The Most Urgent and Dangerous Aspect of Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order: Nobody is Talking About the Nefarious Section 2
The headlines are all staring at the wrong thing.
While the country argues about whether the president can end birthright citizenship by executive order, almost nobody is talking about the time bomb buried in Section 2—the quiet redefinition of “mother” and “father” as biological progenitors.
If the Supreme Court chooses to separate this clause and uphold it while rejecting the citizenship portion, the consequences will not be symbolic. They will be seismic. This single definitional shift could alter abortion rights, IVF, surrogacy, donor conception, adoption, parentage, state citizenship, residency rights, birth certificates, school access, and federal benefits—overnight.
This is not hyperbole. It’s structural truth.
And if SCOTUS blesses that definition? Some states will use it as a green light to escalate their control over pregnancy and reproduction in ways the public has not even begun to imagine.
Here is what happens if Section 2 becomes federal law.
I. The EO Redefines Parentage — and Millions of Families Become “Illegitimate” Overnight
Most Americans assume “parenthood” is whoever raises the child, signs the birth certificate, and has legal custody. U.S. law overwhelmingly works that way.
But Section 2 says:
Only the biological progenitor is the parent.
Accept that definition, and everything breaks at once.
Every non-traditional path to parenthood becomes suspect:
IVF
donor sperm
donor egg
embryo donation
surrogacy
same-sex couples using ART
adoption
step-parent adoption
families where one parent died before birth
families with unknown or anonymous donors
None of these people are the “mother” or “father” under the EO.
Their children suddenly have no legally recognized parents.
And since citizenship, medical authority, taxes, Social Security, state benefits, and almost every federal form requires identifying a parent, millions of families become an administrative impossibility.
II. “Going Forward” Does Not Save Us — It Just Opens the Trap Door Slowly
Some will argue the EO only applies to births after it takes effect.
That doesn’t help.
Every pregnancy, every adoption, every surrogacy contract, every donor-conceived child going forward falls into a federal legal void. The federal government would have to treat intended parents as legal strangers and look instead for genetic parents.
But genetic parents might be:
anonymous
dead
foreign
a donor who signed away all rights
completely unknown due to closed records
a clinic-provided donor ID that cannot be traced
The EO requires answers that IVF clinics cannot legally provide and donors never agreed to release.
The system collapses before lunch on Day One.
III. Gametes in IVF Clinics Become a Constitutional Nightmare
Gametes are not persons. They have no rights, no status, no nationality. But the EO effectively forces agencies to treat the genetic source as the true parent.
So what happens if:
Donor sperm comes from a non-citizen?
Donor eggs come from an unknown source?
Frozen embryos were created in 2014 using mixed donor material?
The intended parents are U.S. citizens but genetically irrelevant?
These cases are not fringe. They are normal IVF cases.
Under Section 2, the child’s citizenship would depend on the DNA of donors the parents have never met, cannot identify, and are legally barred from tracking down.
You cannot build a functioning citizenship system based on gametes in cold storage.
But that’s what “biological progenitor” demands.
IV. The EO Creates a Dangerous Pregnancy Paradox: A Pregnant Woman Who Is Not the Mother
Section 2 decouples gestation from parentage.
This means a woman pregnant with:
a donor-egg embryo
an embryo created from two genetic parents
a donor-sperm embryo
an embryo created years earlier
a surrogacy arrangement
a genetically modified embryo
or any embryo to which she did not contribute DNA
…is not the legal mother.
She is just the gestational carrier.
This matters because abortion rights depend on who has legal authority over the pregnancy.
If she is not the mother, she may not have authority.
And that opens the door to the darkest consequence yet.
V. Abortion Rights Can Be Denied Through Parentage, Not Personhood
Imagine a woman pregnant with a donor-egg or donor-sperm embryo. If she seeks an abortion, a state or federal agency could argue:
“She is not the mother. She has no standing to terminate the pregnancy.”
Decision-making authority would shift to the “biological progenitors,” who may be:
anonymous donors
unreachable
dead
unwilling
unknown
If no legal parent exists, agencies can default to a freeze:
“No decision may be made until parentage is confirmed.”
