
Democrats escalate anti-Trump lawfare by targeting Congress in Planned Parenthood funding fight
Planned Parenthood and several blue states have sued over the provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that strips Medicaid funding from certain abortion providers for one year. The bill was passed by Congress and signed by the president in July.
The legislation advances the pro-life movement's longtime goal of defunding Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, but a federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the Trump Health and Human Services Department from carrying it out.
Derek Muller, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told Fox News Digital that taking on two branches of government sets this litigation apart from many of the hundreds of other lawsuits targeting the Trump administration.
"Congress has the power of the purse," Muller said. "Congress has a lot of discretion [over] how it wants to spend its money, and this is not an instance where the executive has been engaged in overreach or doubtful conduct. … This is ordinary legislation, and when it comes to ordinary legislation, there's more deference given to Congress, and certainly more in how it chooses to subsidize things, where it wants to give money or where it doesn't want to give money."
The judge's decision to temporarily block the funding cuts stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit with hundreds of facilities across the country that provide abortions and other reproductive health services.
Planned Parenthood's attorneys alleged in court papers that the provision was unconstitutional, arguing it would deprive the nonprofit of millions of dollars in Medicaid reimbursements, causing it to lose half of its patients and forcing it to shutter up to one-third of its facilities.
Katie Daniel, counsel at SBA Pro-Life America, told Fox News Digital Planned Parenthood was making a "desperate argument" that "totally undermines Congress' ability to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent." It also signals that Planned Parenthood was not a solvent business, she said.
"It's a business that really can't keep itself afloat without getting hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars," Daniel said.
Planned Parenthood's attorneys noted that Medicaid does not typically cover abortions and that the funding cuts would affect other services. Cancer and sexually transmitted infections would go undetected, especially for low-income people, and more unplanned pregnancies would occur because of a lack of contraception access, the attorneys said.
"The adverse public health consequences of the Defund Provision will be grave," the attorneys wrote.
Daniel said the Medicaid marketplace includes other options for clinics and that those options "outnumber Planned Parenthood nationally 15 to one."
Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, said she was inclined to agree with Planned Parenthood that the legislation violated several provisions in the Constitution and granted a preliminary injunction, which the Department of Justice is now appealing.
That lawsuit has been joined by two others challenging the bill. A coalition of 21 states with Democratic attorneys general, along with the District of Columbia and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, brought one of them on Monday.
Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 health facilities in the Pine Tree State, has also sued over the legislation. While lawmakers have touted that the bill defunds Planned Parenthood, it was written to include other entities, including Maine Family Planning, as a way to pass parliamentarian scrutiny.
Daniel told Fox News Digital she anticipates the higher courts will rule in favor of the Trump administration but that the bill's one-year limit on the funding cuts works in Planned Parenthood's favor.
"At this point for Planned Parenthood, it's really about running out the clock," Daniel said. "The defund provision is for one year, so every single day that they can keep getting money. … That's existential to them."
If the Trump administration ultimately wins the court fight, it could attempt to claw back the Medicaid funds it lost while Talwani's injunction was in place. Daniel noted, however, that "it's incredibly difficult, it's time-consuming, it's costly, and Planned Parenthood is relying on all of that."
Among Planned Parenthood's allegations was a longshot claim that Congress's bill violates the Constitution's bill of attainder clause because it singles out and punishes Planned Parenthood without a trial.
Bills of attainder are pieces of legislation that serve to bypass the role of judges and punish people or entities. The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder because they infringe on the function of the courts.
Muller told Fox News Digital he believed the bill of attainder argument was a "nonstarter."
