Apparently, women having children is shocking to the leftists at The New York Times.In an article titled “The Politics and Power of the Pregnancy Image,” by Vanessa Friedman, the paper frets over the image of pregnant MAGA icons.The article points to specific examples of the visible pregnancies of prominent women in the Trump administration, including Second Lady Usha Vance, who is expecting her fourth child, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who recently gave birth to her second child, and podcaster Katie Miller, wife of Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in the Trump administration.The paper cynically frames a normal stage in a family as deliberate political imagery.Image via ‘Story Time with the Second Lady.’From the pregnancies themselves to the mothers-to-be’s fashion choices, which the NYT suggests are deliberately tailored to emphasize a baby bump, the paper sees only political posture.It suggests that it is an outward and visible attempt to personify a key part of the administration’s “family and fertility platform.” The piece notes the coincidence in timing of multiple high-profile MAGA pregnancies but treats it as symbolically potent.They also contrast the feminine imagery of a mother to be as the counter/compliment to the more masculine imagery of MAGA men.Per The New York Times:If the bare-chested, muscled mixed martial arts fighters of the U.F.C. match that President Trump hosted on Flag Day were the poster guys for MAGA’s image of masculinity, then the pregnant women of Trump world are one half of their feminine counterparts. Along with the sheath-clad, lip-filled, pageant-haired Mar-a-Lago set, they offer an image of idealized womanhood that gives literal shape to the pronatalist movement.The Times presents the pregnancies as “propaganda” that “humanizes the administration.”Even more cynically, they quoted Jill Filipovic, the host of the “Week in Women” podcast, who seemed to hint at some sort of Handmaid’s Tale brainwashing must have gone into the decision, because how could a woman want to actually have a child?!“It almost feels like a memo went out,” said Jill Filipovic, the host of the “Week in Women” podcast. “They have quite intentionally opted to present themselves as, ‘I am really pregnant, and this is what women were chosen to do,’ and they are happy to say that both with their looks and their mouths.”“Together, the women have created a notably consistent, and somewhat paradigm-shifting, picture of the White House’s family and fertility platform,” Friedman added.The Times specifically called attention to the dress Mrs. Vance wore on her podcast show “Storytime with the Second Lady,” noting that she was wearing “a stretchy coral dress that hugs her stomach.”Again, as though to suggest a burgeoning wasteline that increasingly makes everything uncomfortable is actually just another opportunity to push a “pronatalist movement.”Mrs. Vance pushed back against the bizarre obsession and criticism of her wardrobe, noting, “Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what the New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks!”“In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good story with your kids on Storytime with the Second Lady.”Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what the New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks! In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good…— Second Lady Usha Vance (@SLOTUS) June 24, 2026The post The New York Times Frets Over Republican Women Having Babies appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.