lawyer, played by Ruth Hussey, fights to have Ralston's case retried on appeal. Prosecuting attorneys (John Howard and Gene Lockhart) make strong arguments to the jury that they should not have sympathy for Ralston since she did in fact murder the father of the baby. With Hussey's help, Ralston gets off and is cleared of the murder charge.
What makes this film interesting is that we have a woman in peril represented by a career woman whose job comes at the cost of marriage and domestic tranquility. The twist is that Ralston and Hussey were both married to the same man (John Carroll).
As I watched the film, the scene I quoted really stood out to me...because the screenwriters are using the basic scenario to bolster the point of view that a child should still be born despite the murky circumstances of its conception. Later there's another twist involving the baby.
I think this is a film people should watch and judge for themselves. It has morally gray areas. A lot of men had come home from the war, hiding the fact that they'd been with other women abroad. In this story, the man had become a bigamist and was found out. The filmmakers do not fully demonize him. Instead they turn his quandary into a morality tale to preserve the sanctity of the American home.