By Dave Andrusko
McCorvey (Bruner), left, and Weddington (Agnew) tell it like it was. (Jenny Graham photo)
When playwright Lisa Loomer’s play “Roe” moved to Washington, D.C. from where it premiered at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival last April, she changed the last line of the play.
“Right now, with the Supreme Court behind us, Roe still stands” became “Right now, with the Supreme Court behind us, well, as of this moment, Roe still stands,” the Washington Post’s Lori McCue tells us in today’s newspaper.
As that might suggest, everyone associated with the play which tells the story of lawyer Sarah Weddington and Norma McCorvey (the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade) apparently is ‘pro-choice.”
“I remember thinking that our play was going to be part of Hillary Clinton’s history, that we were a part of that story with our play, showing up [in D.C.] at the same time,” Sara Bruner, who plays McCorvey, told McCue. “I don’t know how it will feel doing the play now. I don’t know how people will respond.”
But if we are to believe McCue, the play takes a real pass at “balance.” She quotes Sarah Jane Agnew, who plays Weddington
Despite their victory, the play doesn’t end with “My Body, My Choice” signs hoisted high, or with “girl power!” on any character’s lips.
“[The play] is not pro-choice,” Agnew says. “It’s about the divisive issue of reproductive rights. And it presents both sides very respectfully. It reminds us to be compassionate and look at another side and be considerate in a room with 500 other people for two hours — two-fifteen maybe, with pauses for laughter.”
What clues (from various reviews) suggest that, in fact, it won’t be the usual pro-abortion rant?
For one, according to McCue, the play takes great pains to “humanize” everyone involved; no stick figures need apply.
For another, we see that Weddington “blatantly uses McCorvey as a poster child to push her interest in reproductive rights.” To put it politely. They unconscionably exploited the very vulnerable McCorvey.
What could further not only balance but historical accuracy? To mention just two. How about (1) Norma never had an abortion; (2) her doctor “referred her to an adoption lawyer who, in turn, sent her to another lawyer who was on the lookout for a plaintiff,” according to Keri Blankinger. “Linda Coffee — along with colleague Sarah Weddington — met up with McCorvey in a Dallas diner and decided she’d be the perfect centerpiece for a class action suit.”
Evidently, the play—which takes the form of the two women looking back lo these many years later—does acknowledge what very, very few January 22 stories ever mention: that Norma became a staunch pro-life advocate. Year after year, story after story will include a picture of Norma and Weddington celebrating Roe without mentioning that they are now on opposite sides and have been for decades.
Here’s how an interview with Ontap magazine concluded:
OT: How do you think audiences will connect with your character?
Sarah Jane Agnew: In Ashland, [Oregon], the audiences tended to be very liberal, so they appeared to identify themselves with Sarah Weddington’s politics. We could determine this from the applause some lines received and the hissing that other text got. I guess I’m hoping for a more politically diverse audience in DC, and I welcome a bit more audience hissing on some of my lines. I should probably be cautious of what I wish for.
OT: How do you want the audience to leave the theater? Do you want to change minds? Do you want to find a way to connect opposing points of views? What’s the dialogue once the curtain goes down?
Sarah Jane Agnew: I don’t think the play sets out to win anyone over to any one side. The success of the piece is that it so very clearly and respectfully presents both sides of a very complicated and contentious issue, and asks the audience to spend two hours in consideration of a belief that is not their own. I do hope that people leave with a deeper understanding of how much jeopardy Roe v. Wade is in at this time.
Indeed. Let’s hope they do! The play opens tonight at the Arena Theatre.