I can understand the value of having Kay appear at Michael's side during the Senate Hearings. It relays an image of the accused as an ordinary family man with all-American values; it's certainly not the image of a criminal.

But wasn't Kay's presence a risk to Michael's family life? She knows that his dealings are not legitimate, and Michael knows that Kay is not a stupid woman. She will hear things at the inquiry that will stir nagging doubts -- if not outright certainty -- about Michael's true involvement in the charges leveled against him.

I found that Kay maintained her stoicism pretty well throughout except when the chairman asked Michael if he were personally responsible for the murder of a New York city police captain and a man named Sollozzo in 1947. As the camera focuses on Kay's face, I saw a realization emerge there that literally woke her up. "So this is why Michael disappeared for over a year and no one would tell me where he was." In the back of her mind, when she was willing to admit it to herself, she knew Michael had his button men perform executions. But this was a cold-blooded murder he had committed by his own hand. She had married a killer.

I wonder if right there she resolved to leave Michael. And, as Kay was freeing herself from her delusions, I wonder if Michael was holding on more tightly to his. Did actually think she would have no questions after the hearings and that things would eventually be smoothed over between them?

Personally, my feeling is Kay was already planning to leave Michael even before the Senate hearings. Both would've been advised by Tom that it would be beneficial for her to be there...she simply decided to appear at his side and then announce her decision after it was over (which is what she did). Remember, at this point she still loved him even though she could no longer live with him.

And as for Michael, I doubt he really considered or cared what Kay thought. He had already advised her not to ask him about his business and appearing with him would be in his eyes her wifely duty regardless of what she may have been feeling inside.

So as far as your question goes, for Kay their 'family life' was already over. For Michael, it would never have occurred to him that it was even at risk, or that these hearings would do anything to put it at risk.

Apple

I agree with Apple that Kay had made up her mind to leave Michael before she appeared at the Senate hearing. Perhaps she felt that her presence there was the duty of a "dutiful wife" (standard thinking in that era); and/or that it might help assuage her conscience about taking the kids and leaving Michael. (By current standards, he should have been the one with a guilty conscience, but in those days, the burden of keeping a marriage going fell on the wife.)

Kay almost certainly knew, or strongly suspected, that Michael had whacked Sollozzo and McCluskey. Her last look at the end of GF showed that she realized he really did kill Carlo and all the others on the day of the Great Massacre of 1955. Surely she would have realized by then, if not before, that he'd done the job on S&M. In the novel, when Kay visits the compound to leave a letter for (the exiled) Michael, Mama Corleone just about tells her that Michael did the job on S&M--she realizes it right then and there.

In the novel (sorry, I can't remember), does Mama actually tell Kay that Michael killed two people and is in hiding? I thought she just told her that she should forget about Michael; he is not the man she thinks he is and a life with him is not suited to her; it would only cause her pain.

If I recall correctly, the only close-up on Kay's face during the Senate hearing is during the question posed to Michael about McCluskey and Sollozzo in 1947. It's the only time we see a reaction from her. I thought that was done deliberately to show how the truth of Michael's absence was finally dawning on her.

If Kay knew that Michael murdered two people, one of whom was a police officer, and she married him anyway without asking about it, why was she so upset and in need of an answer when Connie accused Michael of having Carlo killed (even though Michael didn't carry out the actual killing himself)?

From chapter 15.

"After they drank their coffee Mrs. Corleone took one of Kay’s hands in her two brown ones. She said quietly, "Mikey no gonna write you, you no gonna hear from Mikey. He hide two– three years. Maybe more, maybe much more. You go home to your family and find a nice young fellow and get married."
Kay took the letter out of her purse. "Will you send this to him?"
The old lady took the letter and patted Kay on the cheek. "Sure, sure," she said. Hagen started to protest and she screamed at him in Italian. Then she led Kay to the door. There she kissed her on the cheek very quickly and said, "You forget about Mikey, he no the man for you anymore."
There was a car waiting for her with two men up front. They drove her all the way to her hotel in New York never saying a word. Neither did Kay. She was trying to get used to the fact that the young man she had loved was a coldblooded murderer. And that she had been told by the most unimpeachable source: his mother.

JustMe, what would we do without you? So Kay did know (according to the book, anyway).

And if I may impose on you again, JustMe, is there a passage in the book where Kay confronts Michael for an answer about Carlo's death the way she did in the movie?