In a state with abortion bans, that’s a death sentence for autonomy.
This is not fiction. Courts have already issued temporary injunctions blocking surrogates from terminating non-viable pregnancies due to parentage disputes.
Section 2 gives states a federal umbrella to expand that logic.
VI. How States Could Weaponize Section 2 Even Further
Dobbs handed states the power to define when life begins. Combine that with a federally blessed “biological progenitor” standard, and states get an open runway to redefine who counts as a parent, who counts as a child, and who counts as a citizen.
Restrictive states could:
1. Redefine state-level citizenship and residency
States can’t revoke federal citizenship, but they can deny:
state IDs
birth certificate recognition
school enrollment
welfare benefits
in-state tuition
certain voting rights tied to residency
parental rights for non-biological parents
States learned these tricks during same-sex marriage fights. They know how to weaponize recognition.
2. Deny medical authority to pregnant women
States could argue:
“Only biological progenitors have parental authority. The pregnant woman is not a parent.”
This slams directly into abortion care, emergency care, and miscarriage treatment.
3. Block IVF or surrogacy births from being recognized as belonging to their families
If Section 2 says genetics defines parentage, states can reject the intended parents outright.
4. Expand fetal personhood
Some states have already declared embryos as “children.”
Combine that with genetic parentage, and you get a system where embryos have rights, but the woman carrying them does not.
VII. Section 2 Enables State-Controlled Pregnancy
This is the endpoint nobody wants to say out loud, but it’s the logical direction of the law:
If the pregnant woman is not the parent
If the embryo/fetus is a “child” under state law
If the genetic parents have parental authority
If state attorneys general can intervene “on behalf of the unborn child”
If abortion is illegal
If miscarriage care is already criminally investigated
…then the state becomes the de facto guardian of the pregnancy.
That means:
the woman can be legally blocked from ending the pregnancy
the woman can be denied care for medical complications
the woman can be forced to continue the pregnancy for the genetic parents
the woman can be compelled to undergo procedures she does not consent to
the state can override her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus
the woman becomes a vessel, not a parent
Section 2 turns the logic of state control into federal policy.
Once SCOTUS blesses it, there is no firewall left.
VIII. This Isn’t a Culture War. It’s Structural Power.
Section 2 is not about families.
It’s about authority.
Redefining parentage through genetics gives governments and courts unprecedented leverage to:
decide who counts
decide who belongs
decide who is legitimate
decide who has reproductive rights
decide who can make medical decisions
decide whose children “qualify”
Once states have that power, they use it.
History makes that point loudly.
And the people most affected are always:
women
LGBTQ families
infertile couples
IVF patients
donor-conceived families
marginalized groups
anyone outside a narrow definition of “acceptable” family structures
Section 2 is a blueprint for social engineering under the cover of administrative precision.
IX. The Bottom Line
If SCOTUS separates Section 2 and upholds the “biological progenitor” definition while rejecting the citizenship portion, the danger does not shrink.
It multiplies.
It creates two parallel systems of parenthood—one legal, one genetic—and forces every pregnancy, every family, and every child into a bureaucratic fight over which definition wins.
Some states will seize that weapon immediately.
And when they do, the country will wake up in a place where millions of Americans are suddenly stripped of parental identity, pregnant women lose medical authority, and the state gains unprecedented control over reproduction and citizenship by redefining what a parent is.
This is not theoretical.
It is exactly what the text allows.
And if the Supreme Court decides that Section 2 stands?
We’re not debating birthright citizenship anymore.
We’re debating who belongs to the state—and who doesn’t.
This was a fascinating conversation about Luigi. I thought I heard that he had chronic back pain and wonder if that played a part. I am conflicted with this case because I know killing someone is wrong, but I am also sympathetic to how broken the health care system is for many Americans.
There is no nice way to put this, but he murdered the man. The supporters may be well behaved and organized but it doesn't mitigate the premeditation and the determination of Mangione.
