Planned Parenthood wins partial victory in legal battle with Trump admin over defunding efforts
A provision in that bill ends Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023, even to those like Planned Parenthood that also offer things like contraception, pregnancy tests and STD testing.
But U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston granted a preliminary injunction Monday that, for now, blocks the government from cutting Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood member organizations that either don't provide abortion care or didn't meet a threshold of at least $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in a given year.
Advertisement
5 Planned Parenthood has won a partial victory Monday in a legal fight with the Trump's administration's efforts to cut funding.
Getty Images
5 Protestors holding a 'I fight for Planned Parenthood' banner in front of the Supreme Court.
REUTERS
It wasn't immediately clear how many Planned Parenthood organizations and clinics would continue to get Medicaid reimbursements under that decision and how many might not.
Planned Parenthood said in a statement after the injunction that it's thankful the court recognized 'the harm' caused by the bill.
Advertisement
But it said it's disappointed that some of its members will lose this funding, 'risking chaos, confusion, and harm for patients who could now be turned away when seeking lifesaving reproductive health care.'
'The court has not yet ruled on whether it will grant preliminary injunctive relief to other members,' the statement added. 'We remain hopeful that the court will grant this relief. There will be nothing short of a public health crisis if Planned Parenthood members are allowed to be 'defunded.''
The lawsuit was filed earlier this month against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member organizations in Massachusetts and Utah.
Advertisement
Planned Parenthood argued that allowing the provision to take effect would have devastating consequences nationwide, including increased rates of undiagnosed and untreated sexually transmitted diseases and cancer.
5 U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the government from cutting Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood member organizations.
Getty Images
'With no reason other than plain animus, the law will prevent Planned Parenthood Members from providing vital — indeed, lifesaving — care to more than one million patients,' they wrote. 'This statute is unconstitutional and will inflict irreparable harm on Planned Parenthood Members and their patients.'
Lawyers for the government argued in court documents that the bill 'stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion.'
Advertisement
'All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact that provision consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent,' the government wrote in its opposition to the motion.
5 Planned Parenthood filed the lawsuit earlier this month against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Getty Images
5 It wasn't immediately clear how many Planned Parenthood organizations and clinics would continue to get Medicaid reimbursements under that decision and how many might not.
Getty Images
The government added that the plaintiffs 'now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences. … That request is legally groundless.'
Hours after the lawsuit was filed, Talwani issued a temporary restraining order that prevented the government from enforcing the cuts.
That order had been set to expire Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court of Canada dismisses constitutional challenge of sex-work law
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected a constitutional challenge of the criminal law on sex work, upholding the convictions of two men who argued its provisions are overly broad. The case tested key elements of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which took effect in late 2014. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper brought in the legislation in response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling known as the Bedford decision. The law was intended to protect sex workers from third parties who commercialize the sale of sexual services and allow them to shield themselves from the dangers posed by some clients. Mikhail Kloubakov and Hicham Moustaine were convicted in Alberta of offences under the new law as a result of their employment in 2018 as paid drivers for an escort business, a commercial sex operation. The men successfully contested the provisions in question on the constitutional grounds that they deprive sex workers of the right to security. The first provision criminalizes receiving money or some other material benefit from the sex work of others in exploitative circumstances. The second provision prohibits procuring someone to offer sexual services for sale. An Alberta judge found the provisions were too broad because they apply to people receiving a material benefit from sex work who may otherwise be supporting the safety of sex workers. The Crown appealed, arguing the judge mistakenly concluded that the provisions violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, entered convictions against Kloubakov and Moustaine and referred the matter for sentencing. In its unanimous ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court said the material benefit and procuring offences at the heart of the case permit sex workers to take the safety measures contemplated in the Bedford decision. The court said that while the material benefit offence prohibits someone from receiving a financial or other benefit while knowing it flows from the purchase of sexual services from others, the scope is narrowed by exceptions that allow sex workers to protect themselves by hiring staff. A third party who provides security to someone who sells sexual services could do so lawfully, the court said, as long as they do not encourage the person to sell sex and provided the benefit they receive is proportionate to the value of the services they provide. The top court noted the legislated exceptions do not apply in circumstances that Parliament regards as exploitative, including when a material benefit is obtained through a commercial enterprise. The court said judges will determine on a case-by-case basis whether any given enterprise is a commercial enterprise engaged in the commodification of sexual activity. However, certain conduct does not fall under scope of a commercial enterprise, the court said. That includes: — an individual who sells their own sexual services, whether independently or co-operatively with others; — a third party, such as a driver, receptionist, bodyguard, or manager, who provides security services to someone who sells their own sexual services under a co-operative arrangement; — sex workers who operate indoors from a not-for-profit safe house; — and an individual or entity that merely rents premises to an independent sex worker and does not participate in turning sexual activity into a commodity. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025. Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