Umma no sure!! I think that once Kay figured out that Mike had lied to her in GFI, she was being dutiful in appearing at the hearing, but had not already made up her mind to leave him. I think that the Pentangeli episode made up her mind for her.

There's no closeups on Kay during the hearing segments. Whenever we see her she is sitting or standing behind Michael and is virtually expressionless throughout the entire thing. I suppose we sometimes like to imagine things just in order to generate discussion where there's little or no cause.

Anyway, Kay's appearance at the hearings was not a threat to their marriage since it was really already over. Even if Kay had not already decided to leave...they no longer had a marriage. Especially once Kay had that abortion...even though she had yet to tell him about it.

Apple

Cristina, in all fairness we should really not take what happened in the novel into consideration with Kay's character in the GFI movie. The events surrounding her seeking out Michael at the Corleone compound differ greatly in the movie than in the novel, and the novel's version puts a totally different light on the question. I think that we need to go by the events that took place in both movies.

However, I agree with Apple here. IMO Kay had already been 99.9% sure that she was leaving Michael, and the hearings added that .1% to push her to being 100% sure.

I don't buy the "Kay found out that Michael was a killer" at those hearings theory. She knew damn well way before those hearings that he was not only responsible for ordering the deaths of others, but had killed others himself.

Kay was a smart and educated woman. It was only her love and desire for Michael at an early age that allowed her to be blind to what he really was, coupled with Michael's ability to pursuade her that he was trying to take the family legit.

Kay knew. ( Fredo didn't )


Don Cardi

Right. Plus by the time she realized Michael did order Carlo's killing (in my opinion her first revelation as to what her husband was capable of)...they were already married and had at least one child. Even if it began to dawn on her then that she might not be able to live with such a man, she was basically stuck (remember this is the mid-1950's). And you're right, Don Cardi...there WAS that promise of the Family becoming legitimate under Michael's leadership....all those 7 years ago.

Fredo didn't know what....???



Apple

According to the book, she had pretty good idea of who he was. And there was no promise to make family legit, especially as a condition of their marriage. He just shared his thoughts with her. But before that, she said: "I love you. I don't care!"
No pity to my fingers, as always.
OK.

Kay was still shocked, still horrified. She said to her husband,
-What made her say all those things, Michael, what makes her believe that?
Michael shrugged.
-She’s hysterical.
Kay looked into his eyes.
-Michael, it’s not true, please say it’s not true.
Michael shook his head wearily.
-Of course it’s not. Just believe me, this one time I’m letting you ask about my affairs, and I’m giving you an answer. It is not true.
He had never been more convincing. He looked directly into her eyes. He was using all the mutual trust they had built up in their married life to make her believe him. And she could not doubt any longer. She smiled at him ruefully and came into his arms for a kiss.
-We both need a drink, - she said. She went into the kitchen for ice and while there heard the front door open. She went out of the kitchen and saw Clemenza, Neri and Rocco Lampone come in with the bodyguards. Michael had his back to her, but she moved so that she could see him in profile. At that moment Clemenza addressed her husband, greeting him formally.
"Don Michael," Clemenza said.
Kay could see how Michael stood to receive their homage. He reminded her of statues in Rome, statues of those Roman emperors of antiquity, who, by divine right, held the power of life and death over their fellow men. One hand was on his hip, the profile of his face showed a cold proud power, his body was carelessly, arrogantly at ease, weight resting on one foot slightly behind the other. The caporegimes stood before him. In that moment Kay knew that everything Connie had accused Michael of was true. She went back into the kitchen and wept.

Couldn't stop shorter than that. It's so brilliantly written!

Agreed. That's my philosophy too: the movie is the movie and the book is the book. In my earlier post, I was conceding that it is clear in the novel that Kay knew that Michael had killed by his own hand before she married him. Others believe this is a good indication that she was similarly informed in the movie.

So I'm a little confused, DC, by the rest of your post . We similarly agree that we should go by the movie as to Kay's knowledge of Michael's past. In the movie, she never asks where he was during those two years and she's never told. It's never brought up. Yet you believe that before the hearings, she knew very well that Michael had killed others personally. How did she know if it's never imparted to her in the movie?

What I find odd is that, if she knew Michael was a murderer -- not just the orderer of murders, but a murderer himself -- then why is she so upset by Connie's accusation that he had Carlo killed? Why does she press Michael for an answer and hope so fervently that it's not true if she already knows what he's capable of?

