In fact, the first paragraph of that Variety review pretty much says it all about how the media forces of conformity see the world.

To seriously consider “Roe v. Wade” — that is, writer-directors Cathy Allyn and Nick Loeb’s atrocious anti-abortion propaganda piece and not the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in favor of abortion rights — it is helpful to remember a 2017 quote by journalist Chuck Todd. “Alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods,” Todd succinctly said when confronting Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway on her use of the term. While the Trump era that Conway’s expression sums up is behind us, “Roe v. Wade” has reportedly been in the works for the past three years, so it’s fair to reflect on the baffling film as a product of that period, when right-wing fabrications were routinely presented as truth.

Chuck Todd’s supposedly brilliant ode to black-and-white thinking has been repeated often by left-leaning chinstrokers who find the very concept of debate and discussion to be a waste of time, especially when you have facts to avoid. The simple principle is that “alternative facts” often aren’t falsehoods at all. They just represent truth looked at from another perspective. The idea that opposing parties can both have facts on their side, albeit different ones, seems to elude the comprehension of nascent totalitarians who can’t quite handle nuance. They must by right, you must be wrong and your movie must be the result of “staggering ineptitude” with an “amateurish cast” (even if it includes several successful actors led by multiple award winner Jon Voight). The irony is that, in the big picture, facts and science appear to mean virtually nothing to the Toddites. The only question that matters is does it serve the narrative they are presenting.

Now, I actually have a couple of problems with Roe v. Wade (which I mentioned in my review) and, certainly, everyone has a right to their opinion about a movie but I think labeling the film as “staggering ineptitude” is more like wishful thinking than actual analysis. Likewise, dissing a clearly professional, experienced and accomplished cast as “amateurish” is just schoolyard-level name calling.

That said, I did recently have the opportunity to talk with Nick Loeb who, besides starring in and directing the film, was also one of it producers. I figured, he had to see all the criticism coming.

JWK: What led you to take on such a controversial subject?

Nick Loeb: No one had made a (theatrical) movie on the most famous court case in American history and, as a filmmaker, I was surprised by that…I mean this is a court case that every single American has heard of and no one has done a real full Hollywood movie of how it came to be and how it was decided

JWK: What do you hope people take from it when they see it?

NL: The truth and an understanding of the inner-workings of the Supreme Court. I don’t think many other films have really has really gone into the Supreme Court. I think it’s sort of an interesting look inside at how they make their decisions. They talk to each other and converse. And, really, the truth of what happened and how it came to be.

JWK: I actually did find the Supreme Court scenes very interesting. I never knew or realized that the case was actually heard twice and that the first time there were only seven members on the Court.

NL: Yeah. A lot of people don’t know that.

JWK: You really did assemble an all-star cast for this movie. I mean, besides yourself, you have Jon Voight as Chief Justice Warren Burger, John Schneider as Justice Byron White, Steve Guttenberg as Justice Lewis Powell, Robert Davi as Justice William Brennan and Corbin Bernsen as Justice Harry Blackmun. Plus you’ve got established film and TV stars like Jamie Kennedy, Joey Lawrence and Tom Guiry. Did any of them express any trepidation about how doing a movie like this may affect their careers?

NL: I think a few of them, the younger (cast members) maybe. I think the older ones not so much. I think the younger ones could be potentially a little nervous about it.

NL: When we cast Mike a couple of years ago he wasn’t political. He’s only really become that political (recently). Same with Roger. I mean Roger hadn’t gotten arrested or anything. It’s sort of serendipitous that Roger and Mike throughout the last year have gotten rather well known. You know, listen, they’re in it for thirty seconds.

JWK: This is sort of dangerous territory but I can see a parallel between how abortion has become a sort of unquestioned dogma in establishment media. It’s not really treated as an issue anymore that is in anyway up for debate. There’s no real questioning about it allowed. I kind of see the same sort of media and political forces aligned against even the most basic questioning of last November’s election process.

NL: This is all sort of relatively new in the last couple of months where our speech has been attacked and it’s very nerve wracking.

NL: There’s been some reviews that are out there already that are phenomenal. There’s a review in The New American which is phenomenal.

NL: Yeah, I’m sure when the other reviewers review it we’ll get slammed.

NL: Really the most difficult thing was raising the money. I mean we really only had one person walk off (the set)…That was really it. I don’t think we had any more struggles than most independent films do – which always have challenges. But the media like to embellish it (and) make it bigger because of the subject matter of our film. So, yeah, we had struggles with some locations. We had struggles with one crew member. One actress wanted to do the movie and then changed her mind. Some locations had us there one day then the next changed their mind.

NL: Of course. But, with all of that, on the opposite we had a lot of support. People were coming out and offering us stuff for free. You know, people who were on the other side of the issue.

NL: Sure but most independent movies don’t go on The Today Show anyway. We’ve been getting a lot of press. Look, the average movie doesn’t go on news shows. We’ll be going on Fox and Newsmax and there are also some other shows that we are doing that are more Hollywood focused…Whether they want to support us or pan us, that’s to be determined.

NL: I am personally pro-life, yes.

NL: They gave us money.

JWK: There is a part of the film that I could see as being a bit problematic – where some Jewish and Protestant clerics are portrayed as sort of being part of – or being used – in the push to promote abortion. I’m thinking particularly about the part that deals with having a rabbi on the phone and hooking people up with abortions. I could see how that could be latched onto as an issue.

NL: What’s the question?

JWK: Are you concerned that critics could construe that as sort of anti-Semitic?

NL: That’s completely ridiculous. I’m Jewish.  The producing, directing and writing partners are Jewish. A lot of Jews were involved in financing the film. So, laying out the fact that rabbis were involved in helping people get abortions, I mean, I don’t know how you would see that as anti-Semitic.

NL: We sort of spell it out in the film. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Her focus on creating Planned Parenthood was really to reduce a segment of the population – the Black population, Italians, Jews. It was all folks that she felt were sort of non-worthy of life. Her focus really was through sterilization and contraception. I find it most interesting (that) she was opposed to abortion. If you read her book, she believed also that life began at conception and she was not pro-abortion. When she was alive there was no legalization of abortion. So, you’ve got an organization that makes (millions) a year off abortion (but) their founder was anti-abortion.

JWK: Your movie covers the public conversion of Norma McCorvey from being the Roe in Roe v. Wade to being an anti-abortion activist. I had spoken to her myself when I produced a morning show for the Catholic Channel on SiriusXM and I recall finding her quite convincing. But an FX documentary, which I just recently read about and haven’t seen, apparently claims to have her “deathbed confession” in which she claims her conversion was all a financially-motivated act. I’m sure you’re aware of that. Your thoughts – and do you think that controversy should have been mentioned in your film?

NL: I’m very much aware of it. The movie’s not about Norma. The movie’s about the times Norma was lied to. It’s irrelevant, her position on abortion. And she was really an irrelevant part to Roe. She was used, manipulated and lied to and never talked to again…Who knows the real truth?…I think it’s irrelevant. It’s great fodder for the liberal media.

NL: I completely agree…(We) don’t sit there and tell the audience that these people were evil or bad. We show that they really truly cared about women and that they really thought they were helping women.