Obama Massachusetts Judge Now Rules That Congress Does Not Control Congressional Spending

This absurd judicial insurrection was launched to protect -- of course! -- Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood has a right to taxpayer money, this Cultural Enricher discovered.

Note that this isn't an injunction against an executive order. No, this judge is declaring that a law passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the President is invalid.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" that cuts Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. The ruling came just hours after the abortion provider sued to protect its federal funding.

Key Details:

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order on Monday, halting implementation of the defunding measure.

The lawsuit argues that while the bill doesn't name Planned Parenthood, its structure effectively singles the group out by applying restrictions only they meet.

Planned Parenthood says the funding cut could force nearly 200 of its clinics to close.

Diving Deeper:

On Monday, a federal judge issued a temporary block on the Trump administration's effort to strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, halting a core provision of the president's signature legislative package known as the "Big Beautiful Bill." The ruling came within hours of Planned Parenthood filing suit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued a Temporary Restraining Order that bars the Department of Health and Human Services from implementing the defunding measure for 14 days. In her order, Talwani instructed HHS to "take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed" to Planned Parenthood during that period.

While the legislation does not specifically name Planned Parenthood, the abortion giant is the only provider meeting the criteria outlined in the bill, making them the de facto target. Planned Parenthood's legal team contends that the provision is both discriminatory and unconstitutional. According to the lawsuit, "Many Planned Parenthood Members will be required to lay off staff and curtail services... Members may be forced to shutter a substantial number of their health centers nationwide, many of which are in rural or underserved areas."

John Sexton is baffled -- the Supreme Court just ruled that South Carolina can completely ban Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, and the Supreme Court just told lowly district court judges they could not issue nationwide injunctions.

This judge just blew off the Supreme Court, twice.

I'm really not sure how this is possible. It has been less than two weeks since the Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina could block Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood.

At issue was a provision of the federal Medicaid law that guarantees Medicaid patients the ability to choose their doctors, or in the words of the statute, they are entitled to "any qualified and willing provider." South Carolina, however, maintained that it could disqualify Medicaid providers for "any reason that state law allows." Or as Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, put it, "Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs."

On Thursday the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, agreed.

So today Planned Parenthood sued the federal government arguing that it could not cut them off from Medicaid reimbursements.

Planned Parenthood sued the Trump administration on Monday over a provision in President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill that would prevent its health centers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements.

In a complaint filed in Boston federal court, Planned Parenthood said the provision is unconstitutional because it singles out members for advocacy for sexual and reproductive health care, including abortions...

...

Is this a nationwide TRO or does it only apply to PP of Massachusetts and Utah? It's not clear to me because it does say funding should continue to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which is a national organization. Didn't the Supreme Court just put an end to nationwide TRO's by federal judges? I thought they did but maybe this is an exception somehow?

Matt Margolis:

It's almost impossible to overstate the sheer audacity of what's just happened in Massachusetts. In a move that defies both logic and the very foundation of our constitutional order, an Obama-appointed judge has swooped in to protect Planned Parenthood from the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Judge Indira Talwani, sitting on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, decided that Congress--yes, Congress--doesn't actually get to decide how taxpayer money is spent, at least not when it comes to the Left's sacred cow.

Let's be clear: This wasn't a rogue executive order or some bureaucratic sleight of hand. Congress passed a law. The people's representatives, accountable to voters, made a decision to defund Planned Parenthood as part of the One Big, Beautiful Bill. That's how our system is supposed to work. If you don't like it, you organize, you vote, you persuade your fellow citizens and change the law. That's democracy. But apparently, that's not good enough for the activist bench.

Instead, Judge Talwani issued a temporary restraining order, telling the executive branch not to enforce the law. Not because the law was found unconstitutional or even legally questionable--no, the judge didn't bother to offer any real legal reasoning at all.

The ruling simply halted the will of Congress in its tracks, leaving Americans and even seasoned legal professionals scratching their heads. How does a judge order the executive branch to ignore a duly-enacted statute without first declaring that statute invalid? On what grounds?

Per MXMNews, Mike Lee wants to impeach this judge:

Conservative lawmakers denounced the judge's move. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said on X, "Unless I'm missing something, this is an abuse of judicial power. And unless there's more to the story here, I suspect the House Judiciary Committee will consider articles of impeachment."

L A R R Y @LarryOConnor

This bill was debated and voted on in committee and then on the floor of the House, then debated in the Senate and voted on there and finally ratified again in the House before the President signed it into law.

But, "NO KINGS" or something...

Hello good readers. How is your Tuesday going?

posted by Ace at 12:10 PM

| Access Comments