District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston has been one of the most active judges in the country in seeking to enjoin the orders of President Donald Trump, including her orders to prevent deportations under previously “paroled” immigrants under the Biden Administration. She previously sought to enjoin the denial of federal funds to Planned Parenthood, an order that the United States Court of Appeals lifted for the First Circuit pending appeal. Now, Judge Talwani is back with a new basis for forcing payments to Planned Parenthood despite Congress barring Medicaid funds under the Big Beautiful Bill.
Planned Parenthood is facing a financial meltdown without the federal funding and is closing offices after the passage of the BBB.
Judge Talwani previously halted the cessation of federal funding on the basis that the action was an effort to punish Planned Parenthood for offering abortion services. She wrote the law likely violates the Constitution’s “bill of attainder clause,” which prohibits Congress and state legislatures from imposing punishments on individuals or specific entities without trial. As lead counsel in the Foretich case (one of the few successful modern bill of attainder cases), I was highly skeptical of the chances of Talwani’s earlier opinion being upheld.
However, the law applies to any health care provider providing abortions as of October 1 and receives more than $800,000 in Medicaid payments in a year. The Justice Department argued that “The elected Branches determined that taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidize certain entities that practice abortion – conduct that many Americans find morally abhorrent.”
The opinion, in my view, is flawed and (again) stretches existing precedent to the breaking point. Congress clearly has the power to place this condition on federal funding and was clear on the application of that condition.
Section 71113 was enacted on July 4, 2025, and provides that “[n]o Federal funds that are . . . provided to carry out a State [Medicaid plan] . . . shall be used to make payments to a prohibited entity for items and services furnished during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act[.]” Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 71113(a), 139 Stat. 72, 300-01 (July 4, 2025).
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) further provided the following notice and guidance:
States must ensure their managed care programs comply with section 71113 and applicable requirements under 42 CFR Part 438. States and their actuaries should evaluate whether implementation of section 71113 necessitates adjustments to Medicaid capitation rate development or constitutes a material adjustment requiring an amended rate certification. Additionally, states should review any [state directed payments (“SDPs”)] to determine whether revisions are required and how such SDPs are accounted for in capitation rate development and rate certifications.States must also ensure that all Medicaid managed care contracts comply with all applicable federal and state laws, including Section 71113 of WFTC legislation.[8] To ensure clarity, states should assess if their managed care contracts should be revised to detail the requirements of section 71113. For example, states may wish to specify in their managed care contracts that payments to prohibited entities are not allowable expenditures of Federal funds under section 71113(a), and that any expenditures to such entities made by [covered organizations] are not eligible for [federal financial participation].
The CMS told the states that if it “has already claimed or has drawn down FFP on or after July 4, 2025 for payments to entities identified as prohibited entities as of October 1, 2025, it should promptly withdraw or correct the claim, or return FFP, as required by applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.”
In my view, the court tries too hard (as it did on the attainder opinion) to protect this funding. We will have to see if the First Circuit and the Supreme Court agree with that assessment.
Here is the opinion: Planned Parenthood decision
These Lower Court Justices whom are bucking for Media Attention by issuing what amounts to an Activist Opinion, are in the same ranks as the ‘activist’ Congress Members or Want-a-Be Congress Member (Move from House>to>Senate). Justices the likes of District Court Judge Indira Talwani know that there is going to be a sizable ‘Retirement’ on the SCOTUS, so they are stirring attention to themselves in order to make the Finalist List.
She knew (Her little law firm knew) that the Opinion was not withstanding the previous Case laws. And she knew that being located in Boston, her opinion can make a big splash given the Planned Parenthood/Abortion Issue would bring National Headlines.
Don’t be naive that the Game-of-Thrones is not being played here and now.
The Grande Retirement Party cometh:
Clarence Thomas (born 1948)
Samuel Alito (born 1950)
? Elena Kagan (born 1960)
? Sonia Sotomayor (born 1954)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Perhaps this judge should fund her own opinions herself. Take it from her pension if she refuses to walk-the-walk, as they say.