Associated Press
22 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A look at details of the settlement between Columbia University and the Trump administration
A deal between Columbia University and the Trump administration calls for the Ivy League school to pay more than $220 million to resolve multiple federal investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement announced Wednesday clears the way for the school to keep billions of dollars in federal research money, including more than $400 million in grants canceled earlier this year. In return, the deal calls for a number of reforms in areas such as admissions, campus protests policies and its curriculum, including a number of changes the school agreed to previously in March. It is a document President Donald Trump's administration is calling a road map for settlements with other colleges accused of not doing enough to address campus antisemitism. Columbia University's acting president, Claire Shipman, said it protects the school's values and autonomy. Here's what's in the settlement: Financial payout The university will pay the federal government $200 million over three years. It will also pay $21 million to settle alleged civil rights violations against Jewish employees that occurred following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. A pledge to end diversity programs The university agreed to end programs 'that promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotes, diversity targets or similar efforts.' Columbia, as part of the agreement, must also issue regular reports to an independent monitor assuring that its programs 'do not promote unlawful DEI goals.' The agreement pushes Columbia to limit the consideration of race even beyond the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. That decision left open the possibility that universities could consider an applicant's discussion of how their race affected their life, including in college application essays. The agreement says: 'Columbia may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination.' Faculty and curriculum changes Columbia agreed to review its Middle East curriculum and appoint new faculty to its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies who will 'contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment.' To further support Jewish students on campus, the agreement calls for a new administrator to serve as a liaison on antisemitism issues. Reporting on international students Columbia University agreed to new vetting for prospective international students. The agreement calls for introducing 'questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States' and establishes processes to make sure all students are committed to 'civil discourse.' The university also promised to provide the government with information, upon request, of disciplinary actions involving student-visa holders resulting in expulsions or suspensions. 'In several instances, the agreement codifies other practices or policies already in existence, or reviews already underway. We must always comply with government regulations regarding the international student visa program, for example,' Shipman said. The agreement says Columbia also will 'examine its business model and take steps to decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment.' International students make up about 40% of the enrollment at Columbia. Abiding Trump's interpretation on sex discrimination The agreement requires full compliance with the administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Trump officials have used the law to force the removal of transgender athletes from women's sports. Campus protest policies The deal calls for Columbia to abide restrictions it agreed to on campus protests, including a ban on face coverings used to conceal demonstrators' identity. It says protests inside academic buildings are not acceptable under the university's code of conduct. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Washington Post
22 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too
Congress approved President Donald Trump's request to cancel $1.1 billion in government funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump's executive order Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media said that neither PBS nor NPR 'presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.' As a former PBS producer, I take exception to his claim. Like my colleagues at PBS stations nationwide, I covered controversial stories from a wide variety of perspectives, including interviews with subjects of opposing political viewpoints, with respect and empathy. Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too. To illustrate: PBS put my documentary, 'Battle at Weber Creek,' on YouTube. It focuses on the dispute between Alaskan gold miner Joe Vogler and the National Park Service over transport of heavy mining equipment along a historic trail through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Vogler had used the trail for years before the preserve was established in 1978 as part of the National Park System. His armed confrontation with the preserve's superintendent at remote Weber Creek raised serious issues for environmentalists, gold miners, National Park Service officials, elected representatives and local landowners, all of whom expressed diverse opinions to inform a national audience. The documentary was balanced to appeal to local as well as national viewers, and the response was overwhelmingly positive from a wide and highly diverse audience, including Alaska's gold-mining community. To present contrasting viewpoints on issues of interest to broad audiences around the United States is what public broadcasting does best. Its funding must be restored. Robert A. Hooper, San Diego The writer is a former producer at PBS member station KUAC in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Post's July 16 interview with PBS president and chief executive Paula Kerger, 'PBS faces 'existential' threat, its chief says,' missed an opportunity to press for facts about the impact of funding reductions to public broadcasting. The questions focused almost exclusively on the politics