A federal judge just issued a gut-wrenching ruling that left Christians furious


Religious freedom is under assault like we’ve never seen before.

Leftists are on a mission to make living out your faith illegal.

And one federal judge struck down a Trump administration rule and Christians are furious.

For the vast majority of Leftists, their political beliefs are their religion.

And Leftism is an expansionist religion that does not allow a plurality of ideas.

This is why Christians are under constant attack.

And religious liberty just took another blow when an activist judge made a gut-wrenching ruling on the issue of abortion.

Life News reports:

Another federal judge has struck down pro-life rules implemented by President Donald Trump protecting medical professionals such as doctors or nurses from being forced to kill babies in abortion or make referrals for abortions.


Despite current law that has protected conscience rights for over 30 years, the lack of regulations resulted in confusion and a lack of awareness within the healthcare community, leaving healthcare personnel vulnerable to discrimination and forcing them to drop their specialties at a time of healthcare scarcity.


Late Tuesday, another federal judge, located in liberal San Francisco, struck down Trump’s pro-life rule. U.S. District Judge William Alsup claimed Trump’s pro-life rule is invalid because it would let ambulance drivers refuse to take a woman for an emergency abortion — even though doctors have certified that killing a baby in an abortion is never medically necessary.

Among all of Leftism’s tenets, the worship of abortion is probably the most disturbing.

Not only does the Left want to be able to kill babies, they want to force others to do it, too.

This is sickening, and shows how much the culture has been degraded.

And the example that Judge Alsup gave was ridiculous.

No Christian medical professional would eject a pregnant woman in distress from an ambulance.

But these are the types of arguments the Left uses to quash other people’s rights.

Fortunately, Trump is rectifying the problem of activist judges by filling nearly 150 federal vacancies with judges that believe in upholding the constitution, but the ones already on the bench are doing considerable damage to the country.

Do you think it’s immoral for medical professionals to be forced to facilitate abortions?

Leave a comment below.


  1. Loading...
  2. This is why, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the democrat party is circling the drain and will soon be a bad memory. They have proven themselves to be devious liars with no morals or decent goals. This next election in 2020 will prove my point.

  3. No One But NO ONE should be forced to go against their moral and religious beliefs by committing this abomination against a baby!! Abortion is murder. Plain and simple.
    This goes to show how really sickening and disgusting the Liberals have stooped. No hearts and no souls. They have no problem killing an innocent baby. But yet they scream about capital punishment is cruel and inhuman. People are on death row are there for YEARS! Once their sentence was passed, they do not face their death sentence immediately. But yet these women ( and their partners), who for the most part, were just too lazy to use some sort of birth control not to get pregnant to begin with, can just end these poor innocent lives immediately!! Then we have a disturbing judge like this one, condoning their actions.
    GOD help us all against this madness!!! Please.

  4. Lawyers and Judges have become increasingly leftist. Obama packed the courts with liberal Judges but Democrats know if you want a far left ruling all you need to do is hold court in California.

  5. I’ve been telling people my whole life that liberalism / progressivism is a religion.
    It’s name is secular humanism.
    The religion of secular humanism is similar to Islam in that both religions cannot tolerate dissent or opposing religions to exist. These two religions will use the sword and government to stomp out every other religion and force everyone to embrace their religion or face punishment.
    Secular humanism is the state sponsored religion, and the only religion exempt from separation of church and state.

  6. Our founding fathers never meant there to be a separation of church and state. They themselves did not practice it. And since islam and secular humanism cannot tolerate opposing religions they should do us all a favor and stomp each other out of existence.

  7. There is a special place in Hell for those who force others to murder the most helpless and innocent human beings. Life begins at conception. The left swears by science when it suits their agenda, but denies it when it does not

  8. It is sik and vile to force anyone to indulge in the murder of helpless infants and fetuses. Especially thos whose whole mission is to cure th e sick and especially “do no harm”, In my 43 years as a compounding pharmacist in a university medical center, I could not believe that any physician could do this. Especially if the victim was being born. That is an immoral judgement. Let us hope that Trump can find a moral and Chrstian judge to overturn that murderous judge.

  9. I’m all for impeachment! Of these idiot judges on the left that think they have the right to make up laws and tear down laws they don’t like. How hard could it be t remove a judge?

  10. This is another immoral judge who cannot make any decent ruling and they should resign. To force doctors, nurses and anybody else to participate in infanticide is just inhuman!! For the life of me, I don’t understand this Liberal mindset. Why can’t we have a ruling for birth control so that we don’t have to deal with abortion?? We are a sick society now and we need to get back to the decent, moral and compassionate America!!