The Most Urgent and Dangerous Aspect of Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order: Nobody is Talking About the Nefarious Section 2
The headlines are all staring at the wrong thing.
While the country argues about whether the president can end birthright citizenship by executive order, almost nobody is talking about the time bomb buried in Section 2—the quiet redefinition of “mother” and “father” as biological progenitors.
If the Supreme Court chooses to separate this clause and uphold it while rejecting the citizenship portion, the consequences will not be symbolic. They will be seismic. This single definitional shift could alter abortion rights, IVF, surrogacy, donor conception, adoption, parentage, state citizenship, residency rights, birth certificates, school access, and federal benefits—overnight.
This is not hyperbole. It’s structural truth.
And if SCOTUS blesses that definition? Some states will use it as a green light to escalate their control over pregnancy and reproduction in ways the public has not even begun to imagine.
Here is what happens if Section 2 becomes federal law.
I. The EO Redefines Parentage — and Millions of Families Become “Illegitimate” Overnight
Most Americans assume “parenthood” is whoever raises the child, signs the birth certificate, and has legal custody. U.S. law overwhelmingly works that way.
But Section 2 says:
Only the biological progenitor is the parent.
Accept that definition, and everything breaks at once.
Every non-traditional path to parenthood becomes suspect:
IVF
donor sperm
donor egg
embryo donation
surrogacy
same-sex couples using ART
adoption
step-parent adoption
families where one parent died before birth
families with unknown or anonymous donors
None of these people are the “mother” or “father” under the EO.
Their children suddenly have no legally recognized parents.
And since citizenship, medical authority, taxes, Social Security, state benefits, and almost every federal form requires identifying a parent, millions of families become an administrative impossibility.
II. “Going Forward” Does Not Save Us — It Just Opens the Trap Door Slowly
Some will argue the EO only applies to births after it takes effect.
That doesn’t help.
Every pregnancy, every adoption, every surrogacy contract, every donor-conceived child going forward falls into a federal legal void. The federal government would have to treat intended parents as legal strangers and look instead for genetic parents.
But genetic parents might be:
anonymous
dead
foreign
a donor who signed away all rights
completely unknown due to closed records
a clinic-provided donor ID that cannot be traced
The EO requires answers that IVF clinics cannot legally provide and donors never agreed to release.
The system collapses before lunch on Day One.
III. Gametes in IVF Clinics Become a Constitutional Nightmare
Gametes are not persons. They have no rights, no status, no nationality. But the EO effectively forces agencies to treat the genetic source as the true parent.
So what happens if:
Donor sperm comes from a non-citizen?
Donor eggs come from an unknown source?
Frozen embryos were created in 2014 using mixed donor material?
The intended parents are U.S. citizens but genetically irrelevant?
These cases are not fringe. They are normal IVF cases.
Under Section 2, the child’s citizenship would depend on the DNA of donors the parents have never met, cannot identify, and are legally barred from tracking down.
You cannot build a functioning citizenship system based on gametes in cold storage.
But that’s what “biological progenitor” demands.
IV. The EO Creates a Dangerous Pregnancy Paradox: A Pregnant Woman Who Is Not the Mother
Section 2 decouples gestation from parentage.
This means a woman pregnant with:
a donor-egg embryo
an embryo created from two genetic parents
a donor-sperm embryo
an embryo created years earlier
a surrogacy arrangement
a genetically modified embryo
or any embryo to which she did not contribute DNA
…is not the legal mother.
She is just the gestational carrier.
This matters because abortion rights depend on who has legal authority over the pregnancy.
If she is not the mother, she may not have authority.
And that opens the door to the darkest consequence yet.
V. Abortion Rights Can Be Denied Through Parentage, Not Personhood
Imagine a woman pregnant with a donor-egg or donor-sperm embryo. If she seeks an abortion, a state or federal agency could argue:
“She is not the mother. She has no standing to terminate the pregnancy.”
Decision-making authority would shift to the “biological progenitors,” who may be:
anonymous donors
unreachable
dead
unwilling
unknown
If no legal parent exists, agencies can default to a freeze:
“No decision may be made until parentage is confirmed.”
