Representative Lauren Boebert recently suggested, in a signal on abortion policy, that human babies might be also be considered an endangered species.

The comment – combined with an assessment of her policies more generally – shows that Boebert does not orient from a sufficiently just and reasonable position, and thus falls outside of the realm of reasonability necessary to be part of a social contract that is the basis of American freedom.

Here are three reasons:

• Nothing in Boebert’s policies suggests she wants to ensures a minimum level of welfare and development for each child born. No reasonable persons would want to be born without that assurance, lest they be tortured and killed by their parents in infancy. There are ways to empower courts to create such levels.

• Similarly, nothing in her policies suggests she would ensure minimum levels of social development for each child born. No reasonable person would submit to a democracy where other citizens are not developed to participate in that democracy – to join others as equals in a town hall debate to control the rules under which they should live. They certainly would not submit to millions of others raised with no such levels. Is it hard to define welfare and social development for all of this? The Children’s Convention did the defining, decades ago.

• This continued rejection of responsible parenting and child development requirements has fundamentally degraded ecological and social conditions in ways that now threaten U.S. security interests. No reasonable person would continue to exacerbate this situation, but would rather choose to invest in the development of each person to levels that enable security and democracy universally.

In other words, Boebert’s not constituting a just and free society because she is ignoring the necessary development of its members. She believes it’s ok for people you do not trust to have power over you, or she rejects the idea that governance and obligation to follow laws derives from the people.

Based on research verified in almost a dozen peer-reviews, there is no other outcome if you reject fairness in creation.

Free people will condition their obligation to follow the law and respect property rights on this change, and on being democratically empowered using a simple inversion test, because only these changes ensure they will not be impacted by others – through even subtle things like the climate crisis and bad parenting – against their will. The obligation to follow the law stems from systems being fair and free, and systems start with family policy.

Boebert is preconstitutional, promoting an fantasy world of freedom that ignores actual power relations, and their creation or constituting of their relations.

Take action: Urge Boebert here to adopt Fair Start modeling in her policies to correct all of this, and to be reasonable in a way that enables democracy, and the freedom it allows.