  11. I am first a Christian and also an EMT. I cannot conceive denying transport to anyone, pregnant or not, having a medical emergency. It has been emphasized to us since the beginning of our training that ambulances are not taxis.

  12. “Unalienable Rights” {The definition of inalienable is unable to be taken away or to be given to another.
    The right to life and liberty are examples of rights that are described as.} adjective incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable inalienable rights. The Bill of rights is inalienable. One of the most deeply rooted principles in American jurisprudence is the concept of due process of law, which is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Under what Constitutional authority did this judge violate a citizens unalienable rights to be freedom of his/her God Given right to their individual as a member of a chosen religious belief?

  13. I agree with a lot of you folks. These judges and the radical left do not represent my country. They are taking America to hell. Those people in America who voted for those radical left senators are to blame. These activist judges are a poor representation of our judicial system. To those who voted for the radical left to power, whatever happens to this country, you deserve what’s coming to you.

  14. As a 40 year veteran RN I have never and will never participate in taking a human life. That goes against every oath we take as healthcare providers. Liberal judges can shove it.

  15. As far as I am concerned, the judge can go to hell. I won’t be involved in sending him, but someone will. As a potential juror, I know that I will vote to acquit. It is my duty, as a juror, to nullify bad law.

  16. We need stand up and go vote for the right people to serve our country! Pray for all in government to do the right thing or just get out. The Lord is the final Judge and the only fair honest one. Our country needs prayers and for us to stand up for truth! We have to believe God is still in control and has our backs!

  17. This case needs to go to SCOTUS. The left knows that no one working an ambulance will kick a patient out. Now if the patient is a Christian, one of the hard core liberals might do it.

  18. The judges reasoning and decision is as flawed as it is absurd. But when you re dealing with the left wing don t expect fair and in this case judicious common sense.

  19. Abortion Can Be Medically Necessary
    September 25, 2019
    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians for Reproductive Health released the following joint statement:

    “The science of medicine is not subjective, and a strongly held personal belief should never outweigh scientific evidence, override standards of medical care, or drive policy that puts a person’s health and life at risk.

    “Pregnancy imposes significant physiological changes on a person’s body. These changes can exacerbate underlying or preexisting conditions, like renal or cardiac disease, and can severely compromise health or even cause death. Determining the appropriate medical intervention depends on a patient’s specific condition. There are situations where pregnancy termination in the form of an abortion is the only medical intervention that can preserve a patient’s health or save their life.

    “As physicians, we are focused on protecting the health and lives of the patients for whom we provide care. Without question, abortion can be medically necessary.”

  20. Secular humanism equals Nazi euthansia in many respects an deserves to be stamped out, Hail to our Contritution!

  21. No abortion should be preformed at all, unless the woman was raped or had a medical issue with the life of the mother and then it should be the mothers decision, no one else’s.

  22. Hi LTC Reade, you know more about the Constitution than most of Congress and Possibly more than the liberal quacks Judges that violate it all too often. Please run for office. I’m a fellow Veteran.

  23. William F. Reade, Jr. LTC USA (RET):

    In writing recently about Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of American Independence, I began to wonder whether abortion is among the unalienable rights which Jefferson defined as the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In a sense, the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court implicitly recognized abortion as an unalienable right. The Court understood that women will always find a way in desperate circumstances to have an abortion. The focus of Roe v. Wade was not on preventing something that could never truly be prevented, but in finding a way to guarantee to women the right to a safe, medically sound abortion.

    Any doctrine that cedes to women an unalienable right to an abortion must be based on the simple reality that a woman is ultimately in control of her body. She is by no means always in complete control, but the history of our species indicates that if pushed to an extreme desire to abort a pregnancy, women will do so themselves, at great risk to their own life. This has always been the case, and always shall be. No legislation, no regulation, no public shaming will prevent a determined woman from carrying out an abortion herself.

    On this basis, abortion is indeed an unalienable right granted to women by Nature, and if you so choose, by God, who decreed that women shall be given the privilege of bringing human beings into the world. In Jefferson’s terms, a woman may choose an abortion for reasons of “life,” – the preservation of her own life if she has reason to believe the pregnancy is a personal danger to her; for reasons of “liberty,” the liberty to prevent an intolerable economic burden that would condemn her, the newborn, and her existing children, to living in poverty; and the “pursuit of happiness,” meaning the right of a woman not to carry to term a pregnancy forced upon her by rape, or even, more selfishly, by carelessness and inadvertence.

