This Obama Judge Thinks Planned Parenthood Has a Right to Your Tax Dollars

Obama appointed Judge Indira Talwani was at it again yesterday. In a 36-page opinion that (as Dan McLaughlin described it) “drips with scorn for the elected government,” she placed a preliminary injunction against a provision of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that defunded providers of elective abortion, including Planned Parenthood, from federal Medicaid funding for one year if they received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023.

The budget reconciliation measure passed Congress and was signed into law by President Trump on July 4.  Wasting no time, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit three days later. Within hours Judge Talwani issued a temporary restraining order without offering an explanation of her legal reasoning.

Kelli Keane writes about the subsequent chronology:

Just over a week later on July 15, Talwani again refused a request to lift the TRO, amending it to read that she believed Planned Parenthood was likely to succeed in claiming that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Talwani heard oral arguments on July 18 and issued a preliminary injunction on July 21.

Judge Talwani ordered the Trump administration to “take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and other Planned Parenthood Federation of America Members who will not provide abortion services….”

In her July 21 opinion, Judge Talwani attempted to fill in the gaps left in her July 7 two page TRO.

But the latest opinion “is no more persuasive than the unexplained order,” according to McLaughlin:

Talwani’s legal theory is that Planned Parenthood affiliates have a right of speech and association to continue receiving taxpayer money over the objections of Congress if the affiliates in states where abortion is banned do not perform abortions, and that Planned Parenthood performing abortions and engaging in politics with the financial benefits of taxpayer funding is an “expressive” right that Congress must fund. The idea that money might be fungible in the real world is never even considered. 

The opinion is full of rhetoric and euphemisms that echo Planned Parenthood, and it drips with scorn for the elected government. In a critical passage, Talwani argues that the federal government fails to show how defunding the nation’s largest for-profit abortion provider from federal money “relates to Congress’s goal of reducing abortion.” 

Nobody in the actual real world believes this.

In its July 14 memorandum in opposition to the temporary restraining order, HHS wrote

Both houses of Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill—the One Big Beautiful Bill— and the President signed that bill into law. Among many other decisions about how to allocate limited federal funds, one provision of the bill restricts the types of entities that may receive federal Medicaid funds. In particular, that provision directs that certain tax-exempt organizations and their affiliates may not receive federal Medicaid funds for a one-year period if they continue to provide elective abortions. In other words, the bill stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion. All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact that provision consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent. But Plaintiffs—Planned Parenthood Federation of America (“PPFA”) and its members (together, “Planned Parenthood”)—now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences. Indeed, they demand emergency injunctive relief forcing the Government to continue to support them with taxpayer funds.

That request is legally groundless and must be firmly rejected.

Later the memorandum makes a crucial, fundamental distinction:

Importantly, the statute does not depend on whether any entity advocates for abortion. Planned Parenthood and its members may continue to engage in First Amendment activity; they can only be disqualified from Medicaid if they continue to provide certain abortions on or after October 1, 2025. If Planned Parenthood and its affiliates cease providing those abortions, they could receive Medicaid funds even as they continue to advocate for abortion. And restricting funding for abortion providers does not violate the First Amendment. [Emphasis in the original.]

Laura Echevarria, Director of Communications and Press Secretary, wrote that “No organization has a constitutional right to taxpayer funding—especially when that funding is subsidizing the destruction of innocent human life. The notion that Planned Parenthood affiliates who share branding, finances, and infrastructure are somehow constitutionally protected defies common sense.”

She concluded

National Right to Life strongly supported the One Big Beautiful Bill Act because for one year it ends the practice of funneling taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and having those funds shore up the operations of the abortion industry. Under this law, taxpayer funds will not serve as a financial subsidy to an industry built on taking the lives of preborn babies.

Planned Parenthood has long claimed that abortion is just a small part of what they do. If that were true, they could stop performing abortions if they wanted to and continue to receive federal funds, but their panic reveals the truth: abortion is central to their business and to their bottom line.

Courts need to respect the democratic process and the legitimate role of Congress in determining how federal funds are spent. The lives of unborn children and the conscience rights of millions of pro-life Americans depend on it.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues. Image shows an unborn baby at 27 weeks.

The post This Obama Judge Thinks Planned Parenthood Has a Right to Your Tax Dollars appeared first on LifeNews.com.