This leads me to theorize that even though she knows that Michael is a mafia chieftain and no where near legitimate -- and that she knew all of this way before the Senate hearings -- the hearings struck her with one final thunderbolt: Michael can and has killed in cold blood himself. At that moment of the hearing, ALL her delusions are stripped away for good and she can no longer shy away from what she previously didn't want to face. The chairman states everything in plain, unqualified English: head of America's most powerful mafia family, cop killer, mastermind of the murder of the five families...

Also we are aware that, at the time GF1 was made, the film makers didn't know that they would soon be making a GF2. When GF2 was filmed, I think FFC took the opportunity to tie up the loose end of Michael's absence not being explained to Kay; and I think he employed the Senate hearing as the source of her discovery (or her realization, if you prefer). I picked up a reaction in her face when the McCluskey-Sollozzo murder was mentioned -- although it wasn't in the closeup I thought it was (... but that's for my next post).

If you're talking about the movie, it isn't until several minutes AFTER all this that Kay comes to the realization that Michael did indeed order Carlo's murder. And even though she does, she has been told by now (twice that we know of) to NOT ask Michael about 'the business'. By the time of the Senate Hearings years later it can be assumed that whatever she's surmized on her own and kept to herself...she has dutifully honored Michael's wishes.
It's probably also safe to assume that she's tried her best to shield her children, especially Anthony...from the business of their father. One of the several reasons for her eventually deciding to leave him may be a concern for Anthony coming to an age where he's naturally going to be exposed more to the Family Business.

You appear to be mixing up timeframes simply in order to keep this discussion going.

Apple

Agreed. That's my philosophy too: the movie is the movie and the book is the book. [/b]
Yes, the novel is the novel and the film is the film. I would not cite a passage from the novel to "prove" a point about the film, but the novel does provide detail and perspective that can be helpful. In this case, we can infer from the novel that Kay'd had plenty of time and examples to figure out what her old man really was.

This leads me to theorize that even though she knows that Michael is a mafia chieftain and no where near legitimate -- and that she knew all of this way before the Senate hearings -- the hearings struck her with one final thunderbolt: Michael can and has killed in cold blood himself. At that moment of the hearing, ALL her delusions are stripped away for good and she can no longer shy away from what she previously didn't want to face.
I really doubt that Kay had any remaining thunderbolts about Michael at that point. If anything, I believe she looked resigned at the Senate hearing--resigned to her (probably long-planned) departure from him, with the kids.
We've had many threads on Kay and how much she knew--or how much she deluded herself, rationalized, denied, hoped to change Michael, etc. But for me, the moment of truth came on the night of Anthony's party: First the statement about "legitimacy" while she and Michael danced; then that look that she gave him after the machine-gun attack. That look said it all. I think she had concluded before the attack that Michael was a Mafia Don and had killed with his own hand. The machine gun attack confirmed for her that he'd never be able to free himself from the Mob life--and that he didn't want to--and that his "destiny" was a mortal danger to her and her children.

Agreed.

In fact, ironically it was Kay who really tossed a final (and probably first) 'thunderbolt' at Michael...when she sprang the abortion on him. Of course she still lost out in the end, having left Michael anyway but losing her children to him.

Apple

Just when I thought I could take the Godfather Saga tape out of the VCR, I'm compelled to put it back in again to check something else. I could swear there was one closeup on Kay during the hearings, and ... voilà, I was right! There is one... BUT it's not where I thought it was , and it doesn't show the reaction I recalled seeing after the McCluskey-Sollozzo question . The camera focuses on Kay only after the chairman poses a different, earlier question to Michael: "We have testimony from a witness... Willie Cicci. He has stated that you are the head of the most powerful Mafia family in this country. Are you?"

But there is a reaction on Kay's face after the McCluskey-Sollozzo question, only it's not in closeup as I first thought. Kay's eyes dart from the chairman to Michael, then settle on the back of Michael's head as she leans forward a little. Mean anything? Well, you have to notice Kay to notice the expression, and she's not the focus of attention in that scene. But, reaction or not, I do think it's Kay's first unflinching realization of what Michael was really up to when he disappeared in 1947-48.

I don't disagree that Kay could have already made up her mind to leave Michael, regardless of what came up in the hearings. It's certainly reasonable. She had already had an abortion, so a plan to leave is likely not far behind. But I think at the very least, this bit of news from the hearing was an extra nail in the coffin.