    But, wait a minute, you say. What of the right to life of the fetus? The fetus is helpless. Doesn’t its right to life trump that of the mother? This is the core of the modern argument against abortion, but to accept this argument, and indeed to even put it forward, it is necessary to grant to the fetus the status of a human being. “All men are created equal,” said Jefferson, by which of course he meant white, male, gentlemen farmers like himself, when it came to exercising voting power in the new republic of the United States of America. In many other respects he clearly meant women, as evidenced by the education he gave to his daughters, which was equivalent to that granted exclusively in his day to men. The anti-abortion argument would, therefore, say, “All fetuses are men.” In fact, the argument would extend further, to include the blastocyst, and the zygote, and even ultimately the idea of human conception, in that anything that interferes with human conception, like an IUD, is an “abortifacient” and must be outlawed. This is indeed the argument now being made by the anti-abortion forces in America, including prominent Republicans like Ted Cruz.

    I find these arguments to be seriously flawed, as applied to fetuses in the earliest stage of development. I do not deny that at some point of development, the fetus does develop human rights, and that these rights do trump those of the woman carrying the fetus. This demarcation line was precisely what Roe v. Wade attempted to determine, erring on the side of the fetus as much as possible. But the right to life movement in the United States isn’t interested in such nuances, and their arguments become ludicrous when applied to blastocysts and zygotes, which are invisible to the naked eye and undetectable by the woman when conception first occurs. I’ve stated my reasons for why these arguments are untenable here, which I need not discuss now, other than to say that right-to-life supporters have forced themselves into an absurd and indefensible position because they have lost sight of the difference between a human being and a human becoming. In so doing, they have bumped up against the inevitable consequence of such flawed thinking, which is ultimately if human life begins at conception, abortion of any sort is murder, and a grave crime against humanity. Yet even the most Catholic societies which make abortion illegal, such as El Salvador, do not impose the death penalty on women who perform abortions on themselves. They do not do so because they are afraid of the outrage this would cause in society at large, and the fact that murdering women through state capital punishment could not possibly be seen by a just society as a necessary penalty for an abortion.

    A second reason the Catholic Church in these countries does not demand the extreme penalty of the law for what they define as a genocide or holocaust of innocent babies, is that this would expose the reality that the state in executing women is acting only as an agent for the moralizing agents behind these executions – the priests, bishops and cardinals who have pressured the government to outlaw abortion. This is the reality as well in the U.S. Politicians here may fervently believe that abortion in all circumstances is evil and must be outlawed, but they derive their moral argument from several hundred men who are Catholic bishops, 12 men who are the senior Apostles of the Mormon Church, and other men who are Evangelical televangelists. If all abortions are criminalized, the state has effectively taken some degree of control over the reproductive decisions, and the bodies, of around 150 million females in this country. But the real forces behind this decision are at most a thousand men and a few self-appointed women (Phyllis Schlafly comes to mind), who provide the supposed moral justification for criminalizing abortion. None of these self-anointed moral arbiters is elected to public office or accountable to the women whose most intimate and long-lasting decisions they wish to determine.

    But all this argumentation avoids the fundamental fact that society can make every possible attempt to outlaw and criminalize abortion, but it can never completely take away a woman’s ability and right to perform an abortion on herself. This fact cannot be avoided, and this fact forces us time and time again to return to the truth about abortion – that it is an unalienable right endowed upon all women. In a just society, government would pursue a policy which makes abortion available and safe, for those women who want one. This is what Roe v. Wade in the U.S. does, and this is why fundamentally, despite over 40 years of opposition to this decision by anti-abortion forces, the public still supports the right of women to an abortion.

  24. Wow!! That’s a gigantic stretch by that judge to find a basis for his anti-religious ruling that is clearly contrary to existing law. He should receive an award for his creativity. It even approaches the creativity of Chief Justice Roberts in saving Obamacare from the looming ruling of unconstitutionality.

  25. Remember Matthew 24: “When you see these things happening, don’t fret. It’s just the beginning of the end.” Now……………we are in the end times. Jesus WILL return and these people will feel GOD’s wrath on Judgment Day. All we can do now is pray.

  26. bj: Is the following statement a correct analysis of what you just stated?:

    It’s okay if the woman dies along with the fetus as long as she doesn’t have an abortion.

  27. Doctors have certified that killing a baby in an abortion is never medically necessary.There’s the answer.Judges don’t have medical degrees nor are they ordained Ministers.twisting the laws to change the meaning for convenience is not only immoral.It’s violates the rights of others above the rights of one female intent on killing her baby.

  28. The so-called judge said “it would let ambulance drivers refuse to take a woman for an emergency abortion”. If it was an emergency, she should be taken to a hospital. HE IS AN IDIOT.

