An article published Tuesday attacked Trump for an executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. That practice allows a foreign woman to have a child on U.S. property, making the child a U.S. citizen, but it is an ongoing legal issue over who is a U.S. citizen, and why, according to the 14th Amendment.
A future ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to answer those questions.
Meanwhile, the Times headline turned heads because it states that “undocumented women” are asking if their “unborn child” will be a U.S. citizen.
That observation from the liberal newspaper got noticed by a lot of people, including Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis. He happily read the headline to the March for Life crowd in Washington, D.C., where he was among the featured speakers.
“So the New York Times is admitting it’s not just a clump of cells?” DeSantis, citing a frequent claim of of rabid abortion supporters, pointed out.
“Let’s welcome The New York Times to the pro-life movement. Wow!” he told the cheering crowd.
Bill D’Agostino, of the Media Research Center, is familiar with the biased Times and therefore knows what is behind the rare, head-scratching reference to unborn children.
“What you're seeing here is what's called ‘compartmentalization.’ It's something that the Left is very good at,” he tells AFN.
Another example is Democrats denouncing the religious faith of House Speaker Mike Johnson, a committed evangelical Christian, but Nancy Pelosi didn’t get any pushback from her party when she quoted the New Testament in 2019 to condemn ICE arresting illegal aliens.
D'Agostino says it's a look into the twisted minds of the radical Left, which he compares to a “box” of approved words and talking points shared by the Far Left.
“You've got like the ‘box’ of abortion ideas and opinions, and that ‘box’ stays closed until the topic of discussion shifts to abortion,” he warns, “at which point they open that ‘box’ and they have their set beliefs on abortion.”
That talking point “box” uses phrases such as “birthing people” for biological men, and “clumps of cells” for unborn children, but the Times willingly shifted its ideology for the purpose of making readers feel compassion for illegal immigrants – just like Pelosi did years ago with her own biblical sermon.
This week's article by the Times similarly begins with a heart-tugging story about an "undocumented" woman, Andrea, whose child was born in the U.S. and has a Social Security number. Andrea's cousin Maria, currently pregnant, might not benefit from her child getting the same "citizenship rights" if Trump prevails.
“It worries me that the new president doesn’t want to give citizenship to our baby,” Maria, who is from Guatemala, told the Times.
According to D’Agostino, the Times using “unborn child” is a lesson for Republicans and conservatives about the power of words to define an issue and to win the argument.
“If a word is very loosely defined, then I can kind of twist its definition to suit whatever argument I'm making,” he reasons. “Alternatively, if I have complete control over what words we're using, then you're immediately at a disadvantage.”
