Judge partially blocks Trump administration from enforcing funding ban against Planned Parenthood
US District Judge Indira Talwani partially granted Planned Parenthood's request for a preliminary injunction while its lawsuit against the administration plays out. The order does not apply to all Planned Parenthood members.
The Trump administration will not be allowed to enforce the funding ban against the Planned Parenthood members who cannot provide abortions because of state abortion bans, or who received less than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in 2023, the Planned Parenthood said Monday.
The measure — which is part of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' that was signed into law July 4 — bars Medicaid users from coverage with a health care provider that also provides abortion services.
In a statement responding to the ruling, the Planned Parenthood groups said, 'This isn't over. While we're grateful that the court recognized the harm caused by this law, we're disappointed that not all members were granted the necessary relief today.'
'The court has not yet ruled on whether it will grant preliminary injunctive relief to other members. 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,'' they added.
Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, had previously temporarily blocked the provision's enforcement for 14 days on July 7, after the Planned Parenthood Federation of America — along with Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah — sued the administration.
While the legislation does not explicitly mention Planned Parenthood, it prohibits federal funding for providers 'primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care' that also provide abortion services.'
Planned Parenthood previously warned that nearly 200 clinics nationwide — which also provide birth control, STI testing and treatment, and cancer screening — could close as a result of the bill's ban on funds.
Talwani, in her order, said Planned Parenthood was likely to succeed on its claim that the law's funding ban violates the health care provider's First Amendment rights because of its support for — and provision of — abortion services.
'Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do. Moreover, the record is devoid of evidentiary support for Defendants' suggestion that Planned Parenthood entities share funds that are ultimately used for abortions,' the judge wrote. 'Therefore, restricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of Members that do not provide abortion.'
The bill originally barred funds for ten years, before the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, reduced the measure to one year.
CNN has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for comment.
Planned Parenthood is also battling the Trump administration in court over cuts to a federal teen pregnancy prevention program. Lawyers for five Planned Parenthood networks argued in a federal District of Columbia court this June that administration's changes to the program, including limits on language around diversity and equity, were vague and could bar Planned Parenthood from providing longtime services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Future Retiree Plans To Downsize His $1M Home To Cover Health Insurance — Is It A Smart Move?
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. As retirement approaches, one of the biggest unknowns many Americans face is how to pay for health insurance before Medicare kicks in at age 65. One future retiree recently shared his strategy online: sell his $1 million home, downsize to a smaller, less expensive property, and use the equity to bridge the gap until he qualifies for Medicare. It's a move some have considered — but is it a good idea? Trading Square Footage for Subsidies Posting to the r/retirement subreddit, the 60-year-old homeowner explained that he and his wife plan to retire in a few years. Their house is paid off and valued at around $1 million. With grown children and 3,000 square feet of space, they feel ready to downsize. The plan is to sell the current home and buy a $300,000 to $400,000 replacement. Don't Miss: Be part of the breakthrough that could replace plastic as we know it— $100k+ in investable assets? – no cost, no obligation. The equity from the sale would be used for living expenses, with a specific goal: keeping their Modified Adjusted Gross Income low enough to qualify for Affordable Care Act subsidies. This would help offset the cost of health insurance until they become eligible for Medicare at 65. Several Reddit users responded with encouragement — and caution. The Cost of Healthcare Before Medicare Healthcare expenses can be a major burden for early retirees. According to the Milliman 2024 Retiree Health Cost Index, someone retiring at 60 instead of 65 can expect to spend 56% to 89% more on healthcare over their lifetime, depending on the plan they choose. The earlier you retire, the more years you must cover before Medicare, often at a higher out-of-pocket cost. Some Reddit users suggested exploring the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA. This program allows individuals to continue their employer's health insurance for up to 18 months. One retiree said it cost them $750 a month — cheaper than ACA options at the time. But for someone retiring at 60, COBRA wouldn't cover the full five-year gap. Trending: This AI-Powered Trading Platform Has 5,000+ Users, 27 Pending Patents, and a $43.97M Valuation — Risks of Relying on Home Equity Selling a home to unlock cash might offer flexibility — but it comes with trade-offs. Once the home is sold, that equity is no longer growing, and there's no guarantee the market will stay favorable if the retiree needs to sell quickly. Another consideration: capital gains tax. The Reddit poster said they bought the home for $490,000. If they sell it for $1 million, they'll be close to the $500,000 capital gains exemption for married couples. But with selling costs and home improvements factored in, they may still owe tax if the gain exceeds the limit. Reddit users also warned about downsizing regret. Some retirees have moved, only to later wish they had stayed in place — and found it difficult or expensive to reverse at the Bigger Picture While downsizing could reduce living costs, relying too heavily on that equity could be risky. With only 1–2 years of living expenses in a Roth IRA, the couple's ability to weather changes — like a drop in home values or rising insurance premiums — may be limited. That's why several commenters emphasized the importance of professional advice. As one noted, income, savings, and expenses are all different — and managing them requires careful planning. By exploring multiple options, testing assumptions, and working with a financial planner, future retirees like this one can build a plan that works — without putting their long-term stability at risk. Read Next: This Jeff Bezos-backed startup will allow you to . Image: Shutterstock This article This Future Retiree Plans To Downsize His $1M Home To Cover Health Insurance — Is It A Smart Move? originally appeared on
