Article

2025-07-08 Government Corruption

Federal judge pauses Trump administration's Planned Parenthood defunding measure

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Skidmark 2025-07-08 01:01|| || Front Page|| [277 views ] Top
File under: Lawfare

#1 BBB made it law. Unless Judge Indira Talwani can demonstrate that is unconstitutional, she has no power to intervene unless she decides she is the law.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-07-08 06:45|| 2025-07-08 06:45|| Front Page Top

#2
United States district judge Indira Talwani in >Massachusetts nominated by Barack Obama in 2014. She took Law at Radcliffe College and the University of California, Berkeley.

Need we say more?

Posted by NN2N1 2025-07-08 07:34|| 2025-07-08 07:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Send a federal SWAT team to arrest her during court, frog march her from the bench in cuffs and I seriously hope she resists being arrested for sedition.

Posted by Silentbrick 2025-07-08 08:34|| 2025-07-08 08:34|| Front Page Top

#4 TRO has become the default.

Posted by Super Hose 2025-07-08 12:30|| 2025-07-08 12:30|| Front Page Top

#5 ^ Which is kind of, uh, interesting since TRO's are supposed to be 'drastic and extraordinary" remedies requiring a showing of "irreparable and immediate harm", which is generally taken to mean harm that money can't compensate someone for. You get a TRO if they're about to hang your client, not because you disagree with a policy decision.

Posted by Matt 2025-07-08 13:19|| 2025-07-08 13:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Loosely, the way the system is supposed to work is (1) the plaintiff makes a claim (2) the defendant responds (3) both sides put on evidence and (4) the judge decides. This TRO skipped steps 2 and 3. Were any witnesses called? Did the government have the chance to cross-examine the witnesses? For all the bitching we've heard lately about due process, due process seems to have been left in the dust here.

Posted by Matt 2025-07-08 13:30|| 2025-07-08 13:30|| Front Page Top

#7 ^ But that's Rule of Law, Matt. Not Imperial Judiciary.

Posted by Frank G 2025-07-08 13:43|| 2025-07-08 13:43|| Front Page Top

#8 ^Frank, I can't keep up anymore. They ought to at least write all this down so everyone can see that the rules are. "The Federal Rules of Bullshit Procedure" or "The Federal Rules of Orange Man Bad".

Posted by Matt 2025-07-08 13:59|| 2025-07-08 13:59|| Front Page Top

#9 "The prohibition specifically targets Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member health care providers in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds," the lawsuit state

What PPFA says about being punished for "lawful activity" brought to mind the arguments the NRA uses about guns, but there ain't no amendment for abortions. Too bad for PPFA.

Posted by Melancholic 2025-07-08 17:53|| 2025-07-08 17:53|| Front Page Top

#10 and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds," the lawsuit state

I’m confused. If they agree to do it outside Medicaid and federal funds, they are in agreement with the BBB, which as far as I am aware only forbids federal spending on the work, not state or private spending in states where the law permits it. So what is there to sue about?

Posted by trailing wife 2025-07-08 22:40|| 2025-07-08 22:40|| Front Page Top

23:31 Jairong+Scourge+of+the+Gepids2435
23:01 JohnQC
22:40 trailing wife
22:30 trailing wife
20:18 Besoeker
20:16 SteveS
19:44 Super Hose
19:25 SteveS
19:19 trailing wife
18:27 Frank G
18:23 Frank G
17:53 Melancholic
17:27 MikeKozlowski
17:08 trailing wife
16:59 jefe101
16:51 Black Adder
16:49 Skidmark
16:41 Skidmark
16:39 Skidmark
16:36 Skidmark
16:36 mossomo
16:35 mossomo
16:34 Skidmark
16:34 Silentbrick