Our founding fathers spoke of inalienable rights – gifts from God, not permissions granted by men. They believed that all humans possess inherent natural rights, which can neither be granted by, nor cancelled by men. While they sought to protect certain rights in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, they acknowledged that it was an incomplete list.
At the insistence of men such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the Ninth Amendment was included to protect those rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
They weren’t talking about a right to universal health insurance, nor a right to a livable wage. They were talking about things which all humans know in our hearts to be true – such as the right of parents to oversee the welfare of their children.
Parental dominion over our children is an un-enumerated right, which has been universally accepted since Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. It supersedes
- The right of school boards to force transexual ideology on our children,
- The power of medical science to enforce unproven vaccine schedules, and
- The authority of judges to stipulate what a man or woman is.
Christians use the term “Heavenly Father” as an expression of God’s parental dominion over us.
But what defines a parent? Is parenthood established by bloodline, legal decree, or something else entirely? That is a question which the Baby Gabriel case demands we grapple with.
Baby Gabriel is a boy who was born in Texas on August 22, 2026. But his journey to the delivery room, was anything but conventional.
In September of 2025, a California couple, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, entered into a surrogacy arrangement with an Alaskan nurse named McKenna West. She was to carry their fertilized embryo and bear their child.
Unfortunately, the unborn baby boy, whom West named Gabriel, was diagnosed with a serious but treatable heart defect, a few months before his expected birth. Gilkar and Ahmed, the genetic parents, exercised a clause in the surrogacy contract, and demanded that West travel to Seattle to undergo a complex late-term abortion.
West offered to keep the baby herself, rather than have him terminated, but the biological parents refused. The “my body my choice” zealots remain curiously silent on the matter.
Choosing life over death by dismemberment for Baby Gabriel, Ms. West traveled to Texas, which offers legal protections for the unborn. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took legal steps ensuring that Texas hospitals understood their obligation to provide lifesaving care to Gabriel – both before and after his birth.
Now that Gabriel has been born, his future is in the hands of the legal rather than medical system.
- Gilkar and Ahmed have sued in a Texas court for full custody.
- A court has granted Gilkar and Ahmed a temporary restraining order, giving them decision making authority for Gabriel.
- West offered to relinquish her claim on Gabriel, if Gilkar and Ahmed would agree to authorize the lifesaving surgery.
- Gilkar and Ahmed have refused to say the extent of the medical care they will authorize for Gabriel.
- Attorney General Paxton has asked for a hearing, to request a court appointed guardian for Gabriel.
- Gilkar and Ahmed have filed a $100,000 lawsuit against West, claiming her refusal to abort Gabriel is a breach of contract.
The legal battle over Gabriel parallels the story of King Solomon’s wisdom.
According to 1 Kings 3:16–28 in the Bible, at around 950 years B.C., two women in Israel gave birth on the same day in the same maternity ward. One baby lived, but sadly, the other perished. The mother of the deceased child claimed there had been a mix-up, and that the thriving child was actually hers.
Given that this was about 3 millennia before DNA tests enabled Maury Povich to televise parental reveals, the matter was referred to King Solomon for adjudication.
Solomon, having far more wisdom than at least 3 of our 9 Supreme Court justices, requested his sword and ordered the baby cut in half to resolve the dispute. It would be a win/win for everybody – everybody that is … except the baby.
But one woman fell to her knees and begged the King to spare the baby, offering to let the other woman have the entire living child. The wise King knew that the woman placing the baby’s welfare above her own desires, was the rightful mother, and awarded custody to her.
King Solomon’s decision is universally accepted as an example of profound wisdom. But what was his criteria for making the decision? It wasn’t based on bloodline, legal reasoning, or who bore the child. It was based on who loved the child more than herself – and his decision feels right to us.
As an adopted child myself, I have experienced King Solomon’s wisdom. My parents are the couple who nurtured me, guided me, and occasionally held me accountable. They always placed my needs above their own. The man and woman who contributed my DNA, are nothing but happenstance biological players – the bees that pollinated the fruit tree. Parenthood by love, feels right to me.
So, how would King Solomon have adjudicated the matter of a baby named after one of God’s angels? Would he have granted parenthood to the couple that wished to terminate Gabriel rather than face the imperfections that every parent expects, and the uncertainties that every parent accepts? Or would Solomon have granted parenthood to the woman who crossed state lines, and faces a future of economic and legal uncertainty, to give Baby Gabriel a chance to live?
I think we know the answer to that question, because it feels right to us. But legal scholars assure us that the courts will reach the opposite decision – that the genetic parents are the rightful parents of Gabriel. That “what should be” doesn’t comport with “what will be” is why the matter of Baby Gabriel has become a national debate. It forces us to face issues we’ve been avoiding.
Going back to the Bible, what if neither woman standing before King Solomon 3 thousand years ago, had placed the baby’s welfare above her own? What if both were willing to let the baby be carved in two, rather than give up her claim?
Who speaks for the unloved – the countless Gabriels waiting to be carved apart in utero? How many unborn babies have neither a woman nor an Attorney General advocating for them? That is not a rhetorical question. Massachusetts just legalized abortion, up to the minute of birth – becoming the tenth state legalizing the practice. It’s a procedure which divides a baby into pieces, just as savagely as King Solomon’s sword would have. It’s only legal because it’s done a moment before birth, rather after. That legalizing such a procedure has become cause for celebration, should concern all of us.
The angel Gabriel appears four times in the Bible. Each time, as an emissary delivering a message from God. Is God’s messenger visiting us again – this time in the body of a frail newborn baby, confronting us with truths we’ve been avoiding? Is Gabriel’s message that all children are gifts to be cherished, regardless of the infirmities they bear, or the inconveniences they cause?
[Image generated by ChatGPT]
This article appeared previously on American Thinker.
Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now on strike in Galt’s Gulch – which the locals call Idaho. He is a retired engineer who spent much of his career applying engineering principles to organizational development (yes, really). He has written for The American Spectator, Convention of States Action, and American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/u