Writing into law prohibitions on funding for women’s health care is evil. This bill bans far more than abortion. MAGA is a death cult.
Killing a baby is NOT healthcare.
How can it be killing if its not born?
Because it’s alive.
Yet, not born. Not a registered person eg. no ss number, no bank acct., hasn’t paid taxes.
If a fetus is not born, how can it be a person?
Nor has the developing human been accused of any crime, found guilty, nor sentenced to death by a jury of his/her peers. Killing the most defenseless among us is absurd, to say the least.
“Nor has the developing human been accused of any crime, found guilty, nor sentenced to death by a jury of his/her peers.” Exactly the point.
Killing the most defenseless is what humans have done for millennia, still do i’.e., wars. Killing is pure human nature. Abortion? Why should that change, because you have a conscious and a woman who wants an abortion doesn’t?
Yet a woman should not have a decision as to what she does with herself, live a life? But males can and do and therefore force woman do what they demand, if not…
Isn’t the woman one of those defenseless entities? Do as I tell you or else?
“Personhood” depends upon being “registered,” “having a ss number,” a bank account, and paying taxes? Unbelievable take. Unbelievable power to the state.
Only because you can’t exercise control of another human being its unbelievable?
“eg. no ss number, no bank acct., hasn’t paid taxes”
So, a homeless person? Pretty ballsy to support their extermination.
Extermination? For a conservative I’ll assume you want to exterminate all who do not abide by your politics?
So, a homeless person for you is not a person, right? A blight on society. Hide them from polite society right?
A homeless person is also one of the defenseless ones your kind preach, yet your kind is also willing to exterminate them?
An illegal isn’t registered, has no ss number, has no bank account and hasn’t paid taxes. What exactly are you trying to say?????
Rabble:
The narcos the Dept of War is currently blowing out of the water have no registration in the USA, no SS number (Venesuela does not have a program labeled Social Security), no bank account in the USA (they work in cash regardless, so those low-totem joe’s likely don’t have Venezuelan bank accounts), and doesn’t pay taxes to the country they are funneling drugs into.
Ergo, per ATS, narcos are not people, which means they are animals, meaning we can put them down like the dogs they are.
Thanks for clarifying the topic in the news, ATS!
A fetus in the womb is alive and s/he is human. To my knowledge, no woman has ever given birth to any other species than human. A fetus as young as ~ 3 months feels pain, as demonstrated decades ago in The Silent Scream. Of note, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide in many states if the fetus also dies.
Suze
You have to remember the left has no idea what a women is.
That’s really deep dustoff.
And by your comment, I’m assuming that neither do you.
Dustoff, you are truly a fool.
Is that really your mantra in life?
Pain is the sole determining factor whether it is born human?
But it is not a person. It does not exist, it simply is an unborn fetus. A woman should decide her health prerogatives as she sees fit.
Sarcasm doesn’t win legal arguments, just shows your lack of intelligence and compassion.
“It does not exist” and “it…is an unborn fetus” are contradictory.
So you say. So lay it out. Expand on ” it”.
The bill bands funding for all women’s healthcare at Planned Parenthood locations.
This particular judge seems to be ruling based on her own personal preferences rather than the law. Abortion is not de facto “women’s health care.” One could argue (and I would personally agree) that the three exceptions – rape, incest and health of the mother – are indeed women’s health care and should be covered. Using taxpayer money for abortions that don’t fall under those exceptions treads heavily on the First Amendment guarantee re freedom of religion.
The bill bands funding for all women’s healthcare at Planned Parenthood locations.
Using taxpayer money for abortions that don’t fall under those exceptions treads heavily on the First Amendment guarantee re freedom of religion.
Using taxpayer dollars to fund elective after the fact birth control abortions has nothing to do with the First Amendment or religion. You can be opposed to elective birth control abortions and/or funding elective birth control abortions without needing to depend on the First Amendment to make a coherent argument.
Not that this will ever get settled because this country, at least in my lifetime, will never get down to the work of deciding what moment human life begins. Not even at the state level, where the issue now properly is.
