The tragic case of Marlise Munoz is finally at an end, now that John Peter Smith Hospital has, pursuant to an order by Judge R. H. Wallace, Jr., taken Ms. Munoz off life support and released her body to her family. A few questions about the media’s role in this case linger in my mind, however; I will be addressing them in a series of posts.
In the days immediately preceding the court’s ruling, media reports frequently mentioned that the fetus Ms. Munoz was carrying was “distinctly abnormal.” My impression is that these reports were intended to strengthen the case, at least in the public’s eyes, for withdrawal of life support. Maintaining a dead body on life support against the family’s wishes in order to preserve the life of an able fetus is one thing, commentators seemed to suggest, but the case for doing so when the fetus suffers from hydrocephalus, heart problems, and deformation of the lower extremities is less compelling.
In the eyes of pro-life advocates committed to preserving the potentiality of life at all costs, however, the fetus’ medical condition seems irrelevant. Unless a fetus is definitively not viable (which in this case the hospital finally conceded it was), a true commitment to the preservation of fetal life would not waver in the face of likely disability upon the child’s birth.
The fervent media reporting about the abnormality of the Munoz fetus seems, at least to me, to reflect a disconnect between the public’s perception of the significance of fetal disability in such cases, and its significance to disability advocates and advocates of pro-life policy. What lessons, if any, can we learn from this disconnect?
The language of “abnormality” has had a long tradition in the history of reproductive rights. https://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol342/617-670.pdf
Today, by employing the term “abnormality” in the news coverage of Munoz’s fetus the liberal media seems to stab itself in the foot while trying to slay a dragon. By attempting to disempower the fetus and its value as a potential life the media only reinvigorates the power of the potential child while simultaneously carving out the woman’s ability to choose. The term “abnormal” 1) acknowledges the personhood of the fetus; 2) reinvigorates antiquated ideas about ‘abnormality’ that have had the opposite effect of disenfranchising women of their reproductive choices; and 3) takes away focus from the ultimate question of who should be making life or death decisions and not whether the potential life is worthy of living.
Unfortunately, I fear that these verbal decisions were made by members of “liberal” media groups that attempt to frame abortion/reproductive rights/women’s health in any terms so long as the sum positive result is that the woman’s right is “respected” aka so long as the take away is that a woman can have an abortion. If the child is abnormal, the choice of life or death sits in the hands of someone else. This blind adherence to political terminology stemming from the prolife/prochoice verbiage is dangerous. It takes the language out of the realm of experience and puts it into the realm politics where multiple interests lie beneath the surface.
I would suggest that the media step away from this language and try to unearth, as much as possible, the experienced language. In a recent documentary, “Speak Out I had an Abortion” the director made a salient choice to completely deny any discussion of the prolife/prochoice identifiable terms (such as abnormality, prolife, prochoice, abortion is murder etc.) and just asks women about their experience. The results were fascinating. Although women felt differently – across the board – about how an abortion felt (whether they were guilt-free or guilt ridden) all explained that it was a choice that they had to made. When the director was interviewed, she said that a priest from one of the middle states had risen after a viewing of the documentary and stated, “I have been preaching against abortion for my whole life. This is the first time I can begin to see why someone would have an abortion.”
I think the media here would do well by trying to remove itself from the political language surrounding the debate and ask doctors, women, husbands etc about how they understand the situation.
To me this Munoz case boils all down to one simple question: if the woman were “alone”, i.e. not carrying a fetus, would she have been on “life” support, as, from what I read, she was “irreparably dead” in any sense? Would a hospital insist on keeping her alive in that case? Would they actually have a right to meddle with a “dead body”??? So when this were the case, i.e. she would have been left well alone in these cases, then this boils down to “highjacking” a body to breed a fetus that under normal circumstances, disabled or not, would have died with his/her mother if nature had her way. So has it come to a state where medical personnel can decide to use women’s bodies as veritable breeding machines?
To me this Munoz case boils all down to one simple question: if the woman were “alone”, i.e. not carrying a fetus, would she have been on “life” support, as, from what I read, she was “irreparably dead” in any sense? Would a hospital insist on keeping her alive in that case? Would they actually have a right to meddle with a “dead body”??? So when this were the case, i.e. she would have been left well alone in these cases, then this boils down to “highjacking” a body to breed a fetus that under normal circumstances, disabled or not, would have died with his/her mother if nature had her way. So has it come to a state where medical personnel can decide to use women’s bodies as veritable breeding machines?