In a state with abortion bans, that’s a death sentence for autonomy.
This is not fiction. Courts have already issued temporary injunctions blocking surrogates from terminating non-viable pregnancies due to parentage disputes.
Section 2 gives states a federal umbrella to expand that logic.
VI. How States Could Weaponize Section 2 Even Further
Dobbs handed states the power to define when life begins. Combine that with a federally blessed “biological progenitor” standard, and states get an open runway to redefine who counts as a parent, who counts as a child, and who counts as a citizen.
Restrictive states could:
1. Redefine state-level citizenship and residency
States can’t revoke federal citizenship, but they can deny:
state IDs
birth certificate recognition
school enrollment
welfare benefits
in-state tuition
certain voting rights tied to residency
parental rights for non-biological parents
States learned these tricks during same-sex marriage fights. They know how to weaponize recognition.
2. Deny medical authority to pregnant women
States could argue:
“Only biological progenitors have parental authority. The pregnant woman is not a parent.”
This slams directly into abortion care, emergency care, and miscarriage treatment.
3. Block IVF or surrogacy births from being recognized as belonging to their families
If Section 2 says genetics defines parentage, states can reject the intended parents outright.
4. Expand fetal personhood
Some states have already declared embryos as “children.”
Combine that with genetic parentage, and you get a system where embryos have rights, but the woman carrying them does not.
VII. Section 2 Enables State-Controlled Pregnancy
This is the endpoint nobody wants to say out loud, but it’s the logical direction of the law:
If the pregnant woman is not the parent
If the embryo/fetus is a “child” under state law
If the genetic parents have parental authority
If state attorneys general can intervene “on behalf of the unborn child”
If abortion is illegal
If miscarriage care is already criminally investigated
…then the state becomes the de facto guardian of the pregnancy.
That means:
the woman can be legally blocked from ending the pregnancy
the woman can be denied care for medical complications
the woman can be forced to continue the pregnancy for the genetic parents
the woman can be compelled to undergo procedures she does not consent to
the state can override her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus
the woman becomes a vessel, not a parent
Section 2 turns the logic of state control into federal policy.
Once SCOTUS blesses it, there is no firewall left.
VIII. This Isn’t a Culture War. It’s Structural Power.
Section 2 is not about families.
It’s about authority.
Redefining parentage through genetics gives governments and courts unprecedented leverage to:
decide who counts
decide who belongs
decide who is legitimate
decide who has reproductive rights
decide who can make medical decisions
decide whose children “qualify”
Once states have that power, they use it.
History makes that point loudly.
And the people most affected are always:
women
LGBTQ families
infertile couples
IVF patients
donor-conceived families
marginalized groups
anyone outside a narrow definition of “acceptable” family structures
Section 2 is a blueprint for social engineering under the cover of administrative precision.
IX. The Bottom Line
If SCOTUS separates Section 2 and upholds the “biological progenitor” definition while rejecting the citizenship portion, the danger does not shrink.
It multiplies.
It creates two parallel systems of parenthood—one legal, one genetic—and forces every pregnancy, every family, and every child into a bureaucratic fight over which definition wins.
Some states will seize that weapon immediately.
And when they do, the country will wake up in a place where millions of Americans are suddenly stripped of parental identity, pregnant women lose medical authority, and the state gains unprecedented control over reproduction and citizenship by redefining what a parent is.
This is not theoretical.
It is exactly what the text allows.
And if the Supreme Court decides that Section 2 stands?
We’re not debating birthright citizenship anymore.
We’re debating who belongs to the state—and who doesn’t.
This was a fascinating conversation about Luigi. I thought I heard that he had chronic back pain and wonder if that played a part. I am conflicted with this case because I know killing someone is wrong, but I am also sympathetic to how broken the health care system is for many Americans.
💙💙💙
There is no nice way to put this, but he murdered the man. The supporters may be well behaved and organized but it doesn't mitigate the premeditation and the determination of Mangione.
💜