Planned Parenthood defunding remains in question amid legal challenges

WASHINGTON — Whether Planned Parenthood will ultimately be stripped of its federal funding remained in question amid ongoing lawsuits over a provision in President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda that would cut those funds for one year.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta on July 29 joined 21 other state attorneys general and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro in filing a lawsuit challenging the provision.

Their suit came the day after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston issued an order indefinitely blocking the legislative action in a separate lawsuit from Planned Parenthood that argues its clinics nationwide must continue to be reimbursed for Medicaid funding. Talwani wrote in the order, “Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable.”

But Derek Muller, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, told OSV News that Talwani’s order was “aggressive and broad.”

“It orders the president to spend money Congress has expressly forbidden it to spend,” he said.

Noting the court found the law was a “bill of attainder,” Muller said that “at the framing of the Constitution, a bill of attainder was a law enacted that punished someone with death without a trial.”

“Over the years, courts have broadened their conception of what ‘attainder’ is,” he said. “This is one of the broadest conceptions I’ve seen.??”

The Washington Post editorial board on July 29 called Talwani’s order judicial overreach.

“A federal judge has blocked an act of Congress — not an executive order but legislation — steering Medicaid funds away from abortion providers,” the editorial said, emphasizing “act of Congress.” “Allocating public money is Congress’s core competency. Yet U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani not only countermanded Congress’s spending choice in a preliminary injunction, she also refused to stay her ruling pending appeal.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, told OSV News that her organization hopes to see Planned Parenthood stripped of federal funds “in future reconciliation bills to ensure Americans are never forced to fund the abortion industry with their hard-earned tax dollars.”

“We are grateful the Trump administration is vigorously defending this provision in court. Their commitment to upholding the will of the American people and the rule of law is critical, and we are confident they will succeed,” Dannenfelser said.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which enacted key items of Trump’s legislative agenda on issues including taxes and immigration, included a provision eliminating funds to health providers who also perform abortions — but just for one year. Although it was not named in the provision, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, sued in response, arguing the parameters for ending these funds effectively singled it out. In their separate lawsuit, the attorneys general and Shapiro made similar arguments.

Bonta argued in a July 29 statement that since federal funds “don’t pay for abortions,” the provision “is purely retaliation against Planned Parenthood for its constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion care.”

“The President and Congress are implementing a cruel, backdoor abortion ban through this provision, putting their political agendas over people’s lives,” Bonta said.

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California CEO and President Jodi Hicks said in a statement, “Planned Parenthood health centers are a critical part of reproductive health care access in California, which is why the impacts of this federal defund will reverberate throughout the state — cutting off access to live-saving health care services for our most vulnerable communities.”

“Despite the challenges we face, PPAC will continue to fight back against this unjust defund, and work with our state leaders to ensure that every Californian can access the care they need, when they need it, no matter what,” Hicks said.

But in a statement about the new lawsuit, Dannenfelser said the effort “shows just how extreme the Democrats have become on abortion.”

“The party of safe, legal and rare is now the party of forcing taxpayers to prop up Big Abortion’s death facilities with their hard-earned money,” she said. “This bill was passed by our elected representatives and signed by President Trump. Yet, rather than respect the democratic process, Democrats are once again running to activist judges to impose lawfare on Americans with their extreme abortion agenda. They will not prevail.”

Muller said that in Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit, “there are multiple grounds Planned Parenthood argues that the law is unconstitutional.”

“It seems likely the law will ultimately be held constitutional, but that remains uncertain. The funding provision only applies for one year, so a separate question is whether litigation can be resolved in a timely fashion,” he said. “Another question is whether an appellate court or the Supreme Court puts the District Court’s order on hold while the litigation plays out, effectively preventing Planned Parenthood from receiving the funding during the litigation.”

He added: “There is some uncertainty about timing in the weeks ahead.”

read more respect life

The reality of the abortion pill

Lawsuit continues to challenge Biden-era regulation adding abortion to pregnant worker protections

Supreme Court leaves in place mail-order distribution of mifepristone during legal challenge

New Senate bill aims to protect privacy for charitable donors following pregnancy center case

Makary out as FDA commissioner after tumultuous tenure, pro-life criticism

As Planned Parenthood defunding nears expiration, USCCB pro-life chair backs bill to block funds

Copyright © 2025 OSV News

 Print