The Left Defends Unborn Babies

Hardcore abortion activists have determined certain "clumps of cells" have rights--but only if they are being carried by a noncitizen.

If any good has emerged from the extended court battle over the president’s birthright citizenship order, it is that the Left finally discovered “rights” for unborn babies.

Not a right to live, of course, even up to full term; nearly every individual and group such as lawfare lurch Norm Eisen, Trump nemesis Mary McCord, and the ACLU who are suing the Trump administration over this issue are extreme abortion activists.

No, these same lefties now insist the unborn babies of women here illegally or temporarily, the basis of the executive order, have a right to American citizenship.

New lawsuits—filed mere hours after the Supreme Court last Friday overturned the use of nationwide preliminary injunctions—are asking judges to give classwide status to “[all] children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025.” If allowed, and no doubt the same Democratic judges will do so, the move will again halt implementation of the birthright citizenship policy via temporary restraining orders—the sort of relief SCOTUS recommended.

The new lawsuits include what are intended to be heart-tugging testimonials about the potential fate of unborn (and born) babies if Trump’s birthright citizenship policy is enacted. “The Executive Order harms class members by calling into doubt the citizenship of future newborns, leading to stress and anxiety for future parents who are left afraid and uncertain about the status of their children,” Eisen-represented attorneys wrote in a new filing in New Hampshire. “This stress can cause pregnancy complications, jeopardizing the health of mother and child alike.”

Health of the child, you say?

But the so-called “declarations” attached to two of the anti-birthright citizenship lawsuits underscore the morass of different circumstances that non-citizens exploit to make sure their child is born in America—and justifies in many ways the president’s desire to end the practice of what is commonly described as “anchor babies.”

Ingratitude, Indignation, and Entitlement

Take, for example, the story of “Barbara.” (Illegals and noncitizens in this matter and in the Alien Enemies Act litigation do not have to provide their real names.)

“Barbara” is a citizen of Honduras and lives in New Hampshire with her husband and three young children. She arrived here illegally in 2024; her husband also is not a U.S. citizen. “She and her husband are expecting their fourth child in October 2025,” the declaration reads. “Barbara fears that under the Order, her child will be denied U.S. citizenship at birth. She fears her child will be unjustly denied the security, rights, and opportunities that come with U.S. citizenship, leaving their future in doubt.”

Now, it is safe to assume this entire family, here illegally, do not financially support themselves. The children undoubtedly are enrolled in public schools and receive free meals among other school-based programs. It is very likely “Barbara” and her family receive other taxpayer-funded benefits such as SNAP, housing subsidies, health care, public transportation vouchers, and all the goodies now bestowed upon illegal immigrants.

At the very least, we know “Barbara” is getting free legal representation.

“Monica” and her husband are Venezuelan citizens living here under temporary protected status; they’ve been here since 2019. “Monica” claims to be a “trained medical doctor” and wants to get her medical degree here. (Details unknown.) She is due in August with their first child. “My husband and I are so excited to welcome our baby into the world but, at the same time, we are filled with uncertainty and fear over President Trump’s Executive Order that would deny our child U.S. citizenship,” she writes.

“Monica” says the stress has made her pregnancy “more difficult” and she now has second-thoughts about expanding her family in the future. “While my husband and I want more children, this Executive Order has made me afraid of bringing more life into this world.”

“Monica” then claims her lawsuit is not really about U.S. citizenship for her baby or anyone else’s. “It’s about what the Constitution says, and the Constitution says my child has a right to U.S. citizenship.”

Imagine being a guest in someone else’s country—a country you nor any member of your family helped to build, protect, or defend—and audaciously foot-stomping about your “rights” under a document you probably have not read and certainly do not understand.

That sense of entitlement and hubris permeates every declaration; few express appreciation for the opportunities they enjoy here. Take “Trinidad Garcia.” She and her husband came to the U.S. in 2017 from Venezuela on tourist visas. They currently have pending asylum claims.

She is due in July and blames the president for pregnancy-related complications. “I was diagnosed with both hypertension and gestational diabetes, and my doctor explained to me that stress and anxiety can worsen these conditions,” she wrote. (Apparently the doctor did not address what very likely is “Trinidad Garcia’s” obesity.)

“Because of these diagnoses, I have tried my best not to think or worry about the Executive Order President Trump issued that would deny my baby U.S. citizenship. But even though I have tried not to, I am very worried and anxious about the possibility that my baby might not be born a U.S. citizen.”

Can You Not Fight for “Justice” and “Rights” in Your Own Country?

But perhaps the account of “Liza” is the most infuriating. “Liza” is a Russian citizen, here since 2023 on a student visa to pursue a master’s degree. Her husband “Igor” arrived in 2024 and has a pending asylum claim. Their first child was born in February, but as her fellow noncitizen litigants also admit, “we hope to have more children in the future and grow our family.” Not back in their homeland of Russia--here in the United States.

“When I heard that President Trump signed an Executive Order that would have denied L.B. [the baby’s initials] U.S. citizenship, my world fell apart. I was about five months pregnant at the time. I was constantly worried that, without U.S. citizenship, L.B. would be stateless. This constant anxiety took a toll on my mental health.”

“Liza” claims she is afraid to use her real name in the lawsuit for fear “the U.S. government could revoke my student visa as punishment for speaking out, as it has done to so many international students on the same visa I have,” referring to the Trump administration’s restrictions on some student visas.

“Liza,” in the U.S. for less than two years, then mounted her rhetorical high horse. “”[Ever] since I was child myself, I have had a strong sense of justice. I don’t like seeing anyone deprived of their inherent rights, so I have always strived to fight for those who can’t defend themselves.” [Interesting to note that “Liza” did not stay in Russia to fight for “inherent rights” or “justice.”]

She continued her lecture. “Babies are the most defenseless amongst us and the Executive Order threatens to take away their most basic of right of citizenship. I feel that it is my role to stand up not just for my baby, but for all babies that can’t fight for themselves.”

Apparently pro-abortion interests now share the indignation of “Liza” and others over the rights of unborn babies.

And setting aside this new alliance with what the Left usually describes as “fetuses” or “clumps of cells,” it is hard to see how these sanctimonious, ungrateful, and defiant testimonials help their cause.