Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani has entered another ruling against the congressional defunding of Planned Parenthood, and this order may be the most insane yet. I don’t just mean that in terms of this specific case, but in terms of the entirety of the judiciary since President Donald Trump began his second term.
As RedState reported, Talwani originally put in place a temporary restraining order while giving no reason to do so, violating the law in the process. With that, she sided with the plaintiffs and told the Trump administration it must keep providing Medicaid funds to members of the abortion mill’s network.
SEE: Judge Stops Congress From Defunding Planned Parenthood, Outrage and Confusion Follow
Things Just Got Even Crazier With the Judge Who Blocked Congress From Defunding Planned Parenthood
After a week, the judge finally got around to offering a reasoning, amending her TRO to claim that Congress defunding Planned Parenthood likely violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Even putting aside the absurdities involved in those claims, Talwani also clearly overstepped her bounds by providing standing to plaintiffs who didn’t qualify.
Now, Talwani has granted a preliminary injunction, cementing her original lunacy.
In her decision, she claims that Section 71113, which was passed by Congress as part of the recent reconciliation package, violates the U.S. Constitution by “retaliating” against Planned Parenthood under the First Amendment and denying them equal protection under the law. Much of the rest of the decision boils down to slobbering promotion of Planned Parenthood, claiming it as a vital “healthcare” provider.
“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Talwani wrote in her Monday order. “In particular, restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”
I think a lot of people would disagree with that assessment, but it would also seem to be irrelevant. What does access to contraceptives and a supposed “increase in unintended pregnancies” have to do with the legal questions at play? You can see Talwani’s biases on full display throughout this injunction.
Regardless, the viewpoint discrimination angle remains arguably ridiculous. It’s one thing to make such a decision regarding an executive order, as those could theoretically violate laws passed by Congress. So it’s at least conceivable that viewpoint discrimination could exist in a scenario where a president denies funding to an entity on political grounds that was receiving money already appropriated to it by Congress.
But in this case, it was Congress that defunded Planned Parenthood. Are we to believe that if any political opposition exists to a private entity, then elected representatives, who constitutionally control the power of the purse, can’t end funding for it? That’s absurd on its face, and if that standard were consistently applied, it would mean essentially nothing that an opposing party disagrees with could ever be defunded. Does that sound right to anyone?
Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump’s agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.