NYT Cares About Unborn’s Right To US Citizenship But Not Life

The manipulative media have a new job for unborn babies: public relations in the immigration battle, working the birthright citizenship beat in opposition of President Donald Trump. In exchange for tugging the heartstrings of the American people, the unborn will be granted political personhood, temporarily obviously, until the issue is settled.

The first assignment: a piece in The New York Times titled, “Undocumented Women Ask: Will My Unborn Child Be a Citizen?”

You’ve come a long way, baby! The Gray Lady has declared an unborn is a child. It’s surprising given that a New York Times editorial board’s opinion piece warned in March that, “The anti-abortion movement is pursuing its aims on many legal fronts. One focus of intense activity is so-called fetal-personhood laws, which endow fetuses (and, in some cases, even fertilized eggs) with the same legal rights as living, breathing human beings.”

Don’t cry baby, they said that before they needed to use you as political currency.

The value of the voiceless, powerless unborn hinges on the words used to describe them, and that depends on the speaker’s agenda.

Unwanted unborn are not valued. They are called a fetus, clump of cells, or product of conception. This language removes the unborn’s humanity, making it easier to justify killing them.

Wanted unborn are called babies. No one throws a clump of cells shower, or announces, “I’m having a fetus!” For the same reason, the New York Times did not title their article “Undocumented Women Ask: Will My Product of Conception Be a Citizen?” They wanted these babies to be valued by the reader.

Usually, fetus is the favored word for pro-abortion politicians, nonprofit representatives, and reporters when they talk about abortion.

New York Times abortion writer Kate Zernike can write abortion-related articles without mentioning a baby or fetus. When she does make mention, it is “fetus” unless she is quoting someone who said the B-word.

When possible, the pro-abortion movement minimizes the reality of the baby and tries not to mention it at all. For example, the Maryland measure passed last year, enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution, never refers to a baby or fetus. It only mentions a “right to reproductive freedom,”– a right that does not extend to the unborn.

It was written before their current personhood gig.

Immigrant advocacy groups such as the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) and CASA, a Maryland-based immigrant rights organization, have already started filing lawsuits on behalf of illegal aliens who are currently pregnant or who plan to grow their family. A case filed by CASA Tuesday in U.S. District Court of the Maryland  Greenbelt Division lists women who are affected by the birthright citizenship policy change.

It described Georgina, two months pregnant, who lives in Maryland and is originally from El Salvador.

“Georgina has lived in the United States for six years, but neither she nor the father of her unborn child have lawful immigration status,” the court papers say. “She is a single mother, with very limited financial resources and is fearful that if her unborn child isn’t granted the benefits of U.S. citizenship, she won’t be able to support the baby. Georgina fears that her child will not have access to good food and quality education in the same way her two other children born in the United States will. Georgina is also afraid that her child will be subject to discrimination, because she has seen how noncitizens are treated poorly in this country.”

Ending birthright citizenship would disqualify these children from a host of federal, state, and local benefits, the court papers argue.

“While noncitizens are often ineligible to obtain such benefits in their own right … U.S. citizen children are generally eligible for such benefits and noncitizen parents can apply for them on behalf of a citizen child,” The suit says. “For instance, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides critical nutrition support for low-income children who are citizens, even if their parents are noncitizens. Crucial healthcare programs like the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and Medicaid also provide coverage to citizen children of noncitizen parents … The Executive Order undermines the ability of individual plaintiffs and members to rely on these programs and others to support their families.”

This is why unborn babies are needed: to sell the story. In the coming weeks, the same media that tried to sell the lie that unborn babies are not human will be dishonestly using unborn babies to advance this cause.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.