  29. Jerry Lessard:

    “Abortion is never medically necessary”


    Inaccurate: Certain medical conditions such as placenta previa and HELLP syndrome can make abortion a necessary medical procedure in order to prevent the mother’s death.
    Misleading: While it is possible for early delivery to preserve both the life of the mother and child in the event of a life-threatening condition, it does not mention that this is only applicable when a fetus’ gestational age is advanced enough that its survival outside the womb is possible (generally >24 weeks old). In situations where a fetus has not developed sufficiently, it would not be possible for expedited delivery to save its life.

    Certain life-threatening conditions during pregnancy can make abortion medically necessary in order to save the mother’s life. Preserving both the life of the mother and child by inducing early delivery, is only possible if the fetus’ gestational age is advanced enough that it stands a chance of survival outside the womb. As this is not always the case, early delivery is not always a suitable alternative to abortion.

  30. Funny, the only ones talking about this is the right, and the right lies alot. I have not even seen it on Fo, News. Ialso have family that works in the medical community My wife Check with some local Surgeons, and not one was ordered to abort some woman’s baby.

  31. Don, this is just another Lying Conspiracy Theory to take out minds off of the Totally corruptive, and ant-Christ President. I wonder what Trump would do if he were called publically an anti-Christ????

  32. Making All doctors perform Abortions is like making every person with a drivers licence for a car be forced to drive big rig trucks Greyhound and City and even large school us drivers. I might get into a serious to deadly vehicle accident within 2 weeks This sounds like something that Trump would say to deflects people’s minds off of impeachment. This is no Hoax. Trump is out to make us Putin’s partner . Is that what you want?

  33. “No Christian medical professional would eject a pregnant woman in distress from an ambulance.” That’s not Judge Alsup’s point, as he was probably focused on the ways that the Trump administration’s policy could be abused by anybody, whether that person is “Christian” or not.

  34. That “freedom of religion” clause prohibits the government from tossing you into jail or sentencing you to death solely on account of your faith or lack thereof, as tied to “freedom of speech” and everybody’s right to peaceably assemble or petition the government for redress of grievances. This does not protect you from being fired from your job for refusing to do your damned job. If you do not like what your job requires you to do, then you are supposed to resign, or petition for a rule change while faithfully carrying out the job functions until such time as those functions are amended.

  35. Within its own borders, the government of the People’s Republic of China is strong enough to strike Judaism, Christianity and Islam all at once. That same government also has a lot of non-military influence beyond its own borders. The atheists are well aware of the conflicts among religious faction, and some of those atheists are more than willing to exploit it. If somehow Islam “democratically” overtakes the Western bloc, the atheists of the Eastern bloc are not going to cry for the Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Mormon or Jewish lives lost, but instead double-down on the contempt for religious piety, classifying it as terrorism.

  36. It’s not that simple. Often times there is no moral person available to be voted for. That means that you have to quit your job and thrust yourself into the amalgamation of civics and politics, and this requires being brave as the establishment will definitely try to commit the full force of the law, or turning a blind eye contrarily, in order to exclude you from participation.

  37. Sometimes laws contradict other laws, and when that happens, the courts have near total authority on the matter of sorting it out. That’s the way our republic works.

  38. To Kaci Stahl :
    You stated that some people do not recognize the difference between BEING a person, and BECOMING a person. You also stated that a point would be reached at which a developing blastocyst/zygote/fetus/baby would then DEVELOP HUMAN RIGHTS, (including life.) You stated that the focus of the Roe v. Wade decision by SCOTUS was to establish the line of demarcation, after which the new life should be recognized to have status of rights. Your remarks appear to limit that line to be at and after the point of viability outside the womb. “Right-To-Choose” advocates have now pushed for recognition of rights to not be until as late as a “partial-birth abortion,” or even after delivery. Those ideas would place the mother’s “rights” to be not just equal to those of the new life ; but rather superior to any rights of the new life. A pregnant woman holds the ability to have an abortion ; thus forever to terminate all further physical development and functions of that new life. The developing person at that point does not YET possess abilities to fend for herself (or himself.) There are changes which occur at birth and immediately afterward – such as breathing, and becoming physically separated from the mother. Other development and changes continue occurring, until death.

    However, even greater changes occurred at the instant of conception. Prior to fertilization/conception, neither the ovum nor the sperm was able to develop further, by itself. The necessary contents were not available, to each other. AFTER conception, the massive changes and development were ENABLED. Barring interference, there then existed the possibility for it to grow into viability, within the nurturing environment designed and constructed by The Creator. Changes after that are stages, none of which were functionally enabled before being started by conception.

