roe vs wade last year. a decision from the 1970 is that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion. many states across the country have outlawed or restricted the procedure. texas is one of those states, even if the federal government continues to allow for abortions in federal facilities. stephanie carter is a practicing christian who is opposed to abortion. she recently told a reporter that over the course of her 57 years, she's had 6 abortions for as a consequence of being rate. she said quote, i'm a person who has had abortions in the past. that was before i came to the lord and it was before i had the relationship that i have with him. now i felt that abortions were okay and i didn't give them a thought really. before i found my safe abortions were used as birth control, unquote. carter is also a veteran of the u. s. army who has worked at the v. a hospital for 23 years. she is now seeking a court injunction to block the department of veterans affairs from compelling her and other colleagues to participate in providing any abortion related services. the

suit has the support of 18 state attorneys general, although it is strongly opposed by the biden administration. we're going to discuss the lawsuit and the issue of abortions in federal facilities with stephanie carter's attorney, danielle runyan of the 1st liberty institute. daniel, thanks so much for joining us. thank you for having me, john. i have so much to ask you. let's begin with the availability of abortions in federal hospitals. many americans, i think assume that abortions have been available in federal hospitals since roe v wade was decided in the 1900 seventy's, but that's not really true. this is actually a biden administration policy that was implemented only in september. why was this decision made? was it in response to roe v wade being overturned? yes, it appears that that was in direct response to the dobbs decision. and the, you know, this is a 30 year prohibition on abortion services being provided at the v a,

it hasn't been allowed. it hasn't been allowed at any time since the v. a hospitals have been in effect. so, you know, this is, this is something that congress has the right to change. it is not something that the secretary of veterans affairs has the right to allow, by virtue of a rule that was promulgated frankly, unlawfully. i have to admit you that i'm shocked that there is not an opt out mechanism for people who do not want to be associated with the bushes. it just seems logical to me that the government would not want to force employees to do something that they object to and would want to limit litigation over the issue, frankly. but that's not the case. is the government's position that federal employees have to do is they're told, even in cases of abortion, is that really what this is all about? well, the federal government's position is that this is a lawfully implemented rule. and we're challenging specifically with respect to the

injunctive relief. and for those who may might not know what junk really means, it means that we are looking for emergency relief from the court to say this rule can no longer be enforced at the facility where miss carter works. we believe that, as i mentioned previously, congress is the only entity that has the authority to change this prohibition on abortion services being allowed to be provided for either veterans or their beneficiaries. and that implementing it by way of a rule is just simply not allowed and under refer, which is the religious freedom restoration act, which is what we are using to argue miss carter's rights and supportive her rights in federal court. we just believe that they have a have to have a compelling interest in religious freedom. our pat, you know, section 106 of the veterans health care act, which was implemented in 19 that, that through that there is no prohibition on the secretary of veterans affairs implemented in implementing this rule. that under a code provision,

that the secretary has brought authority to do this. and that there is, there is no violation of the law. therefore they, that is their compelling interest that there is a clear need to, you know, save the lives of veterans and their beneficiaries. there was a report that was put out by, by, by the house of representatives that we also sent to you in our brief. and they're stating that, you know, birth birth of a child is something that could be a health risk. and because of that, veterans need to, especially now in light of the jobs decision, especially in states where there are significant restrictions on abortion services . that they are doing this to save the lives of veterans and their beneficiaries. who have filed this case in the federal western district of texas, which is a pretty conservative court. i would assume that regardless of which way the district court rules,

the case will likely go to the federal court of appeals and possibly onto the supreme court. with the support of so many state attorneys general is that the plan to be prepared for the long haul? yeah, we're always prepared for the long haul. and, you know, considering the position that just the administration has taken on this issue in general, i think it's likely that, that, that's the course of action that will need to be taken here. you know, i think this really, in my opinion, looking at this objectively, even though we're representing miss carter, i think this case speaks for itself. there is no compelling interest for this rule being enforced. it really needs to go back to congress and congress needs to decide if this is the appropriate course of action for the, the department of veterans affairs and taking tell us a little bit about the uniqueness of this case. you know, before the dobs decision came down, it seemed like, like every state in america,

