“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As pro-lifers, we often return to these venerated words from the Declaration of Independence for good reason. For Thomas Jefferson and the signers, every word, phrase and paragraph were carefully chosen and crafted in this revolutionary document, for they each risked their lives in signing it. It is no mistake that the right to life is placed first. However, I have found myself searching for a more comprehensive or maybe practical understanding of how the right to life impacts our liberty in 21^st century America.

Some are saying we need to jettison controversial social issues, suggesting that some people, including religious leaders, just want to “tell us what to do” with our lives. Whether it is President Obama’s efforts to “tamp down the anger” or some Republican leaders’ attempts to steer the party away from social issues, an underlying argument is that pro-life policies are less important to address than healthcare or education. Nothing is further from the truth! In fact, limiting the right to life to only those who are born, threatens everyone’s liberty.

Liberty is not possible without defined limits. This profound principle in our republic’s founding document argues that the right to life is vital to our liberty. The Federalist Papers are filled with arguments of how the Constitution will establish a government aimed at giving each citizen maximum liberty. Supporters of the Constitution argued that this requires checks and balances on power.

Another argument asks government to “stay out of” the abortion issue. One of the best arguments addressing this issue comes from an excellent essay, “Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly”:

“Some people appeal to “neutrality” in order to sidestep the question of prenatal rights in the abortion debate. Their contention is that the ‘law should not get involved.’ There is a distinction, however: the state can be ‘neutral’ regarding only the desirability of an act, not the right to perform the act. Obviously, the state is not neutral in practice when it enables killing by legalizing it, subsidizing it and giving it police protection.”

Especially within the context of the current debate over our healthcare system, when government has the power to decide which innocent human life is protected in law and which is not, we are all at risk. Are you too underdeveloped, too young, too old, too sick or too well? Do you smoke or eat fatty foods? If any of these are answered in the affirmative, in the future you may not be eligible for the healthcare you need or want. Systems such as those in Canada and Britain are built upon the assumption that government has a role in deciding which human life is worthy and which is not.

There are other issues our country faces where the right to life is foundational to liberty. We must be prepared with every good argument and not cede vital truth principles to those who don’t truly understand that everyone’s liberty comes from our Creator, not from our government.