my change and whatever you do, don't watch my shell stay mainstream because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way you think . ah.

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 wand moment when russia collapses in what the universe is. wallace reside ah, what would you do if your employer asked you to do something that violated your personal ethics and principles? would you do it anyway? what if refusing to do it could cost you your job? do you take that chance or you do you just keep your head down today will tell you about a woman who would not go away quietly. instead of keeping her head down, she sued the u. s. government, and she just may when i'm john kerry. aku welcome. to the whistle blowers ah.

2 2 2 2 stephanie carter is a nurse in a department of veterans affairs hospital in texas. the department of veterans affairs is of course, a component of the u. s. federal government. and as part of the government, the department of veterans affairs provides abortion services to its patients. since the u. s. supreme court overturned roe vs wade last year. a decision from the 1970s 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 raped. 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 thought 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 us army who has worked at the v a hospital for 23 years. she is now seeking court in junction 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. busy 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 indirect response to the dobs 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 bush. and 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 relief 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. and 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 in support of her rights in federal court reference says that if, if the government is going to substantially burden an individual's religious belief that they have a can have to have a compelling interest for doing that. and here are, there just cannot be a compelling interest when a rule this rule has been unlawfully implemented. therefore, we say that there is no reason for this rule to be enforced at the particular facility we're, we're miss carter works as a nurse practitioner. i'm curious whether you can speculate as to why the bye didn't ministration, didn't go through the legislative process in congress to, to have this done until just january, the democrats controlled both the house and the senate. they don't control the house now, so it wouldn't make any sense to try to do this legislatively. but they did control both houses of congress until january of this year. why is it that they didn't try

to do this? the way that it was meant to be done, you know, i can't answer that question, but what i will say is that it was, it was done in the pierces, but been done very hastily. there was a lot of pressure being, being put on the administration by a number of their allies. what we say to in our brief is there were a number of attorneys general who were saying, you know, for health related reasons, which is what we see. the rule stating for health related reasons, which, which could be a number of reasons without any gestational age limits that abortions must be provided. so when this rule was implemented they, they failed to follow proper notice and comment procedures. they just implemented it with, without anyone being allowed to voice their opinions. they also implemented it without a religious accommodation process being in place. and by virtue of our litigation, there is now a religious accommodation process that's in place for employees to say, i have a religious objection to performing abortion services. this lawsuit is not at all

a case of the government taking one position and your client taking another. you've cited the religious freedom restoration act, which ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected. the government's position seems to be a pretty clear. i'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be a pretty clear violation of the religious freedom restoration act. what's the government's argument here? to try to overcome that the government is, is basically relying on the fact that, you know, section 106 of the veterans health care act which was implemented in 1992. they believe that that through that there is no prohibition on the secretary of veterans affairs implemented, implementing this rule that under a code provision that the secretary has brought authority to do this. and that there is, there's 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. and 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. you 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 to be 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 in dobbs . or to see rather what the supreme court was going to do in dobbs. 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 u. s. court case. challenging the federal government's position on providing abortions in government hospitals, or at least in one government hospital in texas, thus forcing employees to participate in them even when they are personally opposed to abortion. stay with us will take a short break and come right back. ah. 2 2

ah, lisa, come to russian state. oh, never us time does. i'm sonya nichols. i'm steve asked him the knocking also son, son of a group in the 55. when okay, 09. is the vandals be the one else quoted about this? even though we will van in the european union the kremlin media machine, this hey, aunt, rush up to date with our t smooth neck. even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube with

ah, ah, ah, ah, i just was the only way in law lives as he go board together, going to push with it. it will put robert, most of the dishes shall go. good. yes. so basically of course a policy throwing up, all right,

miss knees with me really. those can will be used with no one who with the lead she with them by else more marginal by which was this, we were brand new people to the number one. ah, welcome back to the whistle blowers. i'm john carrie alcove. we're speaking with attorney danielle runyan about a lawsuit challenging the u. s. 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 more information coming. never gotten approved accommodation to not

participate in certain services. you know, as a nurse practitioner, ms. carter c is pregnant patients. she performs a lot of the duties that doctors performed 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 going to be provided so at what point is someone supposed to just sit around and wait while they're conscious being violated? right. danielle, these nice 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, 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 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 compelled, 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, 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 thinks 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 wants 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, and it seems to me that the likes of, let's say, these 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 whistle blowers 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 rights 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 am i, am i going to be held company 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 an 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 country's 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. ah. 2 2 ah, ah, since the beginning of its history, the united states of america has officially declared this driving for freedom and people's rights to happiness. however, in reality, having won independence, american colonists headed for that total extermination of the indigenous population

of the continent, american indians were deprived of their land. local residents were driven into reservations and given the worst agricultural territories. while the best land was appropriated by white colonizers, the strongest blow to american indian tribes was the extermination of buys of native americans lived by hunting these wild animal, colonists slaughter the bison, and in fact, made them nearly extinct. every buffalo dead is in indian gone, said colonel richard dod, a veteran of the bloody and vicious indian wars cynically the indigenous population was simply exterminated us army general phillips sheridan express the essence of this policy in the infamous words, the only good india is a dead indian, the genocide of native americans of north america lead to a demographic catastrophe. the exact number of deaths is deal unknown,

but the number of victims is in millions. having been the majority on the continent before the indigenous people make up less than 3 percent of the us population today . ah ah in, i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to plead with you whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. certainly why watch something that's so different

opinions that you won't get anywhere else work of it please. if you have the state department, the cia weapon, bakers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change dwayne thing ah, a ukrainian drug talk. the crime in moscow is called the attend to the nation, a russian president with north in find his residence during the throne strike, which was repelled by electronic dispenses who didn't schedule, remain from change. according to the folks on this key i've been,

i've responsibility for the attack the kremlin, say, is russia retains good rise to retaliate at any time and a very welcome. this is all the international with the latest world news updates good to have you company of the kremlin site, ukraine launch drones strikes one the most residents of president putin in the.