of the proposed cuts. Kerger characterized PBS as 'an aggregation of local stations,' to which most of the organization's funding is directed. She cited the Smoky Hills, Kansas, station, which airs 'a call-in medical show' and gets 54 percent of its money from the federal government. The Post's follow-up question: 'Will rural stations be hit hardest?' Kerger responded by mentioning PBS's 'great stations everywhere' — in D.C., New York and Boston, as well as in the small towns of Cookeville, Tennessee, and Granite Falls, Minnesota. The interviewer should have pressed Kerger on the number of viewers in rural markets; on the federal dollars spent per viewer; on whether PBS could redirect dollars from richer, big-city markets with more broadband options; whether state governments could kick in some money; or even the basic policy question of whether the federal government should be helping fund this service at all given the plethora of sources of information. Instead, the interviewer focused on whether the proposed budget cuts are 'specific to PBS and NPR and the CPB' or 'part of a larger salvo from this administration against media.' The issue of federal funding for public broadcasting is much more complicated and nuanced than presented in this interview. Taxpayers have been bombarded with 'the sky is falling' arguments over nearly every aspect of the federal budget process. Journalists can help by giving us facts instead of amplifying rhetoric. Joseph A. Capone, Oakton In 1993, a group of people, some of them refugees from countries with authoritarian regimes, were in my apartment watching David Letterman. Letterman was making various hard-hitting jokes about 'Tubby.' We were all laughing until one person in the group asked, 'Who is Tubby?' I told them it was a reference to President Bill Clinton. Suddenly, I saw shock on the faces of my guests. They thought Letterman would be off the air in minutes and dead by the next day. I explained to them that this is America. Some people are well paid for making fun of the president. Letterman went on to make fun of America and other presidents for decades to come. Today I wonder if the refugees were onto something. Charles Plushnick, New York What do good companies do when faced with declining audiences and revenue? They analyze options and make adjustments. CBS has said it was losing money on 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.' Is CBS different from any other company? Sometimes the simplest answer is the truth. Steve Henry, Springfield When CBS chief executive George Cheeks announced the cancellation of 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,' he called it 'purely a financial decision.' Cheeks has built his career on being genial, nonconfrontational and operationally smooth. But leadership isn't about being agreeable in times of turbulence. It's about taking a stand when the stakes are cultural, not just financial. Colbert wasn't just a talk show host. He was, for millions, a moral compass cloaked in comedy. And that's the real reason he's gone. There were other options. Cheeks could've shortened the production week, trimmed the budget or renegotiated Colbert's contract. George Cheeks didn't make a tough call. He made a weak one. Jeffrey Barge, Cleveland Ryan Zickgraf's July 18 Friday Opinion essay, 'The scroll never stops. Will we?,' captures Neil Postman's prescient warning that democracy is being overentertained rather than overthrown. But although the argument about tech's grip on our attention is right, it misses the deeper issue: We are not just distracted; we are reprogramming our very understanding of truth. Zickgraf points to Gen Z's retreat into more 'analog' pursuits as a sign of hope, but this is a passive rebellion, walking away from problems instead of confronting them. This opt-out mentality isn't enough. The real crisis is a society that no longer demands critical thought. Instead, we have substituted spectacle for reason, performance for debate and outrage for reflection. If democracy is to survive this digital haze, it's not enough to just delete apps or 'go back to basics.' We need a resurgence of reasoned, intentional discourse — something that challenges the very algorithms shaping our worldview. If Zickgraf's two tribes of Gen Z offer a glimpse of a future, it's one where we'll need to do more than retreat: We'll need to actively reclaim the spaces where thought can flourish, beyond the scroll. Regina Nappo, Triangle, Virginia Issues such as the Jeffrey Epstein case, though of ethical, moral and perhaps legal concern, are no more than distractions and deflections. They won't motivate people to vote in 2026 or beyond. Though titillating and potentially capable of increasing the audience share for news networks, at the end of the day, they likely will not significantly impact the outcome of the election. Notes Dan Rather: 'It is easy to stay swept up in the Epstein tsunami. … If the story is having an effect on Trump's political viability, then it is worth reporting on and reading about. But not at the expense of life-and-death stories with global consequences.' As someone who studied political communication for 45 years, I am convinced that the Epstein case is essentially a 'not Trump' message and therefore will remain rhetorically ineffective. So, let me say it again: While talking about this issue is fair game, Democrats must offer vivid and compelling reasons why their vision and concrete plans for America are in the best interests of voters. After that, they can contrast their message to the policies of President Donald Trump and his Republican acolytes. Democrats must be disciplined and their messages tightly focused. Richard Cherwitz, Carmas, Washington Hunter Biden's claim that George Clooney and other high-profile Democrats undermined his father's bid for reelection does not hold up to scrutiny. On the contrary, President Joe Biden and his enablers undermined their own campaign by attempting to conceal Joe Biden's diminished mental acuity from voters. Voters deserve to know the truth about their leaders so they can make informed decisions. When George Clooney spoke the truth about Biden's mental capabilities, he was speaking truth to power. If only more high-profile Democrats had done the same. A few months ago, Joe Biden went on 'The View' to claim he would have beaten Donald Trump. Polls show otherwise. Now, Hunter is peddling his father's same misguided blustery machismo. If they would take the advice, please, of the legendary 'Mini-Me' character of Austin Powers movie fame, this Democrat and so many other Democrats would be happy. 'Zip it.' Bruce Kirby, Rockville Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.
