A federal judge has permanently blocked a new federal law that defunds the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued a new temporary restraining order that blocks the defunding measure, which was part of the One Big Beautiful Bill that President trump signed 9into law July 4.
Talwani initially granted a preliminary injunction specifically blocking the government from cutting Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood not long after the measure became law. This new TRO replaces the one she previously issued. It applies to some, but not all, Planned Parenthood abortion businesses – which is why some affiliates of America’s biggest abortion business have closed down some centers while others have not.
“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Talwani wrote in her Monday order.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
The order ignores how abortions kill babies and hurt and kill women – with death a much more serious adverse health consequences.
“In particular, restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs,” Talwani added.
Her order ignores the fact that legitimate medical care can be obtained via any doctor, hospital or medical clin9ic that does not also kill babies.
In her decision, she claims that Section 71113, which was passed by Congress as part of the recent reconciliation package, violates the U.S. Constitution by “retaliating” against Planned Parenthood under the First Amendment and denying them equal protection under the law. Much of the rest of the decision boils down to slobbering promotion of Planned Parenthood, claiming it as a vital “healthcare” provider.
“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Talwani wrote in her Monday order. “In particular, restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”
I think a lot of people would disagree with that assessment, but it would also seem to be irrelevant. What does access to contraceptives and a supposed “increase in unintended pregnancies” have to do with the legal questions at play? You can see Talwani’s biases on full display throughout this injunction.
Regardless, the viewpoint discrimination angle remains arguably ridiculous. It’s one thing to make such a decision regarding an executive order, as those could theoretically violate laws passed by Congress. So it’s at least conceivable that viewpoint discrimination could exist in a scenario where a president denies funding to an entity on political grounds that was receiving money already appropriated to it by Congress.
But in this case, it was Congress that defunded Planned Parenthood. Are we to believe that if any political opposition exists to a private entity, then elected representatives, who constitutionally control the power of the purse, can’t end funding for it? That’s absurd on its face, and if that standard were consistently applied, it would mean essentially nothing that an opposing party disagrees with could ever be defunded. Does that sound right to anyone?
After the defunding measure became law, Planned Parenthood has closed over two dozen abortion centers in several states.
The defunding provision, part of the sweeping tax and spending bill signed by Trump on July 4, imposes a one-year ban on Medicaid payments to any company that kills babies in abortions and received over $800,000 in federal funding in 2023. While the legislation does not name Planned Parenthood explicitly, the organization argues it is the primary target, potentially forcing the closure of nearly 200 of its 600 centers nationwide. However, it could receive federal funding if it merely stop killing babies.
Pro-life advocates condemned the ruling.
“An activist judge just prolonged the forced taxpayer funding of Big Abortion, a desperate attempt to run out the clock, and a shameful abuse of our tax dollars. Every day her decision remains in effect, millions are funneled into a business that profits from ending unborn lives and putting women at risk,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America. “Planned Parenthood’s desperate ploy for our tax dollars only underscores why the One Big Beautiful Bill is such a historic win. It halted, for the first time, over half a billion taxpayer dollars from propping up the corrupt abortion industry.”
“Life is winning. And Big Abortion’s death grip is slipping. With community health centers outnumbering Planned Parenthood facilities 15 to 1, women have better and more comprehensive alternatives. We look forward to the Trump Administration swiftly ending this lawfare and restoring the historic victory secured through the One Big Beautiful Bill.”
Talwani’s order stated that Planned Parenthood was likely to succeed on its claim that the funding ban violates First Amendment.
“Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do,” Talwani wrote. “The record is devoid of evidentiary support for Defendants’ suggestion that Planned Parenthood entities share funds that are ultimately used for abortions.”
Never mind that Planned Parenthood kills over 400,000 babies in abortion every year as its primary source of income apart from government funding.
Tom Jipping, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, called Talwani’s initial order “obviously out of bounds,” stating, “What you have here is Congress exercising its explicit constitutional authority to make spending decisions, and you have a district judge arguably trying to exercise power she doesn’t have to force Congress to change.”
The case, Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., stems from a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood and its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates on July 7. The injunction applies only to certain Planned Parenthood affiliates, leaving the door open for further legal action.
The case will almost certainly be appealed to a federal appeals court and ultimately the Supreme Court.
