Pro-abortion activist-judge insists that Congress cannot decide spending priorities
A pro-abortion activist acting as a federal judge has ruled, again, that American taxpayers must keep giving money to help the profit-loss margin for Planned Parenthood businesses, and the ruling already is facing a challenge.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that cited the “sweeping order” from Indira Talwani, who ruled “once again” to block Congress from setting spending priorities, and removing Planned Parenthood as a recipient of federal Medicaid dollars.
Talwani, whose earlier pro-abortion funding ruling was struck down on appeal, said in a new 45-page claim that 22 states and the District of Columbia deserve an injunction that requires the continued tax funding of abortionists, even though Congress decided otherwise.
The ACLJ, which has been participating in the litigation, explained, “Congress has the unquestioned constitutional authority to decide how federal dollars are allocated. The judiciary does not get to override those decisions or insulate favored organizations from the consequences of federal policy. Especially not when the organization at issue is the nation’s largest abortion provider.”
The legal team said it would file a court briefing as soon as possible, as “Congress’ spending authority and the integrity of our constitutional structure must be defended.”
The spending limit is included in Section 71113 of the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act.
“If the judge’s name sounds familiar, it should. This is the same judge who, just months ago, issued two extraordinarily broad injunctions in favor of Planned Parenthood – first shielding a subset of affiliates from Congress’ defunding statute, and then expanding her order to cover every Planned Parenthood affiliate nationwide,” the ACLJ documented.
It filed briefs at that time “explaining why Congress acted well within its constitutional authority when it chose to restrict federal Medicaid funds from going to organizations that perform elective abortions. We warned then that the district court’s reasoning was dangerously flawed and would, if left uncorrected, upend Congress’ control of federal spending.”
At that time the 1st U.S. Circuit Court intervened, and canceled Talwani’s pro-abortion activism in the case.
Now the abortion advocates have claimed, in new arguments, that Section 71113 is “vague.”
Talwani based her claims, the ACLJ explained, on the Spending Clause.
“Under Supreme Court precedent, when Congress imposes conditions on federal funding, it must speak with sufficient clarity so states may knowingly accept the terms. According to the district court, Section 71113 did not meet that standard. The judge concluded that states lacked clarity on who qualifies as a ‘prohibited entity,’ how to assess multistate Medicaid expenditures, and what it means for a provider to be ‘primarily engaged’ in certain reproductive health services,” the ACLJ said.
BREAKING: Another RADICAL ACTIVIST ruling just came down from Obama-appointed Judge Talwani.
She is trying to FORCE the federal government into funding Planned Parenthood.
This will NOT stand. This is NOTHING but the Democratic Party coordinating law fare to hinder Trump. pic.twitter.com/MZnpYwed0h
— Gunther Eagleman (@GuntherEagleman) December 2, 2025
Judge Talwani undermined the wishes of Congress *again* in her latest ruling. Judges shouldn’t be in the business of judicial policymaking.
“It should go without saying that Congress has the power of the purse and can steer Medicaid funds in accordance with its political… pic.twitter.com/bnjMR9F0iI
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) December 4, 2025
Judicial overreach strikes again.
A federal judge is once again holding up the law that stops taxpayer funding for Big Abortion – playing politics to undermine the power of the purse that belongs to Congress alone.
Even the Washington Post agrees:https://t.co/oUYgblhahv
— SBA Pro-Life America (@sbaprolife) December 4, 2025
The fight is over tax funding for abortionists, and Planned Parenthood’s repeated claim that it has a constitutional right to demand money from taxpayers.
“Congress’ intent was unmistakable: Federal Medicaid dollars should not subsidize entities that perform abortions outside the narrow bounds of the Hyde Amendment. That condition is not in any way ambiguous; it is clear,” the ACLJ said.
The Washington Examiner said Talwani’s new order came “despite a federal appeals court lifting her previous halt on the law in a different lawsuit.”
The report explained, “Talwani paused her order for seven days to allow for appeal, meaning the provision will not be blocked until that time has passed. She also stood firm on her rationale for why she granted the injunction in the case brought by Planned Parenthood, which is currently paused by a federal appeals court.”