In a surprising turn of events, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a federal law takes precedence over a district judge's decision.
The law in question is a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which imposed a moratorium on all federal payments to Planned Parenthood of America (PPA) and its affiliates, provided they continue to offer abortion services. This puts PPA in a challenging position, forcing it to choose between two activities it is known for: providing abortion services and receiving federal funding.
According to RedState, Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had previously imposed a temporary restraining order on this provision. What stood out was that Judge Talwani instructed the Executive Branch to violate federal law without ruling on the law's constitutionality. This move was seen as an unusual act among district court judges.
The administration appealed this decision to the First Circuit. Initially, the outlook seemed bleak as the three-judge panel was composed entirely of appointees by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. However, in an unexpected twist, the panel found Judge Talwani's ruling so peculiar that they could not support it.
The unanimous vote by Judges Gustavo A. Gelp, Lara E. Montecalvo, and Seth R. Aframe will now allow federal Medicaid reimbursements for other services to be withheld. The judges' two-page order did not provide any reasoning or indication of their views on the legal merits of the case, and federal dollars may only be withheld temporarily.
However, this pause represents a significant financial setback for Planned Parenthood, which has heavily relied on government reimbursements for medical services. In previous years, over 40 percent of its revenue has come from government reimbursements and grants disbursed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The decision by the three Biden-appointed appellate judges to stay the opinion was seen as a clear indication that the District Court judge's ruling was flawed. The lack of reasoning or indication of their views on the legal merits of the case in the two-page order was interpreted as a polite way of expressing disbelief at the District Court judge's decision.
The ruling was met with disappointment by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO, expressed her dissatisfaction in a statement. However, critics argue that Planned Parenthood does not offer any service, other than abortion, that isn't readily available elsewhere, making this statement untrue.
This ruling could potentially deal a significant blow to the abortion industry. Without government dollars to fund both PPA's abortion services and lobbying arm, it could be reduced to insignificance. If PPA withdraws from the abortion business, it offers nothing that can't be found elsewhere.
As the other services it provides are merely loss-leaders that attract young women into its abortion services, it is hard to see how it survives in its current form. This development could mark a significant shift in the landscape of reproductive health services in America.
Login