The New York Times may have accidentally stumbled into the truth about the sanctity of life this week. 

In an article titled, “Undocumented Women Ask: Will My Unborn Child Be a Citizen?” Times national immigration correspondent Miriam Jordan considers President Donald Trump’s decision to repeal birthright citizenship from the point of view of the unborn. And the logic the story follows unintentionally leads the reader to a conclusion she may not have intended: that unborn children deserve legal protection, at least regarding American citizenship. 

The story follows the experiences of undocumented immigrant cousins, Andrea Chavez and Maria Calderas, both of Maryland. Chavez, who arrived in America illegally 20 years ago, gave birth to a baby girl last year before Trump’s order aimed at striking down birthright citizenship. Her daughter received a Social Security number within days, cementing her status as a legal U.S. citizen. 

Calderas, originally from Guatemala, is now a few months into her pregnancy and will, God willing, give birth following Trump’s executive order, which will mean her child will not be granted legal citizenship. According to the order, children born in the United States after Feb. 19, 2025, to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents will not be recognized as U.S. citizens. 

It remains unclear whether Trump’s order revoking birthright citizenship will stand up in court. Experts believe the order will be challenged and will likely end up before the Supreme Court. At question is the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Proponents of repeal maintain that birthright citizenship acts as a magnet for migration, while opponents believe repeal will threaten the human dignity of innocent children and create an underclass of “stateless” children. 

The Catholic Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship because, according to the USCCB website, “it would render innocent children stateless, depriving them of the ability to thrive in their communities and reach their full potential.” 

What is perfectly clear, however, is that the argument that unborn babies should receive birthright citizenship, which is inherent in the Times article, is a pro-life argument. By highlighting the perceived injustice of an unborn child not enjoying the same legal protections as a born child, the Times unintentionally underscores the obvious fact that both children deserve legal protections. 

It’s a roundabout pro-life argument, to be sure. But the logic is unmistakable: 

Citizenship is a human right.

Only humans can possess citizenship. 

Therefore, if one possesses citizenship, one is a human.

The incongruity of the position wasn’t lost on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Speaking at the March for Life Rally in Washington on Friday, DeSantis underscored the absurdity of the argument. 

“The New York Times had a hit piece going against [the repeal of birthright citizenship] and here was their headline: ‘Undocumented Women Ask: Will My Unborn Child Be a Citizen?’” the governor said with a chuckle. “So, The New York Times is admitting it’s not just the clump of cells. Let’s welcome The New York Times to the pro-life movement!”

By mistake, the article drew attention to the logical flaw at the heart of pro-abortion ideology: that a baby is only deserving of legal protection only if the mother chooses. But no person has the power to confer inherent value. The act of wanting a baby doesn’t make the baby precious. If one unborn baby deserves legal protection, so does every other. 

But in this article’s mistake, there is great hope. It’s possible that many in the pro-abortion movement just haven’t adequately thought things through. And it’s incumbent upon those who have, to point out this truth in charity until they have.