Judge temporarily blocks Planned Parenthood ‘defunding’ in Trump megabill

[stealthycat]

There's no ruling. There is a temporary hold while the judge allows for arguments in order to MAKE a ruling. But there isn't a ruling yet.

And it is very possible that ultimately the judge will rule in favor of the government. Y'all freaking out about nothing at this point.

you're right, I stand correct in my wording

none the less, judicial has no authority over Congressional spending/budgeting etc

 

[JMR]

No one is denying them if the Federal Government doesn't pay for it. Your rights doesn't mean someone else has to pay or enable it.

So you are fine with Trump's administration deciding which facilities they will support, based purely on politics?

 

[Anthony60]

This court was created by Congress, but it's now telling Congress it cnt make funding decisions?

The appointment of leftist judges is a long time strategy for the Democrats. They want these judges to overrule anything and everything that they don't like. Overruling POTUS, now Congress, and seem to be ignoring SCOTUS also. The judiciary was never supposed to be this powerful, just the Supreme Court. But the left is using them like a back door program to bypass the entire system, including the Constitution.

Imagine how far we'd be from the Constitution if they were able to get a far left majority on the SC. Free speech, gone. 2A, gone. Personal liberty, gone.

 

[trumptman]

So you are fine with Trump's administration deciding which facilities they will support, based purely on politics?

This was not decided by Trump. It was legislation and was passed by both the House and Senate.

This is why your "No Kings" argument falls flat. The judge is saying the branch of government that controls the power of the purse can't determine who gets money.

 

[JMR]

This was not decided by Trump. It was legislation and was passed by both the House and Senate.

This is why your "No Kings" argument falls flat. The judge is saying the branch of government that controls the power of the purse can't determine who gets money.

First of all, the judge did not say that. He issued a time out for further argument.

Secondly, the House and Senate are totally owned by Trump, and saying this is not part of Trump's agenda is not something a thinking person would say.

 

[AZRWinger]

so just more right wing blather, not a shred of proof there that she is "far left". can you prove that supporting PP makes you "far left"? go for it

It's not supporting PP that makes the judge far Left. It's her restraining order that embraces the Democrats theory that a District court judge can compell Congress to fund a specific organization along with ignoring the recently imposed restrictions on nationwide court orders that earns her that distinction.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's not supporting PP that makes the judge far Left. It's her restraining order that embraces the Democrats theory that a District court judge can compell Congress to fund a specific organization along with ignoring the recently imposed restrictions on nationwide court orders that earns her that distinction.

The TRO isn't about Congress funding specific organizations.

It's about can Congress discriminate in otherwise qualified medical service providers from being reimbursed for non-abortion services that every other medical care provider can file claims for under MediCare/MedicAid.

WW

 

[AZRWinger]

The TRO isn't about Congress funding specific organizations.

The TRO is specific to PP.

It's about can Congress discriminate in otherwise qualified medical service providers from being reimbursed for non-abortion services that every other medical care provider can file claims for under MediCare/MedicAid.

WW

Discriminate against PP how? The new law specifies abortion providers aren't qualified to receive Medicaid reimbursements. Congress not the courts has the authority to set qualifications for providers.

 

[rahl]

The TRO is specific to PP.

Discriminate against PP how? The new law specifies abortion providers aren't qualified to receive Medicaid reimbursements.

Congress can’t discriminate based on that.

Congress not the courts has the authority to set qualifications for providers.

No they don’t.

 

[Real blank]

Planned Parenthood is a cowardly name

 

[Lursa]

Planned Parenthood is a cowardly name

How so? Be specific.

 

[AZRWinger]

Congress can’t discriminate based on that.

Congress has the Constitutional.authority to set the criteria for Medicaid providers. The President signed the Big Beautiful Bill Act into law July 4th. Didn't you notice?

No they don’t.

The SCOTUS majority opinion in Medina v Planned Parenthood held that Medicaid is not a right, Congress cteates regulations for it. Unlike far too many district judges who falsely believe their jurisdiction os nationwide the SCOTUS is both national and has no appeals court oversight.

 

[rahl]

Congress has the Constitutional.authority to set the criteria for Medicaid providers.

And PP meets the requirements. They can’t discriminate against them.

The President signed the Big Beautiful Bill Act into law July 4th. Didn't you notice?

Yes. Congress can’t withhold Medicaid reimbursement from PP.

The SCOTUS majority opinion in Medina v Planned Parenthood held that Medicaid is not a right, Congress cteates regulations for it. Unlike far too many district judges who falsely believe their jurisdiction os nationwide the SCOTUS is both national and has no appeals court oversight.

Congress can’t discriminate against PP and withhold Medicaid reimbursement. Sorry.

 

[AZRWinger]

And PP meets the requirements. They can’t discriminate against them.

