States sue to block 1^st Amendment rights as unconstitutional

Proof that progressive politics now defines education is walking the halls of justice and Congress. Disinformation regarding our founding documents has reached the point that 20 states are crying "foul" because the Trump administration is enforcing First Amendment rights. Say again?

The ultimate in upside-down reasoning now stands before district courts across the United States. New York to California and 18 states in-between have filed lawsuits claiming that Department of Health and Human Services rules protecting healthcare professionals' religious beliefs are unconstitutional. This is no joke. These states are enraged that the Trump Administration has made accommodation for doctors, nurses and other clinicians to decline participating in taking the life of a baby (unborn and upon delivery as New York and Vermont have approved). At the last reading of the First Amendment, it was clear that government is restricted from imposing religious practices upon citizens or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The only instance where government can weigh-in on the latter is if the religious practice is harmful, injures or violates others' freedom. The burden of proof is on the government and the bar is set high. In the multiple suits filed, the states claim that healthcare providers who have sincerely held religious beliefs have no right to adhere to them, that they must perform abortions and other life-ending procedures if asked or ordered. The states are essentially claiming that observing their faith is unconstitutional when the states are themselves breaching the Constitution by compelling medical professionals to perform homicidal acts. The underlying question that should be asked of legislators and states' attorneys is when did government become the arbiter of death, infanticide in particular? Whatever happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?"

---

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or does it?) to understand that the House of Representatives' democrat leadership has usurped the power of life and death by impeding a vote on a bill that stops the killing of babies born alive (abortion on delivery) for the 50^th time. They are going a step further by introducing a bill that would attempt to overturn state laws in Alabama, Georgia and other republics (be reminded that each state had to become a constitutional republic before voted entry in the USA), pitting the federal government against states' rights as protected by the 10^th Amendment. Democrats are working to inflict their death-cult policies on every citizen of the nation, expecting to outlaw individual freedoms and states' autonomy with federal legislation. The purpose of the Constitution was and is to restrain exactly this kind of smug, arrogant overreach by representatives of districts who believe their small constituency has greater authority than a president who properly won his office in a national election. (The last point was confirmed after the completion of four investigations.) Despite appointed district judges, who also erroneously believe they have supremacy over the office of President, ruling according to whim and not duly enacted law, the voting majority will not stomach continued murder of their children. Science dispels the fallacy that fetuses are not viable or even human before birth. Nor does science support the killing of a child after delivery. Only satanism approves that practice.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Defending the First Amendment right of individuals to opt-out of murder is not a denial of healthcare to a woman, it is the preservation of life and health to a child as codified in Amendment Five: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property..." Efforts to strip both healthcare professionals and the innocent unborn or just-born of their rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, is unconstitutional and any argument going before a court attempting to make that case is frivolous and should be thrown out. Aren't these people bringing these baseless lawsuits the same ones that expect dog owners to accommodate muslims who move into their community and demand that dogs and all evidence of their existence disappear from sight? The same mentality is at play. Destroy the defenseless baby (or dog) so pregnant women (or muslims) aren't offended by their presence. Actually, this is indeed a joke. Pathetic, dehumanizing and criminal, but not funny.