WASHINGTON – On Monday, a federal judge was set to issue a preliminary injunction that would block certain provisions of a law favored by Republicans, preventing Medicaid funds from being allocated to planned parent-child relationships for a year.
District Court Judge Indira Talwani noted that the planned parent-child relationship demonstrated “substantial potential for success” in their equal protection claims, asserting that the new law infringes on their rights protected by the First Amendment. However, she limited the protection to specific planned parent-child clinics.
“The interim injunction allows members of the planned parent-child relationships to seek Medicaid reimbursements and maintain the current level of patient services,” Talwani explained. “Creating an injunction to require funding for Medicaid reimbursements does not impose additional costs on the defendants, as there is no controversy over the provision of Medicaid funds exclusively for indemnified health services.”
For decades, federal taxpayer dollars have been prohibited from being used for abortion services, with some exceptions. Recently, GOP lawmakers attempted to cut Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood for a range of healthcare services like annual check-ups and cancer screenings using tax reduction efforts.
The initial version of the bill proposed a 10-year ban on Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, but this was revised to one year in the Senate.
In response to legislative changes, the planned parent-child relationship filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump shortly after he signed the new law on July 4th.
Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary injunction blocking the implementation of these provisions on the same day the lawsuit was filed.
The Trump administration countered the judicial decision, arguing that Planned Parenthood’s constitutional claims lacked merit.
“All three branches of the federal government collaborated to establish provisions that reflect the wishes of the American populace regarding their taxpayer dollars,” a brief stated. “The plaintiff, the American Parent-Child Federation, alongside its associated members, seeks to have the court overturn legislative measures established democratically in favor of its own policy preferences.”
In her ruling, Talwani stated, “The overall expenditure for the Medicaid program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, excluding abortion services, will not exceed 800,000 by October 1, 2025, for organizations such as the Utah Planned Parenthood Association and others in the U.S.”
The American Planned Parenthood Federation, along with the Massachusetts and Utah affiliates, issued a statement expressing disappointment that not all of their members received the relief they had hoped for.
“Patients nationwide deserve to access reliable planned parent-child relationship providers for contraception, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment,” they commented. “This is fundamentally about patient rights. The court has yet to determine whether preliminary injunctive relief will be extended to other members, and we remain hopeful for a favorable outcome.”
The Justice Department has not commented on potential appeals against the injunction, though a spokesperson for Health and Human Services indicated that they oppose the ruling.
“We firmly disagree with the court’s decision,” stated HHS Communications director Andrew Nixon. “States should not be compelled to fund organizations that prioritize political advocacy over patient care. This ruling undermines national flexibility and dismisses longstanding accountability concerns.”