Explain how the leading abortion provider meets the requirements for providers when the law prohibits Medicaid reimbursements to abortionist organizations.

Yes. Congress can’t withhold Medicaid reimbursement from PP.

After Medina versus PP there is no disputing that PP has no right to Medicare reimbursements. The debate is between your bald opinion and the SCOTUS majority. I'll back the rule of law.

Congress can’t discriminate against PP and withhold Medicaid reimbursement. Sorry.

Throwing "discrimination" into the discussion doesn't disguise the fact Congress not some activist District court, gets to decide the criteria for Medicaid provider eligibilty. I agree it's a sorry argument to claim Congress doesn't control appropriations.

 

[rahl]

Explain how the leading abortion provider meets the requirements for providers when the law prohibits Medicaid reimbursements to abortionist organizations.

It doesn’t prohibit reimbursements for abortion providers. It prohibits reimbursements for abortions. Since PP doesn’t get reimbursed for abortions, by law, Congress can’t discriminate.

After Medina versus PP there is no disputing that PP has no right to Medicare reimbursements.

The debate is between your bald opinion and the SCOTUS majority. I'll back the rule of law.

The law says they can’t be denied reimbursement.

Throwing "discrimination" into the discussion doesn't disguise the fact Congress not some activist District court, gets to decide the criteria for Medicaid provider eligibilty.

And PP meets that eligibility, so cutting them off for political reasons isn’t lawful.

I agree it's a sorry argument to claim Congress doesn't control appropriations.

Congress can’t discriminate. Sorry.

 

[AZRWinger]

It doesn’t prohibit reimbursements for abortion providers. It prohibits reimbursements for abortions. Since PP doesn’t get reimbursed for abortions, by law, Congress can’t discriminate.



The law says they can’t be denied reimbursement.

And PP meets that eligibility, so cutting them off for political reasons isn’t lawful.

Congress can’t discriminate. Sorry.

The BBB act.

"The Act prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds in all states, either through a state or a managed care company, for certain “prohibited entities,” for 1 year.[16] Prohibited entities include tax-exempt entities, and their affiliates, that are essential community providers primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care, provide abortions beyond cases of rape, incest, and life-endangering situations, and received at least $800,000 in Medicaid funding in 2023. This provision would effectively block all federal Medicaid funding for any provider that furnishes elective abortions and exceeds a de minimis level of annual Medicaid payment."

Emphasis added.

President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” Makes Changes to Medicaid

On July 4, President Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“the Act”), or H.R. 1, which makes significant changes to federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and…

www.crowell.com

Neither you nor the judge have the authority to set the law defining provider eligibility. Congress does and they banned Medicaid reimbursements for most abortion providers. Don't you believe in the rule of law?

 

[rahl]

The BBB act.

"The Act prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds in all states, either through a state or a managed care company, for certain “prohibited entities,” for 1 year.[16] Prohibited entities include tax-exempt entities, and their affiliates, that are essential community providers primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care, provide abortions beyond cases of rape, incest, and life-endangering situations, and received at least $800,000 in Medicaid funding in 2023. This provision would effectively block all federal Medicaid funding for any provider that furnishes elective abortions and exceeds a de minimis level of annual Medicaid payment."

Emphasis added.

President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” Makes Changes to Medicaid

On July 4, President Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“the Act”), or H.R. 1, which makes significant changes to federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and…

www.crowell.com

Neither you nor the judge have the authority to set the law defining provider eligibility. Congress does and they banned Medicaid reimbursements for most abortion providers. Don't you believe in the rule of law?

They can’t do that lol. Which is why it has been blocked. They provide Medicaid services like every other Medicaid provider, so they can’t be excluded from reimbursement. The Hyde amendment already precludes PP from receiving federal funds for abortion. Congress doesn’t get a say in what other services PP can provide.

 

[Athanasius68]

They can’t do that lol. Which is why it has been blocked. They provide Medicaid services like every other Medicaid provider, so they can’t be excluded from reimbursement. The Hyde amendment already precludes PP from receiving federal funds for abortion. Congress doesn’t get a say in what other services PP can provide.

Congress isn't saying what other services PP can provide.
It is saying that if it receives more than 800000 per year from Medicaid, it can't engage in providing any abortion services.
It doesn't single out PP. Anyone above that threshold falls under the new law.

Congress can absolutely do this.

 

[Lovebug]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5388912-judge-temporarily-blocks-planned-parenthood-defunding-megabill/

Showing that the only standard leftist judges endorse is a double standard, today a district judge declared that Congress doesn't have the power of the purse.



We were told before that we have "No Kings" and that Trump could not make decisions about whether entities receiving Federal Fundings were actually meeting the criteria to receive that funding.