i'm exaggerating, of course. but many states across america had different versions of, of bills or laws that would have restricted abortion. or in some cases ended abortion. a lot of them were combined in the courts, jobs ended up going to the supreme court, and a lot of state legislatures decided to, to wait on taking action to decide what the supreme court was going to do. and dobbs, or to see rather what the supreme court was going to do. and doug, are there other cases around the country similar to the one that you have filed that are looking at the department of veterans affairs or perhaps the department of defense that might be combined with your case? or is this case unique? it's a pure case and is going through the courts as such. first of all, it's answer one of your questions. i'm not sure i have not heard that there are other lawsuits out there that are challenging the rule or the enforcement of the rule. i will say that our case is unique because we are not looking for

a nationwide and junction. we are challenging this rule at this particular facility in texas. this particular facility is under the concurrent jurisdiction of both the state of texas and the federal government that poses some unique issues because as we know, texas has very strict abortion rules. and another thing that we cite to in our brief is the fact that for those who participate in services, even if it's going to be in the course of their employment, they're going to be subjected to a state law to texas is laws that say there's going to be criminal and civil liability for somebody who participates in the breadth of services that am, that the veterans and department of veterans affair says is, is appropriate for their employees to be engaged. and we are speaking with attorney danielle runyan about a us court case, challenging the federal government's position on providing abortions and government hospitals, or at least one government hospital in texas. thus forcing employees to participate

in them even when they are personally opposed to abortion. stay with us, we'll take a short break and come right back. oh. 2 2 ah, i for you. okay, defense secretary ben wallace recently said i'm optimistic between this year and the next year. i think ukraine will continue to have the momentum with it and a position of strength. he also said, there is no magic one moment when russia collapses, in what the universe is, wallace reside. ah,

ah . ah, o. in 2022, the italian government approved a package of military aid to ukraine. coordination with nita to help ukrainians defend themselves and fight back about 150000000 euros. well, i make a week then i told me bombs are hearing all the same

now and the you are the ones that people will die just for make money. the one that has been yes because it a while you mess you got for. if you go to my she thought complete. i mean there's more dollars a month is what are more saw me my show it was wrong tool or able offer exec leila lesser opinion polls show that over 70 percent of italians are against military support for ukraine. i landed in confront with the day for that last or if i don't a level yet lee. got it more on a skid out and go home and do not she then the da da da only desperate. wonderful. i lucille my last lot a lot you. this'll things and we're not only in fund theda, the laptop memory

loss is unusual, forgetfulness a form of memory loss is inability to recall, past events. the can be general or concern, some specific events solely. in some cases, the memory loss can extend back decades. the start an intensive course of memory recovery on r t the welcome back to the whistleblowers. i'm john curio who were speaking with attorney danielle runyan about a lawsuit challenging the us government's policy of forcing federal hospital

employees to participate in abortions when they are opposed to them for moral ethical and religious reasons. the plaintiff in the case is a christian employee of the department of veterans affairs, stephanie carter. danielle, thanks again for joining us. thank you. one of the points that you've made in the media is that there has been not only no mechanism by which stephanie could discuss her position with her supervisors. but that her supervisors never even attempted to discuss her position or her principles to try to come up with some sort of an accommodation. why do you think that is? it seems like this whole issue spiraled unnecessarily because the government simply wouldn't have a conversation with your client. well, i think that it started with the rule itself. you know, the rule didn't discuss the religious objections that employees may have or, or how to handle them. and as you mentioned, you know,

miss carter gave this process time. she reached out to her supervisors on 2 occasions and was just told you know, just wait for more information coming. never gotten approved accommodation to not participate in certain services. you know, as a nurse practitioner, miss carter sees pregnant patients. she performs a lot of the duties that doctors perform and she's that she was going ahead performing her duties all while in october she had received an email as many of the other employees at that facility did, stating that, you know, abortion services were, were going be provided so at what point is someone supposed to just sit around and wait for while their conscience is being violated? right, danielle, these, these complicated legal issues you usually rest on some sort of legal precedent. tell us a little bit about the case, the background of the case and about the history of respect for religious freedom on which the cases based so the religious freedom restoration act is something that