No, it wasn't. If she'd already decided to leave, then she'd already decided to leave. That was that.

I agree with Turnbull that a revelation came after the shooting at Tahoe. Up until then, whatever Kay felt her husband was, she could at least look away and shelter her children as best she could. Once bullets were shot into her bedroom where she was lying at the time, then after that was unable to even take her children to New England, I think THAT was the nail in the coffin. THAT was when she decided on both the abortion and leaving Michael. Nothing that happened at the hearings, nothing anyone revealed to her would have changed her mind or even made her more determined to go.

By the way, without even needing to view the film I do recall the moment Kay's eyes shift from the Senator to Michael. Though I wouldn't exactly call it a 'reaction', since third party listeners commonly tend to look from one speaker to the other...if you do need to consider it a reaction then it's certainly your right.

Apple

Huh?

What I'm saying is, why does Kay even ask Michael about Carlo's death? Why is she so upset that Michael may have ordered it? Why does she need assurance from him that he did not? Because she wants to believe that he is incapable of doing such a thing.

But if she already knew that Michael had personally killed Sollozzo and McCluskey, then she already had her answer about Carlo. There was no need to ask.

But the fact that she did ask is the reason why I don't think she knew that Michael had killed the Sollozzo & McCluskey, nor that it was the reason he disappeared for 2+ years. If she did know that, then she would have known that Michael was perfectly capable of ordering Carlo's execution.

It is my personal feeling that Kay only realized that Michael had killed Sollozzo and McCluskey when it came to light at the Senate hearings, and this was one more aspect of him that deeply upset her.

Sure, if you like to stretch things a little you could be right about that. No harm in imagining stuff like this. But contrary to your opinions in the opening post...this is not what made Kay decide to leave Michael and her very presence at the hearings was NOT a risk to their marriage, as it was already effectively over and she had already made the decision to leave him.

Apple

Hey, I didn't say news from the Senate hearing was THE nail in the coffin; I said it was an EXTRA nail in the coffin . There were a whole lotta nails in the coffin where Michael and Kay's marriage was laid to rest .

And even though the turning point when Kay was resolved to leave may well have been right after the Tahoe shooting, I don't think that automatically makes her immune to being horrified at anything she would hear later at the Senate hearings. When confronted with it out loud in no uncertain terms, I would not find it unusual for Kay to recoil in shock just thinking about what she had been involved in (as in, "Oh God, how could I have deluded myself for so long? ... I endangered the lives of myself and my children ... I have to face the fact that the young man I married has committed these monstrous acts ...")

IMO by the time GFII rolled around, Kay was fully aware of all that her husband did and was. Yes, in GFI she is upset when Connie screams about Michael having Carlo killed. She then pressures Michael into telling her if it was true or not. Of course she wanted to hear that he was not involved, and at the moment he told her that he was not responsible for having Carlo and the heads of the families killed, I think that at that very moment she really believed him. Then the moment of truth was revealed to her the moment that she walked out of Michael's office. As she looks back, she sees Clemenza kissing his hand and calling him Don Corleone and Neri shuts the door on her. For me, that was the moment of truth for Kay. For me, at that moment, she relaized that Michael had just lied to her and was responsible for the deaths of Carlo and the heads of the families. And let's not forget that in a deleted scene, we see her going to church to light a candle for Michael's soul.

Now as far as his killing McClusky and Sollozo, she had to have an good idea that he was involved. The story was all over the newspapers. It had to be public knowledge at that point that there was a mob war going on and that a Police Captain and a Gangster had been excecuted gangland style in relation to this war. Headlines read "Mobster Barzini Questioned in Underworld Feud" "Police Hunt Cop Killer," and then Vito Corleone's picture, with the headline: "Syndicate Big Shot Vito Corleone Returns Home" She had to see all of this. Couple these stories and headlines with her going to seek out Michael at the Corelone compound, and not finding him there, she could not have been that nieve to think that he someone wasn't involved in all this. Especially after the things Tom says to her when she asks him about Michael :

"Nobody knows where he is. We know that he's alright, but that's all."

Then she trys to hand Tom a letter for Michael and what does he say? :

"Well, if I accepted that -- in a court of law they could prove that I have knowledge of his whereabouts. Now you just be patient, Kay -- he'll get in touch with you, alright?"