"People have tried to argue that certain things that Congress does, singling out or targeting individuals, could rise to a bill of attainder," Muller said. "This has gotten some traction in lower courts. It has never really gotten traction in the courts of appeal because it is far afield from the original meaning of the Constitution on this topic."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News
No one likes paying taxes. Maybe that's why President Donald Trump has proposed nixing the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs. Tariffs, he believes, would make us so rich we could all kiss the tax man goodbye — at least the income tax man. Tariffs are basically a tax, paid by the importer, and passed onto the consumer. Learn More: Find Out: But what would things really look like if income taxes were a thing of the past? We asked ChatGPT. It had four main points. Constitutional Viability Could Trump put an end to income taxes by executive order or another unilateral way? That, said ChatGPT, is a hard no. 'Income taxes are codified in the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (1913), which explicitly authorizes the federal government to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states,' it said. Abolishing income taxes would require legislation from Congress, with a two-thirds vote by both houses. With that stated, it's not likely to happen. Read Next: Budgetary Reality The fact is, individual and corporate income taxes have made up the bulk of federal revenue for the past 50 years, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. ChatGPT noted that equals $2.2 trillion in personal federal income tax, and $460 billion from corporate income tax, per 2023 figures. The Bipartisan Policy Center puts the figures at $2.4 trillion and $530 billion, respectively. Either way, it's a lot of money, with personal income taxes making up for 49% of total federal government revenue, and corporate income taxes making up 11%. Wipe them out, and the federal government loses 60% of its income. Tariffs, on the other hand, bring in a mere $98 billion, according to ChatGPT — NPR put the figure for the fiscal year ending September of 2024 at $80 billion. Politico, which tracks the tariff income, reported that this year, U.S. tariffs, which include Trump's tariffs, have brought in $100.5 billion as of July 13 — $53 billion more than at this time last year. That is not going to cut it, according to ChatGPT: 'Tariffs would need to be increased more than 20-fold to make up for the loss [in income tax].' It added that everything would have to be tariffed — all consumer goods, tech products, energy and industrial goods — at rates that would be inflationary and spark massive trade wars. Economic and Social Impact ChatGPT did throw some pros in with the cons. Hypothetically, it said, no federal income tax would make all our lives easier, simplifying the month of April. Taxing spending — retail, tariffs, etc. — might also benefit some groups that spend little compared to their income, ChatGPT said. For instance, this would include high earners who are somewhat restrained in their spending and frugal retirees. Now for the flip side. Tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, ChatGPT explained. It disproportionately hits low- and middle-income households who spend more of their income — as a percentage — than the wealthy. In other words, buying a book or computer or car is a larger percentage of income to someone making $50,000 a year than to someone making $5 million. Additionally, because of the shortfall in federal revenue, massive budget cuts would be required. Large cuts to Medicaid and Medicare would be required — much larger than the ones in the One Big Beautiful Bill — in addition to the military and other entitlements and services. So, Would We All Be Richer? According to ChatGPT, that's another hard no (in bold, no less). It claims that according to 'almost all mainstream economists,' tariffs raise prices, reduce efficiency and can hurt job growth. In addition, ending the income tax would destabilize public finances and increase inequality. The move would benefit the wealthy and hurt the poor. For his part, Trump believes that the period between 1870 to 1913, before income taxes were a thing and when tariffs were a very big thing, was America's Golden Age. On April 15, he told Fox Noticias it was that era when we were our richest. That's debatable at best, and very much depends on who you define as 'we.' After all, Mark Twain coined it as the Gilded Age for its massive corruption and rampant inequality. The wealthy were very wealthy, to be sure, but according to Digital History, supported by a consortium of government, university and public organizations, in 1877, the average annual income of an urban family was $738 ($22,594 in today's money). After housing, food, heating and clothing, an average of $44 per year ($1,347) was left over for fun, emergencies and retirement savings — and without Social Security, they'd need it. For that, the average unskilled or semi-skilled person worked 10 hours a day for 20 cents ($6.12) per hour, and 939 out of 1,000 died with no property to pass on to heirs. Frankly, that's not sounding very golden. More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News Error 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


Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
States sue Trump admin over trans care access
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are suing the Trump administration over what they charge is a coordinated federal effort to intimidate health care providers into stopping gender-affirming care for individuals under age 19. The big picture: The suit revolved around a January executive order President Trump issued and subsequent administration actions the states say amount to an attempt to enforce a nationwide ban on transition-related care. The latest: The administration actions are not only denying medically necessary care but coercing hospitals and doctors into violating anti-discrimination and other state laws, according to the complaint. The suit referenced Justice Department guidance threatening criminal prosecution of providers, investigations of hospitals, and demands for patient data. The states asked the court for an injunction, saying the actions were unlawful and intrude on their authority to enforce their own laws. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro was also listed as a plaintiff. Between the lines: While courts have temporarily blocked the administration from stripping federal funding from providers of gender-affirming medical services to minors, the Justice Department has taken other steps, including subpoenaing doctors for patient information. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has launched an inquiry into whether providers are making false claims about gender-affirming care's benefits or not disclosing risks. The efforts have prompted major hospitals to pause or shut down on transition-related services in states where they remain legal. "This reduction in services has caused significant harm to transgender adolescents in the Plaintiff States, depriving them of essential care at a critical time in their development," the states argue in the complaint. What they're saying:"The federal government is running a cruel and targeted harassment campaign against providers who offer lawful, lifesaving care to children," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. The White House last week claimed credit for making providers halt what it termed "child sexual mutilation," issuing a release listing more than a dozen health systems that stopped providing puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries. "For years, politicians have promised to end the barbaric, pseudoscientific practice — but President Trump is the only one who has actually delivered," it said in a statement. About 40% of transgender youth live in the 27 states that already limit access to gender-affirming care for minors, according to KFF. Of those states, 17 currently face legal challenges to their policies.