we referred to as a super statute. and this is, you know, religious freedom, the protection of those who have religious beliefs is something that, that's paramount. and when legislation or even, you know, laws, rules are put into effect. that's supposed to be considered the potential religious objections and the religious rights of whether it be employees or citizens needs to be considered. and here that was just certainly not a consideration at all. and i think what we've seen from this administration on a number of occasions, especially throughout the coven pandemic, is that religious employees were being displaced from, from employment, whether it be private or the federal government in, in incredible numbers. and so you know that just that, that can't be and we just can't allow the religious freedom restoration act,

the 1st amendment to the constitution to be completely ignored. people have rights and in this case, as i, as i previously mentioned, this law was, was not promulgated in a lawful manner. so that combined with the complete disregard for the, the rights of those who have sincerely held religious beliefs in the workplace, there's just no compelling interest. again, i'm citing to the standard in that, that cited in the religious freedom rhetoric restoration act. there is no compelling interest, which is the requirement for this rule to go forward at this facility and you know, we aren't seeing it and we're still not seeing it. and this matter is already been fully briefed. many americans may see this case as one pitting progressives against conservatives. i actually don't see it that way and i suspect that you don't either . this seems to be a constitutional issue. what kind of support are you getting from groups on the

political left that may disagree with you on other issues, but for which preservation of the constitution is important? are there any i have not heard from, from any to date, but you know, that's precisely the point. i had written an opinion piece that was, that was published by fox news. and that's exactly what i say at the end. you know, this, this is just been so trumped up as a political issue. this has nothing to do with politics. it has to do with following the law. and no matter what side of the issue you're on, you should want to see that your government is taking action in a lawful manner. and as i, i hate to sound repetitive, but i'll say it again. if congress wants to act on this, and if they want to move forward and allow the department of veterans affairs to do this, they are the ones who have the authority to make that call. the secretary does not have the unilateral authority to do that. and for that reason, as it stands right now, this rule should not be enforced at the facility where miss carter works. you make

a very important point there. this actually is not a partisan issue. this is an issue pertaining to the rule of law. and to respect for the constitution, but government because of its, its size because of its power and its strength. often things that it can just roll over. any kind of opposition that happens to pop up in order to implement policies that whoever happens to be in power once to implement, that's what the courts are for. it's to stop this kind of government overreach. you know, i, i attended a rally recently. that was very much a product of both the political right and the political left coming together, specifically about this issue of the rule of law. and i can't help but to think that regardless of how one feels about the issue of abortion. what is at stake here is not abortion. the supreme court has already ruled on abortion. the issue here is

respect for the rule of law. and it seems to me that the likes of, let's say, the american civil liberties union, for example, or the libertarian party. even would be rushing to your side to file friends of the court bri, for example, or, or people for whom the constitution is important would be writing to their state attorneys general, saying, we want you to support this, this case. are you getting any of that at all? anything in the way of outside support, whether you've already answered about progressive groups, but anybody else? so in, you know, the friend of the court, friends of the court support that we've received is, as you mentioned at the beginning of the segment and from the, at the states. and then also from one of the former secretaries of the department of veterans affairs. and you know, it's, it's unfortunate because i'm,

everybody's just so quick to look at this issue because abortion is just a politicized matter. and what people don't understand is their rights, whatever their rights may be, perhaps they, they have nothing to do with religion at all. if, if we're going to do this here, i don't think that, you know, we're not that the administration is not going to try to do this in other matters and, and until i guess people are personally affected. they're not going to see that. but we really need to take the politics out of it, take the issue out of it even, and just look at the fact that this is just something that was not allowed and it needs to be stopped. you know, the show obviously clearly is called the whistleblowers and that's what we talk about. every episode we talk about whistleblowers, the whistleblower here is stephanie carter. stephanie carter is just a normal person. she's a normal person going to work every day to do her job. she's made it 57 years