After hearing and probably seeing all these news stories, Michael missing, seeing the blown up car in the courtyard of the Corleone compound, and then hearing Tom's replies to her, she would have to be a complete moran not to realize that Michael was all wrapped up in this. While she may have never really known for sure if Michael killed Sollozo and McClusky, she had to know deep down inside that he was somehow involved in their murder.

Which brings us back to GFII. At that point she was getting impatient with Michael's promise of legitimacy
(the dancing scene), and after having her home shot up, she had to finally have come to the realization that she was only fooling herself over the years and that Michael was a mobster mixed up with murder.

I believe that at that point she had begun to contemplate leaving Michael. After all, she did go to get the abortion while he was gone. And as a "good" wife back in those days, she decided that it was her duty to stick by him during his hearings, be by his side, and when it was over, she would break the news to him.

Hey, who knows, after living with Michael all of those years she herself may have learned how to be cunning and deceiving. Maybe she decided to wait and see if Michael would be sent to jail before she told him about her leaving him. Maybe she figured that if he went to jail, she wouldn't have to do or say anything because she would no longer be with him anyway.

EDIT/NOTE : Turnbull, I actually read your original reply to Cristina only AFTER making this post. I don't want you to accuse me of Plagerism!


Don Cardi

No such thing as an 'extra' nail in the coffin. If the decision was made, it was made. What you're implying (probably without meaning to) is that Kay may have already kinda made up her mind to maybe leave, but maybe sorta might've changed her mind, except upon learning that along with everything else he might possibly have killed a NYC cop some 8 years earlier (since he did state it was false when presented with the question) really, REALLY did it for her and that's when she knew she was really, REALLY going to leave, no kidding around.

Not the case.

So again, Kay's presence at the hearings did nothing to either damage or repair her marriage to Michael. It did nothing to enlighten her further as to the kind of life she had married into. It was over before she ever set foot in the Senate Chambers.

Again, if that's fun to imagine then it is your right to enjoy yourself. But I would guess she had already come to these feelings long before. An added question of did he kill a police officer, to which he answered no, would not have done anything to further Kay's horror at that point. It was not going to top having had machine-gun fire that you know was meant for your husband come in through your bedroom window in the home you share with your children. In fact, by the time of the hearings she may have been completely numb to anything she learned about Michael, having already aborted his son and making the decision to leave him.

Apple

I've always had a little theory in the back of my head. Since Kay became a Catholic, and agreed to raise the kids Catholic, is it possible that she never had an abortion? I know that it's strictly my imagination here at work, but Kay was horribly hurt by Michael's betrayal. She married him because he promised her legitimacy, that he wouldn't be like the rest of his family. Could she have had a miscarriage, as Tom told Michael, but lied to Michael about it in order to hurt him? To deliver a lethal blow to their marriage? To tell him something she knew that he could never forgive?

Since Kay was kept at the Tahoe estate as a virtual prisoner, not even allowed to go shopping, where would she have obtained an abortion, which was illegal at the time? How would she have done it under the watchful eyes of the bodyguards and Tom Hagen?

Just something that's always sort of nagged at the edges of my mind.

Being held at the estate would not preclude Kay from necessary medical examinations during her pregnancy. For a family like the Corleones, it would be easy to have the Dr. summoned to the compound to see Kay, who was after all not just some ordinary housewife. It's also possible that as the wife of a powerful mafia Don, she could pay him to perform the procedure in absolute secrecy, or have him find her someone who would. While hating the life she was in, Kay was certainly smart enough to utilize whatever benefits she could get from it.

These questions/theories of whether or not Kay actually HAD the abortion have come up before, and I've always thought them rather silly (even when thrown out there just to generate discussion). The way she blurts out to him that she had the abortion pretty much means she had it. If I recall correctly, it was the brainchild of Talia Shire. The character of Kay didn't appear as the type of person to make something like that up...especially not to stick it to Michael.

If FFC ever wanted to imply that she did, we the audience would have been eventually made aware of that...
even if as late as in GFIII, where they made a point of resolving with a wink & nod almost every issue of GFII, including Michael's guilt at having had Fredo killed (which of course, Fredo didn't know was coming).

She had the abortion. It was written that way. And even if she didn't, and DID make it up, she probably would have admitted that to Michael upon realizing she really WAS going to lose custody of her children. Pride plays little role when it comes to sacrificing your kids.

Apple

All very good points, Apple. She most certainly would have admitted it to Michael later if she had made it up, especially during their "reconciliation" in GF3. Although sometimes lies that large are hard to admit, no matter what the circumstances.