However now we have the same judges saying that the branch of government with the power of the purse, doesn't actually have that power and instead a judge gets to decide if any entity should be funded.

Seriously how does anyone defend this absurdity at this stage??

This is about the law.
King Taco doesn't care about that and neither do his MAGAs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Congress isn't saying what other services PP can provide.
It is saying that if it receives more than 800000 per year from Medicaid, it can't engage in providing any abortion services.
It doesn't single out PP. Anyone above that threshold falls under the new law.

Congress can absolutely do this.

This is false.

It doesn't say that if it received more than $800,000 from medicated it can't engage in providing any abortion services.

It doesn't say that if it received more than $800,000 from medicated it can't engage ANY Medicaid reimbursements. this includes breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings, pregnancy testing, STD testing and treatment, family planning counseling, birth control, etc.

And while the law doesn't contain the name "Planned Parenthood", it was designed specifically to impact them. How do we know this? Because the politicians can't keep their mouths shut and crowed that was specifically their intent.

Why if a medical provider is treating an STD case or providing a breast cancer screening should they not be reimbursed the same as other medical providers treating an STD case or providing breast cancer screenings?

WW

 

[AZRWinger]

They can’t do that lol. Which is why it has been blocked. They provide Medicaid services like every other Medicaid provider, so they can’t be excluded from reimbursement. The Hyde amendment already precludes PP from receiving federal funds for abortion. Congress doesn’t get a say in what other services PP can provide.

The law has to do with eligibility to receive Medicaid reimbursements. It doesn't impose additional restrictions on what services Medicaid may reimburse. PP can provide whatever services they wish but they are ineligible by law to receive Medicaid reimbursement due their status as the top abortion mill operator. Why is this a problem? Financing their core business of slaughtering the unborn is supposedly unaffected.

The majority opinion in Medina v Planned Parenthood unambiguously determined Medicaid doesn't confer a right to demand payment from the Federal government.

 

[rahl]

Congress isn't saying what other services PP can provide.
It is saying that if it receives more than 800000 per year from Medicaid, it can't engage in providing any abortion services.

And they don’t get a say in that.

It doesn't single out PP. Anyone above that threshold falls under the new law.

Congress can absolutely do this.

No they can’t.

 

[rahl]

The law has to do with eligibility to receive Medicaid reimbursements.

And PP is eligible.

It doesn't impose additional restrictions on what services Medicaid may reimburse. PP can provide whatever services they wish but they are ineligible by law to receive Medicaid reimbursement due their status as the top abortion mill operator.

Nope. Congress doesn’t get a say in what other non Medicaid services they provide.

Why is this a problem?

Because it’s illegal.

Financing their core business of slaughtering the unborn is supposedly unaffected.

When you lie like this, nobody takes you seriously.

The majority opinion in Medina v Planned Parenthood unambiguously determined Medicaid doesn't confer a right to demand payment from the Federal government.

This ruling has no relevance to PP receiving Medicaid reimbursements

 

[WorldWatcher]

The law has to do with eligibility to receive Medicaid reimbursements. It doesn't impose additional restrictions on what services Medicaid may reimburse. PP can provide whatever services they wish but they are ineligible by law to receive Medicaid reimbursement due their status as the top abortion mill operator. Why is this a problem? Financing their core business of slaughtering the unborn is supposedly unaffected.

The majority opinion in Medina v Planned Parenthood unambiguously determined Medicaid doesn't confer a right to demand payment from the Federal government.

The new case isn't filed based on a right of payment within the law passed by Congress.

It's based on Constitutional issued:

(In no priority order, just the way I remember them...)

#1 Due to statements make by politicians the intent was clearly for it to act as a Bill of Attainder to target PP as a parent organization and all it's subsidiaries.

#2 An attempt at infringement of the 1st Amendment freedom of speech as the intent it to drive them out of existence.

#3 An attempt at infringement of the 1st Amendment right of association as the intent it to drive them out of existence.

#4 A violation of the 5th Amendment equal protection clause denying them equal access to reimbursement for providing the same medical care (non-abortion) that other qualified medical providers can provide and for which they receive reimbursement.

WW

 

[AZRWinger]

And PP is eligible.

The law says otherwise.

Nope. Congress doesn’t get a say in what other non Medicaid services they provide.

True, but irrelevant to Medicaid reimbursement eligibility.

Because it’s illegal.

Not according to the law. I provided a length quote explaiining the law. All you can do is repeat the same falsehood.

When you lie like this, nobody takes you seriously.

Name calling to avoid attempting a reasoned response doesn't work.

This ruling has no relevance to PP receiving Medicaid reimbursements

Wow, you believe you can declare Medicaid provider eligibility in defiance of the law and dismiss the SCOTUS finding that there is no right to Medicaid benefits. Do you think you're a District court judge who can make law by dictate? LOL