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brazil scrambles as U.S. tariff deadline looms, talks stall
By Luciana Magalhaes, Lisandra Paraguassu, Bernardo Caram and Ana Mano SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazil is scrambling to avert punishing 50% U.S. tariffs in a week's time, but high level talks are stalled and U.S. companies are reluctant to confront U.S. President Donald Trump over the issue, officials and industry leaders say. Trump linked the tariffs, which he has said would come into effect on Aug. 1, to Brazil's treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is on trial over charges of plotting a coup to stop President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office. Lula has called the threatened duty "unacceptable blackmail." No new diplomatic talks have occurred since last month, and a Brazilian counter-proposal sent in May went unanswered, two diplomats with knowledge of the matter told Reuters. Brazilian Vice-President Geraldo Alckmin told reporters on Thursday that he reiterated the country's willingness to negotiate in a Saturday discussion with U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick. The lack of communication has left Brazil with dwindling options as the deadline approaches. "If he wanted to talk, he would pick up the phone and call me," Lula said of Trump at an event on Thursday. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Negotiations are complicated by U.S. concerns over the prosecution of Bolsonaro, a Trump ally, one diplomat said, calling it a major roadblock. Trump announced the proposed 50% tariffs on Brazil on July 9 despite a U.S. trade surplus with the country - lining it up for one of the world's very highest such levies, close to China's 55% rate. In a series of 18 meetings, Alckmin has urged representatives from U.S. firms including General Motors, John Deere and Alphabet Inc to press Washington on the issue. However, the companies are reluctant to confront Trump for fear of retaliation, according to a government official and Ricardo Alban, president of Brazil's main industry lobby, CNI. "Things are very tense," Alban told reporters on Thursday. Also on Thursday, a group of Democratic senators condemned the tariffs on Brazil as a "clear abuse of power" in a letter to Trump. The tariffs could have a severe economic impact. The CNI estimates over 100,000 Brazilian jobs could be lost, potentially trimming 0.2% from the country's gross domestic product. The country's powerful agribusiness lobby, CNA, projects the value of its U.S. exports could fall by half. Alban said the potential blow to exporters could be worse than the COVID-19 pandemic, adding that business leaders are asking the government for aid, suggesting new credit lines. In response, some companies are already adjusting their trade strategies. Motor maker WEG is considering a plan to use its plants in Mexico and India to supply the U.S., its chief financial officer told analysts. Meat exporter Naturafrig Alimentos has begun redirecting shipments to other countries, according to commercial director Fabrizzio Capuci. Other companies are turning to the courts. Orange juice producer Johanna Foods, for example, has sued the Trump administration over the proposed tariffs. Companies in sectors ranging from steel to chemicals are also facing export contract cancellations, according to one advisor who asked not to be named. Abiquim, an association that represents chemical companies in Brazil, confirmed cancellations due to the threat of tariffs, without naming the companies affected. A lobby group representing steel companies declined to comment.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Leading Antifungal Brand Crystal Flush Explains How Summer Puts Your Nails at Risk And Why Consistent Care Is Key to Beating Fungus for Good.
Summer heat and sweat can quietly sabotage your nail health, creating the perfect environment for stubborn toe fungus to thrive unless you treat and maintain it with the proper protocol. Leading Antifungal Brand Crystal Flush Explains How Summer Puts Your Nails at Risk And Why Consistent Care Is Key to Beating Fungus for Good. Los Angeles, CA, July 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- As temperatures rise and we trade boots for sandals, there's one thing most people overlook: summer can seriously sabotage your nail health. Heat and humidity don't just make you sweat; they also soften the nails and surrounding skin. This makes it easier for fungi to slip in, especially when feet are exposed at the beach, pool, or even just inside sweat-prone sneakers. The problem doesn't stop there. Fungal infections are notoriously stubborn, especially in people over 50. Once fungus settles in, it can take 3–6 months of consistent care to eradicate. That's why treating toe fungus shouldn't be a one-time event—it requires a protocol, like acne care or skincare routines. Crystal Flush recommends a proactive approach, especially during summer. Our Nail Renewal Formula is made for this season. It gently reduces nail thickness, allowing deeper absorption of antifungal treatments—crucial when skin is more vulnerable to invasion. Pair it with our 2-Step Antifungal System, and you'll set up a strong defense against seasonal flare-ups. Clear, healthy nails take time and consistency. So, don't stop short if you've started treating your toe fungus. Stick to a 90-day protocol for real results. Ready to keep your nails summer-ready and fungus-free? Shop the Crystal Flush Nail Renewal and 2-Step Antifungal System at Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not intended to replace professional medical advice. Always consult your doctor before starting any treatment. Media Contact: Jason Gonor 888-717-5722 Attachment Leading Antifungal Brand Crystal Flush Explains How Summer Puts Your Nails at Risk And Why Consistent Care Is Key to Beating Fungus for in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
