Analysis. Too many politicians would have us believe that there’s no “due north” as regards the principles of liberty. Instead, they present us with a bunch of subjective beliefs and opinions from among which we’re to choose — subjectivities that ostensibly reflect “the will of the people.”

Have you taken your place on the wall?

View Comments (42)

But in fact, there are preexisting, transcendent principles that have stood the test of time and which can actually guide nations out of darkness and into light. America’s Founding Fathers believed in these principles, in standards established by what they called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” These principles recognize inherent rights, and those include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Founders understood these things, and they recognized the proper role and function of government to be the securing of those rights. They understood too that when governments fail to secure these rights and act tyrannically, it is the duty of the people to throw off such tyranny.

Unalienable rights can’t be left to the whims and caprice behind some so-called “will of the people,” because human will is subjective and ever changing. Consequently, when it comes to preserving any unalienable right, no “states’ rights” response can be a proper solution. If any government is to be legitimate, that government must secure unalienable rights. Slavery, a horrific assault on the inalienable right to liberty, was a blight on our nation from its very inception. Slavery was inherently wrong universally, and could therefore never be made right by any supposed “will of the people,” by the variations of states’ rights, or by the subjective declarations of any government anywhere. Such assaults on unalienable rights can never become legitimate law, and can certainly never become “the law of the land.” In the words of Sir William Blackstone, any law that is contrary to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God cannot be legitimate law. And any attempts by humankind to make such “law” must be, in the words of Augustine, unjust. It was this very understanding that enabled Martin Luther King Jr. to decry the evils of racial bigotry in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” in which he drew a distinction between “just laws” and “unjust laws.” Quite simply, unjust laws can never truly be law.

There are few issues more contentious and divisive than the battle over the right to liberty of mothers and the right to life of the babies those mothers carry. Amid the haze of these contentions, it would seem that the due north of this issue is the only trail that can help us establish proper policy. And this due north can be found only by reminding ourselves of the proper role of government. This standard is objective; it cannot be determined by the subjectivities of some “will of the people.” The legitimate role of a government to secure the inherent and God-given rights of life and liberty can never be relegated to a states’ rights issue. If any such laws are to be just, they must first secure the rights to life and liberty of mothers and babies alike. This becomes confusing only when we forget the proper role of government.

To secure these rights, neither the government nor the medical establishment needs to play God. We simply work to give every human the best possible chance of living a free and healthy life. Most of the time, the life of the mother is not at risk, only the life of the child is. This is true even in those rare, almost unheard-of occasions in which a baby was conceived through rape or incest. The maxim that bad facts make for bad law is true. Consequently, laws are to be made based upon established principles. The life of both mother and child should accordingly be protected by our system of laws. Where there is no threat to the life of the mother, there is simply no issue — both get to live.

A tension will exist only in the equally rare circumstances in which the life of a mother is put at risk by the life of the child. But even in this scenario, there is exactly zero reason why a baby should be brutally murdered by means of thrusting a pair of scissors into the base of the child’s skull and prying them open, or, alternatively, by burning the child alive with saline and then dismembering the body (with the potential risk of bone fragments then being left inside the mother). That is not medical science. It’s ancient barbarism. There’s no way we lack medical advancements going beyond such archaic methodologies that are worse than bleeding with leeches. Accordingly, in those rare instances where both lives are at risk, the response should be a preterm delivery, giving both mother and baby the best possible chance to live.

The solution to these problems does not leave the sides as far apart as one might think. You see, even while this intense culture war has been raging across our land, a miraculous thing has been taking place: Due to medical advances, the age of viability has continued to move younger and younger. This has left us with a gap of only 12 weeks, and shrinking. So, while most abortions occur at 13 weeks, most babies would survive at 25 weeks. Enacting public policy geared to protecting the unalienable right to life of mother and baby means never allowing that baby to be brutally murdered, and allowing a delivery prior to full term only in those rare cases in which the mother may die — but even then doing everything medically possible to save both lives. Our laws should thus set the date for such preterm delivery at or after 25 weeks, though with an allowance for such preterm deliveries earlier if medically necessary. But the laws should be written in such a way that any preterm delivery earlier than 25 weeks would be open to higher scrutiny.

Passing laws that permit premature delivery at 25 weeks only in cases where the mother’s life is at risk aligns with the goal of securing the unalienable right to life for both mother and baby. And it enables the medical community to keep its vow to “do no harm.” Doing no harm means no harm to mother or baby, and this should always be the goal. As to other policies, in all other situations where there may be unwanted babies, allowing faith-based initiatives for ministries to cover the costs for births, medical care, and adoptions also makes sense. This is what finding solutions that secure the rights of life and liberty for all involved should look like, and it is the ultimate role of a true government. Only by reminding our politicians, elected officials, and even ourselves of this proper role of government can we hope to find liberty and justice for all.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean nothing without the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Please pray.

Cynthia Dunbar is an attorney, an author, a constitutional scholar, a Regent University professor of government, a former law professor at Liberty University, an ordained minister through the Federation of Ministers & Churches International, and an IFA board member. She and IFA President and CEO Dave Kubal co-host Constitutional Corner. Follow Cynthia on X or Instagram; view her videos on Freedom Focus; or schedule her here to speak at your next event. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.