Article

2025-07-08 Government Corruption

Federal judge pauses Trump administration's Planned Parenthood defunding measure

[FoxNews] A federal judge on Monday prevented the Trump administration from enforcing part of a massive tax and spending bill that would block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood health centers.

The temporary restraining order by Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts blocks the "big, beautiful bill's" provision to defund the family planning provider.

At issue is the provision in the new tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 that eliminates one year of Medicaid payments from Planned Parenthood health centers because the organization also provides abortions.

A White House official told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration is committed to ending the use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortions. The official noted that the administration's stance is a commonsense position that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with.

On Monday, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed a lawsuit in federal court.

"The prohibition specifically targets Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member health care providers in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds," the lawsuit states.

If allowed to stand, Planned Parenthood said the provision would have "devastating consequences" for the more than 1 million patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at Planned Parenthood health centers across the country to get birth control and cancer screenings, among other services.

Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said the organization has a long history of fighting for sexual and reproductive freedom.

"The Trump administration’s hell-bent ambitions to close our clinics and abandon our patients won’t stop us. Let me be crystal clear: We are not intimidated. We were built for this moment," she said. "Here in Massachusetts, we fight back, and we will never be bullied into turning our backs on health care or human rights."

Posted by Skidmark 2025-07-08 01:01|| || Front Page|| [281 views ] Top
File under: Lawfare

#1 BBB made it law. Unless Judge Indira Talwani can demonstrate that is unconstitutional, she has no power to intervene unless she decides she is the law.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-07-08 06:45|| 2025-07-08 06:45|| Front Page Top

#2
United States district judge Indira Talwani in >Massachusetts nominated by Barack Obama in 2014. She took Law at Radcliffe College and the University of California, Berkeley.

Need we say more?

Posted by NN2N1 2025-07-08 07:34|| 2025-07-08 07:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Send a federal SWAT team to arrest her during court, frog march her from the bench in cuffs and I seriously hope she resists being arrested for sedition.

Posted by Silentbrick 2025-07-08 08:34|| 2025-07-08 08:34|| Front Page Top

#4 TRO has become the default.

Posted by Super Hose 2025-07-08 12:30|| 2025-07-08 12:30|| Front Page Top

#5 ^ Which is kind of, uh, interesting since TRO's are supposed to be 'drastic and extraordinary" remedies requiring a showing of "irreparable and immediate harm", which is generally taken to mean harm that money can't compensate someone for. You get a TRO if they're about to hang your client, not because you disagree with a policy decision.

Posted by Matt 2025-07-08 13:19|| 2025-07-08 13:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Loosely, the way the system is supposed to work is (1) the plaintiff makes a claim (2) the defendant responds (3) both sides put on evidence and (4) the judge decides. This TRO skipped steps 2 and 3. Were any witnesses called? Did the government have the chance to cross-examine the witnesses? For all the bitching we've heard lately about due process, due process seems to have been left in the dust here.

Posted by Matt 2025-07-08 13:30|| 2025-07-08 13:30|| Front Page Top

#7 ^ But that's Rule of Law, Matt. Not Imperial Judiciary.

Posted by Frank G 2025-07-08 13:43|| 2025-07-08 13:43|| Front Page Top

#8 ^Frank, I can't keep up anymore. They ought to at least write all this down so everyone can see that the rules are. "The Federal Rules of Bullshit Procedure" or "The Federal Rules of Orange Man Bad".

Posted by Matt 2025-07-08 13:59|| 2025-07-08 13:59|| Front Page Top

#9 "The prohibition specifically targets Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member health care providers in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds," the lawsuit state

What PPFA says about being punished for "lawful activity" brought to mind the arguments the NRA uses about guns, but there ain't no amendment for abortions. Too bad for PPFA.

Posted by Melancholic 2025-07-08 17:53|| 2025-07-08 17:53|| Front Page Top

#10 and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds," the lawsuit state

I’m confused. If they agree to do it outside Medicaid and federal funds, they are in agreement with the BBB, which as far as I am aware only forbids federal spending on the work, not state or private spending in states where the law permits it. So what is there to sue about?

Posted by trailing wife 2025-07-08 22:40|| 2025-07-08 22:40|| Front Page Top

00:47 Jairong+Scourge+of+the+Gepids2435
00:45 Jairong+Scourge+of+the+Gepids2435
00:44 Jairong+Scourge+of+the+Gepids2435
00:40 Grey Stones
00:17 Skidmark