Judge Blocks Planned Parenthood’s ‘Deductible’ Benefit in 22 States and D.C

A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued a preliminary injunction on a federal regulation of Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health providers in certain states, starting next week. The Trump administration is expected to appeal. (Photo: Sarah Ladd/Kentucky Lantern)

A federal judge has once again blocked a controversial provision barring federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other nonprofits that provide reproductive health services. This time, however, he rules on a different case, giving a different set of arguments.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Tuesday, December 2 issued a preliminary injunction starting next week for the 22 states that, along with the District of Columbia, sued the federal government in July.

State attorneys general argue that the federal government violated the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution by failing to provide clear guidance and time to meet terms outlined in the budget reconciliation package passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump this summer.

Medicaid benefits primarily apply to Planned Parenthood clinics, as well as several other reproductive health providers that also offer legal abortion services.

Trump administration lawyers argue that other states have found the provision unclear.

This week, Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, ordered that federal Medicaid funds continue to flow to states, including to Planned Parenthood clinics in the states involved in the lawsuit, pending developments.

The federal government “will take all necessary steps to ensure that Medicaid funds continue to be paid in the customary manner and time frame” to states that have filed suit, “regardless of whether the claims were filed by entities that may be ‘prohibited entities,'” she wrote.

The court ordered a seven-day administrative stay, preventing the preliminary injunction from taking immediate effect, and the ruling is likely to be appealed.

“Allowing the Defund provision to go into effect would mean that our people will get sicker and sicker and lose access to the vital health care services they need,” said co-plaintiff, Attorney General Rob Bonta of California in the lawsuit statementpraising the referee’s decision. “We should be clear about what the Defund provision represents: a scorched earth offensive by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans against Planned Parenthood and other health centers that provide essential reproductive care to those who have the least.”

As reported by States Newsroom in Unraveling Safety Net Serieseffects of this provision Medicaid in One substantial stunning bill about the bill was significant to reproductive health clinics and their patients across the country. While some have committed to continuing to accept Medicaid patients, many others have had to divert patients, often to regions with restricted care options. According to Planned Parenthood: at least 20 of their clinics have closed since the Medicaid ban went into effect, in addition to dozens of clinics that closed earlier this year due to other cuts in federal funding.

Lawyers for the federal government argued that states did not have standing in the case because they could not advocate on behalf of health organizations and citizens. However, the judge wrote that the plaintiffs argued that directly complying with this provision would involve increased costs for them and the effects of clinic closures.

Talwani ruled that the plaintiffs had standing and had demonstrated a “substantial likelihood of success.”

She also ordered the defendants to provide a copy of this decision to all HHS staff and state agencies involved in the disbursement of Medicaid funds. It also granted nominal bail relief of $100 to be paid within seven days, but not the full amount sought by the plaintiffs: $600,000 per month during the period of the order.

“The district court has again found the ‘refund denial’ statute unconstitutional and unsafe,” a Planned Parenthood spokesman said in a written statement. “Planned Parenthood will not stop fighting until everyone can get the care they need, when and where they need it.”

Planned Parenthood and Maine Family Planning also sued the provision in separate lawsuits. IN The Planned Parenthood caseTalwani ordered the rule blocked, but the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in September allowed the Medicaid benefit to go into effect while the legal proceedings continue.

The arguments in the case of states are completely different from the arguments in the case of countries Planned Parenthood lawsuitwhich focuses on whether the federal government unlawfully targeted clinics and violated their freedom of association.

Abortion law expert Mary Ziegler said individual states’ arguments are stronger.

“The court, I think correctly, concluded that Congress can change the Medicaid program, but to do so it must clearly notify the states of its actions so that they can decide for themselves whether they want to continue to participate in the Medicaid program under the same conditions,” Ziegler said, referring to Tuesday’s Talwani ruling.

She noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that under the spending clause, terms must be unambiguous and states must be notified in advance if they change.

“The transparency argument is kind of in the eye of the beholder,” she added. “You know, the Supreme Court might say, is this the clearest thing in the world? No, but in some sense it’s clear enough for us. But it’s definitely not, in my opinion, as far-fetched as it was the basis of Judge Talwani’s ruling earlier this year.”

Over the past year, Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in legal disputes over public funding in numerous federal and state cases and lost a major court battle related to an executive order issued in South Carolina in June, when The US Supreme Court ruled that the state may remove the organization from its list of Medicaid providers. Also on Tuesday, Planned Parenthood withdrew the lawsuit questions the state’s ability to remove its clinics from the list.

Anti-abortion groups that have long lobbied for Planned Parenthood to lose funding celebrated the introduction of a federal budget provision set to expire in July 2026. They portrayed it as covering abortion, even though federal funding for abortion care has already been banned except in restricted cases. And as – reported the United States NewsroomAnti-abortion lawmakers and advocates are looking for up-to-date ways to permanently prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds.

“Democrats and their radical activist judges are desperately trying to thwart the will of the people and save the Big Abortion industry,” said Susan B. Anthony, President of Pro-Life America, Marjorie Dannenfelser in her speech statement. “This fight is not over. The pro-life movement will work tirelessly to ensure Democrats do not win and taxpayers are never forced to pay a dime to support Big Abortion businesses.”

The federal Medicaid benefit may terminate before the dispute is resolved in such cases unless Congress extends it or makes it indefinite. Ziegler said the policy will likely be a major Democratic campaign issue in the upcoming election.

“The more rulings like this we have and the more time we get to prevent Planned Parenthood affiliates from going bankrupt, I think the more difficult this question will become for Republicans,” Ziegler said. “Even though the abortion issue didn’t push Kamala Harris over the line in 2024, I still don’t think there’s actually polling to support the idea that abortion is a good issue for Republicans.”