Define a woman
You raised the question, why don’t you?
You raised it with WOMEN’S healthcare. I know what a woman is, and a woman doesn’t have nor ever had a dick. If they did, they wouldn’t need to borrow mine🤣
Define a man.
So you will understand, a woman that has a dick.
Writing into law prohibitions on funding for women’s health care is evil.
Biden’s Bolshevik Birthing Boyz: they’re convinced they’re actually women who will start menstruating any month now.
And elective birth control abortions specifically to kill an inconvenient unborn child is actually health care. Because inconvenience isn’t as interesting as getting drunk and spending your money on booze instead of a condom.
People who think like that are either evil – or untreated mental health patients.
At this point this is so common I hesitate to even refer to these justices as ‘rogue’; no, they are just accurately representing the reprehensible and toxic mess that is the modern left. 🤷🏽♂️John Fetterman is rogue; these judges are as de rigeur as the day is long.
Isn’t it time that congress and the senate begin to consider and go forth with impeachment proceedings against all activists judges? It’s not like their hiding, they stick out like sore thumbs.
Impeach them for what?
Making decisions based upon politics rather than the law. Proven so many times that even SCOTUS has written about it in their overturnings.
…. and, what law(s) have they abused?
SCOTUS doesn’t make clarify law based on politics? Gay marriage, abortion?
This appears to be more of an attempt to portray the judge as an “activist” because her legal opinion diverges from the conservative expectations traditionally held for judicial rulings. Typically, conservatives expect judges to adhere strictly to originalist or textualist interpretations of the law, and any deviation is often labeled as activism.
Any judge whose ruling or written opinion does not align with conservative principles is frequently dismissed as an “activist,” “liberal,” or other pejorative terms used to undermine their legitimacy. These descriptors serve as convenient excuses to reject unfavorable decisions, regardless of their legal reasoning. This tendency resembles what Turley describes as “rage baiting,” where emotional or ideological labels are weaponized to inflame public opinion.
A thorough reading of the entire judicial opinion reveals there are substantive and legally grounded arguments against the legislation in question that Professor Turley ‘conveniently’ omits or overlooks. I understand that Turley opposes abortion and that his analysis is biased by his personal stance. However, when he presents his critique as merely his personal view and hints at the judge being an activist—without explicitly stating it—his argument becomes less credible. His approach undermines the objectivity necessary for a fair critique of the judicial decision.
It’s pretty rich for her to first claim that funding must be restored because the reason for withholding funds is wrong, and then it must be restored because that reason for withholding is unclear. Talk about trying to her two cakes and eat them both too. . .
OK Inspektor Kluzo, since you seem to have ample time on your hands, enlighten us on the specific details to support your claim: “there are substantive and legally grounded arguments against the legislation in question that Professor Turley ‘conveniently’ omits”.
“I understand that Turley opposes abortion and that his analysis is biased by his personal stance.” Mind-reading/opinion, stated as fact, akin to what you — without evidence or possible knowledge — accuse Turley of.
This appears to be more of an attempt to portray the judge as an “activist” because her legal opinion diverges from the conservative expectations
This is obviously a shallow attempt for X to pretend he has credibility here, when in fact he’s well aware he’s considered to be nothing but a pathological obsessive Democrat liar.
Here it is… wait for it…. BBBBUUUTTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!
This is a situation, where an activist judge who was formerly a poor lawyer, is allowed license to practice whatever law she likes. As a judge, she merely needs to produce some 40-60 page report, mostly written by AI, and crush whatever she wants. The statutes, constitution, and case law have nothing to do with her decisions, though she is compelled to use legalese to make them. Arrogance, wearing judicial robes, knows no bounds.
Sounds like your laughable career. Arrogance, commenting on subjects you know nothing about, knows no bounds.
You wanted DEI? You got it!
And you thought there was no downside in swallowing 💩, eh?
Judicial misconduct in the extreme with absolutely zero consequences. Impeachment is the only real answer to stop these Article 3 Judges.