    NONE of this is about Catholicism, which is less than 2,000 years old ; or Islam, which is less old than Catholicism ; or Mormonism, which is less than 200 years old ; or “Evangelical Televangelism, which is less than 100 years old. No, this is a very basic principle, pre-dating ALL of those religious entities ; so do not claim that those entities are the source(s) of Pro-Life, which you call “anti-abortion.” Though I am not a “high scholar” in this field, I do wish to present at least SOME defense for those who are least able to defend themselves : those who are still pre-born.

    There is a great difference between preventing conception, and later killing the life which BEGAN at conception. An “abortifacient” is something which facilitates, or “triggers,” a spontaneous miscarriage/abortion. The so-called “morning after pill” is such an item. It is a hormone which triggers delivery, with contractions of the uterus. It causes the expulsion of the placenta, and its contents. An IUD (Intra-Uterine Device) attempts to block the pathway of sperm swimming toward the ovum/egg. A condom or a diaphragm also attempts to block that pathway. Sometimes, they break. A spermicide attempts to kill all of the sperm cells before they can reach an egg. Your statements that “…the arguments made by the anti-abortion forces in America…” would include outlawing “…anything that interferes with conception, like an IUD, is an abortifacient…” is flawed ; in the extent that only SOME pro-life advocates oppose preventing conception (most notably Catholics) ; while all pro-life people favor preventing murder of the unborn who simply present inconvenience to the mother.

    There are a FEW medical conditions which may require interference, such as when the fetus is already dead, and gangrene then threatens the mother’s death to be added to the death of the baby. An ectopic pregnancy, (lodged in the Fallopian tube) will be unable to go to full term ; because of growth which will exceed the capacity of the tube, for one thing. Transplantation from there to the uterine wall may not yet be within the abilities of obstetricians, or other surgeons. Also, the muscles required to deliver the baby do not exist in those tubes, as available to the uterus. Eventual gangrene would kill the mother. Other problems might be of placenta previa, or of HELLP syndrome.

    HOWEVER, the “right-to-choose” measures for abortion-on-demand, including by “Planned Parenthood,” (whom I call “Planned Homicidal Prevention Of Parenthood,”) are being condoned and practiced in the U.S. by many millions of people ; in order to ESCAPE their proper parental responsibilities of supporting life for new beings WHOM THEY HAVE STARTED !!! Too many people today want to have sex (a privilege, not a “right”) without bearing the responsibilities.

    It has always been wrong to lie, cheat, and steal – even before these things were “criminalized” or “made illegal.” This also applies to STEALING the life of someone unjustly (“murder.) A blastocyst, or zygote, or fetus, or baby – is innocent, and does not deserve to be destroyed !!! He (or she) did not cause his (or her) own beginning. If anyone deserves any unfavorable consequences, it has to be among those people who were involved in causing the conception. The fact of a newly-conceived blastocyst being too small to be seen by the naked eye does not prove it to not be alive – so are amoebas ! It will quickly attach to the uterine wall (hopefully not still in the Fallopian tube) and will need to be supplied with food, water, and oxygen. It will also need to eliminate waste. That is LIFE !!! Changes are most rapid at first, then slow until death.

    Even if the mother was raped, it is still not the fault of the new life ! Even though the mother was a victim of a criminal act ; the child has not earned death ! The child is not guilty of the unlawful behavior of a parent. Elective consequences belong being placed upon the guilty – not upon the innocent !!!

    While Jefferson had some flaws, such as owning slaves ; his declaration that “All men are created equal” was a reference that people should not have to live under tyrannies, such as had existed in Europe. Of course, recognition eventually eliminated “owning” people, in the U.S. He was not just talking about “white, male, gentlemen farmers like himself, when it came to exercising voting power in the new republic of the United States Of America.” He was most especially saying that monarchs and other dictators do not have the “right” to rule over everyone else. Extreme taxes and wrongful death sentences had been imposed on people in European countries ; and this new republic would not be that way. The very first right which He enumerated was, and is, LIFE !!! For example, my right to pursuit of happiness does not supersede your right to live, etc. The fact of my ability to unjustly take the life of another can never grant me the “right” to do so ; no matter whether my victim may be an adult, or an innocent blastocyst/zygote/fetus/ or baby. Life is a right ; abortion-on-demand is a violation of THAT RIGHT !!!!!

  39. ALL human LIFE is a right not a choice. That’s how communism rearranged the concept of thought by changing a definition. Then you agree like your part of the thought process.YOUR NOT ! That’s the problem. Communism offers no choice or NO thought process. It’s their way or the hiway of a bullet to the back of the head. Which by the way,is being discussed openly as we speak by the other side FALSE REALITY of religion and not a claim to faith of the Faithful!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here