The “big beautiful bill” includes a provision that bars Medicaid dollars from going to institutions that perform abortions. For some reason–I have no idea why–the ban reportedly only applies for one year. Among other things, it would prevent Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Planned Parenthood sued to block this legislative provision from going into effect. It is a remarkable claim: Planned Parenthood says that Congress has a constitutional obligation to continue funding it, whether Congress likes it or not. And the executive branch is prohibited from complying with the law, and is required to continue funding Planned Parenthood regardless of the statute.
These breathtaking claims were accepted by federal judge Indira Talwani of Boston, another judge-shopped left-winger. Talwani has granted Planned Parenthood’s motion for a temporary restraining order, without waiting to hear the administration’s opposition to the motion. Talwani’s order, entered yesterday, is embedded below.
Curious to know on what grounds this remarkable order was granted, I tracked down Planned Parenthood’s complaint. It, too, is embedded below.
The complaint is long, 53 pages. Its factual allegations, which go on for 40 pages, assert that Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization, and that various people have been wanting to defund it for a long time. It appears that on Planned Parenthood’s theory, it can be defunded only by a Congress that doesn’t want to defund it.
So, given that Planned Parenthood is a wonderful but widely disliked organization, on what theory can the legislation just be ignored? It is customary in drafting complaints to make Count One the plaintiff’s core legal claim. You don’t have to do this, of course, but it is the usual practice. Here, the first count in Planned Parenthood’s complaint alleges that Congress’s defunding is a bill of attainder, and thus unconstitutional under Article I, Section 9. This is so stupid that it doesn’t deserve comment.
The remaining counts allege that the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment (vagueness) require Congress to continue funding the organization.
Of all the absurd orders that have been entered by rogue Democratic Party judges, this might be the worst. Talk about an imperial judiciary! Judge Talwani has issued an order that implicitly holds a federal law to be unconstitutional, without even hearing from both sides, and without any legal proceeding on which a finding of unconstitutionality could possibly be based. This, based on arguments that on their face are weak, if not absurd, and it enjoins the Executive Branch from complying with federal law.
No doubt Talwani’s order will be reversed on appeal, but the damage that is being done to public respect for the judiciary is incalculable.
gov.uscourts.mad.286600.18.0 by John Hinderaker on Scribd
Gov.uscourts.mad.286600.1.0 by John Hinderaker on Scribd
