Has the New York Times joined the provida movement?

It is possible that the New York Times has accidentally stumbled with the truth about the holiness of life this week.

In an article entitled Undocumented women ask: My unborn son will be a citizen?the national correspondent for immigration of Times, Miriam Jordan, analyzes the decision of President Donald Trump of revoke citizens by birth from the point of view of the unborn. And the logic that the article follows involuntarily leads the reader to a conclusion that perhaps has not intended: that children not born deserve legal protection, at least in regard to US citizenship.

The story tells the experiences of two undocumented immigrants, Andrea Chávez and María Calderas, both from Maryland. Chávez, who arrived in the United States illegally 20 years ago, gave birth to a girl last year, before Trump issued an order that sought to eliminate citizens by birth. His daughter received a social security number in a matter of days, which consolidated her status as legal citizen from the United States.

Boilers, originally from Guatemala, have been pregnant for a few months and, if God wants, he will give birth after Trump’s executive order, which means that his son will not be granted legal citizenship. According to the order, children born in the United States after February 19, 2025 of parents who are not US citizens or legal residents will not be recognized as US citizens.

It is not clear if the Trump order that revokes citizens by birth will be sustained in court. Experts believe that the order will be challenged and will probably end before the Supreme Court. What is in question is the interpretation of the citizenship clause of amendment 14, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.” Defenders of repeal argue that citizenship by birth acts as a magnet for migration, while opponents believe that repeal will threaten the human dignity of innocent children and create a subclass of “stateless” children.

The Catholic Church opposes the revocation of citizenship by birth right because, According to the USCCB website“I would leave innocent children without homeland, depriving them of the ability to prosper in their communities and achieve their maximum potential.”

What is perfectly clear, however, is that the argument that not born babies should receive citizenship by birth right, which is inherent in the Times article, is a province argument. By highlighting the perceived injustice that an unborn child does not enjoy the same legal protections as a child born, the Times involuntarily underlines the obvious fact that both children deserve legal protection.

It is a somewhat indirect provida argument, no doubt. But logic is unmistakable:

Citizenship is a human right.

Only humans can have citizenship.

Therefore, if one possesses citizens, it is a human being.

The incongruity of the position did not go unnoticed by the governor of Florida, Ron Desantis. In his speech in the manifestation of the march for life held on Friday in Washington, Desantis stressed the absurd argument.

“The New York Times published a defamatory article against (the repeal of citizenship by birth right) and this was its owner: ‘undocumented women ask: Is my son not born a citizen?’” Said the governor laughing. “So the New York Times is admitting that it is not just a group of cells. Let’s welcome the New York Times to the Provida movement! ”

By mistake, the article caught attention to the logical error that is hidden in the heart of the probortist ideology: that a baby only deserves legal protection if the mother decides. But no person has the power to confer an intrinsic value. The act of wishing a baby does not make it valuable. If a fetus deserves legal protection, everyone else also deserves it.

But in the error of this article there is great hope. It is possible that many in the pro-abortion movement simply have not thought about things well. And it is the responsibility of those who have made it point to this truth with charity until they have done it.

Editor’s note: This article is a translation of A Peter Laffin post on the National Catholic Register blog. The opinions expressed in this article correspond exclusively to its author.