[5][6] In a speech to the Association of National Religious Broadcasters in January 1984, Reagan stated that a fetus suffers "long and agonizing pain" during an abortion.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement in response to the president's comment, saying that the neurological pathways necessary to experience pain do not begin to develop until the third trimester of pregnancy.

When critics continued to dispute that a fetus feels pain during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, Nathanson decided to make a movie, saying "I mulled it over and thought there's only one way we can resolve this issue, and that's by photographing an abortion, beginning to end.

"[9] The film compiled a series of still ultrasound images of the abortion of a twelve-week-old fetus (referred to as a child by Nathanson) spliced together to create the video.

He narrates that the fetus is unprepared for the invasion of the womb and attempts to escape the cannula, describing it as a "child being torn apart ... by the unfeeling steel instruments of the abortionist.

He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm."

[4] Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.

[15] Among the opinions expressed were those of Dr. Richard Berkowitz, whose criticism of the film was already mentioned above, and Dr. Ian Donald, an English physician and pioneer of diagnostic ultrasound.

"[4] In 1985, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) produced a brochure in response, titled The Facts Speak Louder than "The Silent Scream", which described the video as "riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations".

[20][21][22] PPFA convened what it described as "a panel of internationally known and respected physicians" to review and critique the film, and issue a rebuttal of the claims made, including fetal pain, purposeful movement, and the titular "scream.

"[3] Political scientist and pro-abortion rights activist Rosalind P. Petchesky described "its visual distortions and verbal fraud" and said it "belongs in the realm of cultural representation rather than... medical evidence.