Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Does this so-called judge not realize that "LIFE" is the very reason why there is a first amendment? The amendments were laid down to support the Bill of Rights, most notably the need to protect LIFE. Yes, and that is also why the second amendment was established.
Maybe the judge did not notice that the amendment he cited says: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
We the people understand instinctively that society has a compelling interest in protecting life. One only has to look at an elderly person and then look at an infant, and the connection becomes painfully obvious. Without infants, there can be no elderly.
The judge read the "Congress" part to fluff it off as not applying whatsoever to the Judiciary. Of course, making "law" from the bench is fine.