Then perhaps it's plot weakness that has me pondering. I would think it wouldn't be easy for Kay to receive an illegal abortion. I would that that any doctor would fear her husband's retribution too much. Just my thoughts, one of those things...

GFII admittedly contains quite a few 'plot weaknesses'.

This is not one of them. She had the abortion.

Kay Corleone was the wife of a wealthy, powerful Mafia Don. If she wanted an illegal abortion (as I'm sure many real life movie stars/starlets/just plain rich people did in the 1950's), she'd be able to find a way to get one. (hmmm, where have I heard this conversation before...???)

Worrying about the real-life 'difficulty' of getting abortions during that time is one of those things that gets in the way of the pure entertainment of the film.

The only thing that would have anyone 'pondering' over whether or not Kay really had the abortion is an overactive imagination.

But of course, we have seen plenty of THAT here on the BB !!

Apple

Her conversion to Catholicism was in the novel, not the film. Now, interestingly, some versions of home video for GFII open by showing Kay lighting candles in an apparently Catholic church, wearing a mantilla, as opening music plays. But that bit of film (very fine) never appeared in the theatrical release. So, it's questionable that Kay really did convert (in the films). And even if she did--to pray for Michael's soul--by the time of the "Tahoe Captivity" she was good and disillusioned (understated word)with Michael, and maybe with the Church, too.
As Apple said, a woman of her means could easily have paid a doctor to terminate her pregnancy at the estate--rich women could get abortions in those days. If there was a "nail in the coffin" at that point, it might have been in the coffin of Michael's regard for Tom, on whose "watch" the abortion occurred. Michael must have hated that Kay could "do this to him," the more so because it'd show that she was smart enough to figure out what he really was--and that all his BS about legitimacy wasn't fooling her.

And even it let's say for the sake of argument, that Kay HAD converted in the film as well as in the novel.

It would appear that her disgust and horror at the Family Business, the man her husband had become, and the fact that she already had two children that were exposed to it all...would still drive her to the decision of aborting that unborn child. From the intensity and emotion in her monologue to Michael upon admitting to the abortion, it would appear that her desire to NOT bring another of his son's into the world, to do her part end '...this Sicilian thinngggg that's been going on for two thousand years....', would override any desire she might've had to be a good converted Catholic girl.

Oh, yes...she had that abortion.

Apple

Sicilian Babe raises a significant point when she writes, "Could she have ... lied to Michael about it in order to hurt him?"

Not only does she confess to the abortion but, notably, knowing Michael's desire for a boy, she adamantly and repeatedly emphasizes that the aborted child was a son:

"I didn't want your SON Michael. I wouldn't bring another one of your SONS into this world. It was an abortion, Michael... It was a SON Michael -- a SON -- and I had it killed... "

While it's certainly true that she had the abortion, I've wondered how Kay was so certain that she aborted a son. Could she have said that, even if she didn't know for sure, just to deliver an extra blow to Michael?

Personally, I believe Kay was not deliberately lying; she truly felt she was carrying a son. She had been pregnant with Anthony, so if her symptoms were identical to what she experienced with him, then her motherly intuition would tell her that this was another boy. I don't think FFC wanted us to question that. Narratively, the irony is just too perfect: The powerful Michael Corleone being denied the only things he truly desired, one of them being a son.

But since we are Godfather obsessives, we can't help but take an interest in any extra information we can get about a scene. And for the sake of that interest, I'd like to submit that Kay couldn't be medically certain that the fetus was male. There is ultrasound, but it was just being developed in the ob/gyn field in the 1950s. (And besides, even with today's equipment, an accurate sex determination can't be made before the mother is 20 weeks along; Kay was only 12-14 weeks, or 3 and a half months, as Tom indicated.) The other pre-natal sex determiners, amniocentesis and CVS, were only concepts in the mid-1950s (late 1960s for CVS).

And what about taking a look at the aborted fetus? While sex can be visually differentiated at 12-14 weeks, the methods of abortion at that stage, suction or scraping (curettage), invariably destroy the fetus. Labour-inducing abortions in which the fetus is expelled are only done in the 2nd trimester (and weren't begun until the 1970s anyway).

So there's our technical Godfather information for the day. But regardless, Kay's driving home the point that she aborted a son was the final twist in the knife during the abortion confession scene. As Sicilian Babe indicated, Michael had hurt Kay; and now she was showing him how it feels to be hurt back.

Yes.