The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Wanna-be king': Democrats fume at Trump move to oust BLS head
Criticism is mounting after President Trump moved to oust the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday following a dismal jobs report. Trump accused BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer, an appointee of former President Biden, of skewing job numbers in the latest report, which showed the U.S. adding only 73,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate increasing slightly. Revisions in the report also showed that the U.S. added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than the Labor Department first reported, according to BLS data. 'In my opinion, today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,' he wrote on Truth Social. Later, he called for McEntarfer's ouster, which sparked some backlash on Capitol Hill. 'Instead of helping people get good jobs, Donald Trump just fired the statistician who reported bad jobs data that the wanna-be king doesn't like,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted on social platform X. The gloomy jobs report raised serious questions about the strength of the U.S. economy, especially in light of Trump's sweeping tariffs, which have caused anxieties in the global market. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) called the president's response 'deeply irresponsible.' 'Firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because they accurately report on your struggling economy isn't just corrupt, it's deeply irresponsible,' she wrote online. 'Undermining our economic data is only going to create further chaos and uncertainty for our businesses big and small.' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also turned the tables back on Trump in a semi-mocking post on X. 'BREAKING: I did some research into Trump's Deep State and found this photo of the real government employee responsible for the job loss numbers,' Schumer wrote Friday, sharing a photo of the president himself. 'Trump must fire him immediately.' Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) reacted with an equally biting post, offering her version of the timeline. She wrote on X, 'Step one: Trump tanks the economy. Step two: Data shows that Trump is tanking the economy. Step three: Trump fires the person who puts out economic data so that in the future, no one will know he's still tanking the economy.' Sen. Tammy Baldwin also weighed in, writing on social media that 'Donald Trump has thrown our economy into chaos and is firing the messenger for telling us.' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) also took a swing at the president for his reaction, calling it 'one more step toward authoritarianism.' 'Truth being replaced by propaganda. This is what the Soviets did. This is a big deal, and we need to act like it,' Murphy wrote on X, alongside a video message. 'Time for a fight.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pressed her GOP colleagues to denounce Trump's firing of the top statistician. 'It is seriously dangerous territory when Trump fires anyone who doesn't cook the books for him. The entire economy hinges on the accurate, nonpartisan data we get from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,' she wrote online. 'Republicans need to join us in fighting to protect the integrity of BLS.' Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is retiring at the end of his term, placed blame for the dismal report on Trump's trade agenda. The comment came as the latest iteration of 'reciprocal' tariffs on dozens of countries was set to go into effect Friday. 'President Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because he didn't like that the jobs report was weak—a direct result of his chaotic trade wars,' he wrote. 'Utterly reckless, and a chilling reminder of his autocratic tendencies.' Despite the criticism, Trump's allies have largely stood behind his decision to sack McEntarfer, who has served in the post since 2023. The president also accused the BLS chief of fabricating jobs numbers ahead of the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' former Vice President Harris's chances of winning. A BLS spokesperson, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to The Hill that McEntarfer was let go. Deputy commissioner William Wiatrowski is set to serve as acting head until the administration finds a replacement.