In a stunning decision, a federal judge has provided relief to Planned Parenthood and stopped Congress from defunding the abortion giant.
Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a requested temporary restraining order on Monday. In doing so, she ordered the executive branch not to carry out the section of the recently passed congressional reconciliation package that stops funding Planned Parenthood and its member organizations.
RELATED: SCOTUS Pushed Planned Parenthood Funding Into the Coffin
District judge Indira Talwani temporarily blocks the provision of the BBB that defunds Planned Parenthood.
This wasn’t just an executive action. This was an act of Congress. pic.twitter.com/e7hjpYeq3j
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) July 7, 2025
BREAKING: A federal judge just blocked the “big beautiful bill’s” provision to defund Planned Parenthood. https://t.co/0UQIX7aw8w pic.twitter.com/WTT6N4xADW
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) July 7, 2025
Speaking as a layman, this seems patently insane to me. We aren’t talking about an executive order where the base-level authority to take an action is being contested. This was passed by Congress and is currently the law of the land. How can a judge order the executive branch to violate a law passed by Congress without finding the law itself legally deficient in some way?
But it’s not just non-lawyers like me who are scoffing at this. Those with years of professional legal experience are thoroughly confused as to how this judge managed to arrive at her conclusion.
this got a genuine lol from me
might be time to start impeaching these lunatics https://t.co/kAybiCl7dX
— LB (@beyondreasdoubt) July 7, 2025
You can’t argue with the judge’s reasoning, because there isn’t any. Trump enjoined from complying with law passed by Congress because it’s Planned Parenthood. https://t.co/QCW9dzejWW
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) July 7, 2025
As noted, the judge did not provide any reasoning for why she decided Planned Parenthood deserved relief in this situation. Typically, a TRO would accompany a memorandum and opinion expressing the belief that the plaintiff has a likely chance to succeed on the merits of a specific argument in later proceedings. That means we can only speculate as to what the logic here is, if any even exists, and there’s a non-zero chance none does.
Some have suggested this is about viewpoint discrimination, but that seems ludicrous on its face. If politicians can’t get elected by voters and pass laws to defund things they disagree with, then essentially nothing contentious can ever be defunded.
Heck, even some people who hate Donald Trump and support Planned Parenthood think this is crazy.
Look, I hate Trump, support abortion rights, and all the rest — but how can there be an underlying violation of law or the Constitution justifying a TRO from a duly-enacted statute cutting funding for a private entity? https://t.co/UEHCuejhMo
— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) July 7, 2025
While one can hope this is overturned on appeal, and I’d guess it will be, every time a judge does something like this, it takes another bite out of the credibility of the judiciary. If nefarious parties can simply stall their way to overriding elected officials with specious legal reasoning, then why even have elections?
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and fight against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.
Help us continue to tell the truth. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