without getting her name in the, in the press. and here all of a sudden, she's the face of, of a national legal case. tell us a little bit about stephanie, about why this is so important to her that she's willing to, to single herself out and to make herself perhaps vulnerable to retaliation. something that is quite common for whistleblowers. ms. carter is a wonderful person. she is just not only from a faith standpoint, but she's been with the department of veterans affairs for 23 years in the nursing capacity. as you had mentioned earlier, she was also she served for 8 years in the army. so this, this woman is committed to serving her country and to serving those who have served alongside of her and he also served and other capacities. this is a very difficult thing for anyone to do to, to stand alone even which,

you know, on this lawsuit lawsuit, she's standing alone, but certainly not on the issue. and it's difficult, especially in this climate of the view on, on the topic of abortion, that is just a tremendously difficult hard thing to do. and she is brave and i think that speaks volumes. this woman sincerely held religious beliefs are firm and the right that she has and the rights that others have in terms of being allowed to, to work and serve the god that they, you know, to, to, to stand by their faith is something that is, people don't understand how ingrained that is in so many people and here at the department of veterans affairs, this is unheard of. abortion services have never been provided and for now suddenly,

for this to be a thing and for it to be done so hastily and without much explanation of, of what this really looks like and how the services are going to be provided. and you know, well i work in a facility in texas and i know what texas laws are, and i'm, i, am i going to be held criminal criminally liable. it's not only improper for this world to be implemented in the 1st place, but then to just put people out there to, to feel so vulnerable and, and unsure of themselves. and their job is wrong. that's not what our federal government should be doing to its employees. i'd like to thank our guest, danielle runyan, for joining us and thank you to our viewers. remember, the freedom of religion is guaranteed in the u. s. constitution. not only that, but thomas jefferson, one of the countries founding fathers and its 3rd president, wrote the constitutional freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights. all men should enjoy the fullest tolerance of exercise of

religion according to the dictates of conscience. that seems pretty clear to me. we'll see you next time. 2 2 ah, ah a look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such order that

conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence, and the point obviously, is to create trust rather than fear a very job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot most protective, only this is with nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities. in other countries, united states of america is different wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the united states. ah, with

you little bit about it all to anybody phasing only city. if you draw the look at the book, they incentives and we've cigarettes to color revolutions is one among several meanings to reach the goal of conquering foreign lands and bringing them on to the helm of u. s. weston, they can all make interest to pop in santa. i didn't that he did to everybody did them. okay. yeah, you are so know we must say low their soft power america. the final goal of these same revolutions is to ensure that there are no independent players in the world anymore. ah,

in 1834 france invaded algeria, and straight away the french started inhabiting it to strengthen their position. the colonists, known as p a. no arts took the best land from day one, the local population was put into an unequal position and was brutally exploited. these goss mazda is condemned. the people of algeria began their long term fight for independence. 1954, the banner of freedom was raised by the national liberation front. a guerrilla war against the occupants broke out. the french tried to suppress to rebellion using cruel measures. old villages were wiped out acts of georgia and executions of civil people, including pregnant women, children and old people took place more than 2000000 people were put into concentration camps. however, these punitive measures didn't help the algerian patriots managed to induce france

to start these negotiations. in 1962 evian records were signed, voting algeria on the back towards independence. but this was achieved at a colossal price. algeria by rights, is considered to be a country of martyrs. according to the calculations of historians, the french colonists are responsible for the deaths of one and a half 1000000 algerians. a, [000:00:00;00] a ukrainian drones targets the kremlin and what most of it was called an attempted

assassination of vladimir putin. russian president was not inside it's residence during the drone strike, which was hell if i electronic defenses who didn't schedule remains unchanged according to his focus on does he have been nice responsibility for the attack? the kremlin phase? russia would change the right to retaliate at any time and it sees fit in with