Impeach them for what?
Since all federal disbursements are supposed to be authorized by Congress, I don’t know how a circuit court judge can demand that a federal agency disburse funds that are specifically not authorized by Congress.
It appears to me that this judge is telling CMS to spend money illegally, since that spending was not authorized in their funding law. If CMS were to expend such funds, then they would be in violation of the law. The judge doesn’t give any authority from the law about this, or how they are supposed to accomplish this feat.
There is a problem with Turley’s argument. The law in question specifically targets Planned Parenthood regardless of whether they provide abortions or not.
The judge correctly pointed out that there is no distinction made for Planned Parenthood clinics that don’t offer abortions and those that do. The legislation targets the entire organization, which clearly violates the Bill of Attainder clause. The reason Professor Turley phrases his argument that “in his view, Planned Parenthood’s argument is flawed is based on a weaker argument against it. It’s overly broad in targeting the whole organization instead of specific entities that offer abortions. It has a vindictive feel to it rather than a very narrow, purposeful targeting of specific clinics providing abortions.
Planned Parenthood offers much more than just abortions, and people with low incomes rely on services such as breast cancer screening, contraception, and general women’s health. Conservatives don’t care about that, and it shows. They want the whole organization shut down because some of their clinics offer legal abortion services in states that allow it or are protected by state constitutions. Conservatives in Congress are circumventing the access states allow because they don’t want abortion to be legal anywhere.
Please point to where the law “singles out PP”. It doesn’t, you know it and we all know you know it.
It’s on the opinon. You should read it.
“First, the legislative backdrop demonstrated that, over the last several legislative sessions,
members of Congress had repeatedly and explicitly proposed legislation targeting Planned
Parenthood Federation and its members. Id. at 248–51 (citations omitted). Second, the minority report accompanying the House version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill that included the
language that became Section 71113 clearly identified Planned Parenthood and its members as
the target:
[the legislation] would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood
and its affiliates across the country. [It] creates a specific and narrow definition
intended to target certain providers in the Medicaid program that separately, and
without federal Medicaid funding, provide abortion services . . . . Even in the nearly
two-dozen states that have outlawed or severely restricted abortion care, Medicaid
beneficiaries would be unable to seek [other] care at Planned Parenthood as a result
of this provision. Millions of Medicaid beneficiaries would be left without the
ability to seek care from their provider of choice solely because of . . . hostility
towards Planned Parenthood and the ability for women to seek comprehensive
reproductive care.”
https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Planned-Parenthood-decision.pdf
Just because you lie and call it the truth, it doesn’t make it the truth.
X, your argument is flawed. There is nothing preventing States controlled by Democrats from funding planned parenthood. They want it let them pay for it instead of using my tax dollars to fund something I do not believe in. I’m also not fond of financing the publishing of an LGBTQ++++++++ magazine in Africa. If the states controlled by Democrats want to fund such a magazine I say go for it but you’ll just have to excuse me if I say I can’t go for that no can do.
Once you pay monies ( eg. taxes) to a government its not yours to decide how it’s spent. Run for POTUS then.
The ONLY reason conservatives attack Planned Parenthood is because SOME of their facilities, where abortion is legal, are active. Medicaid does NOT pay for abortions, nor does Medicare.
Your tax dollars argument is as stupid as it sounds. Your tax dollars are NOT funding abortion in other states. You only think that because they TELL you that is what is happening.
Conservatives don’t like the idea that other states allow abortion, and they have access to Medicaid funds, which the law grants. Planned Parenthood does other things besides abortions, but conservatives only see “abortion” when Planned Parenthood is mentioned. So they want to eliminate the entire organization instead. They want to dictate to everyone else what they can and cannot do with their lives, which is ironic because they are always the first to complain about the government telling them how they should live.
Amazing how those opposed to opinions do not argue the merits/non-merits, but instead, begin every sentence with “conservatives….” That is not the issue.
Planned Parenthood offers so much more than abortion; like fetus internal organ stem cells…
Ghouls
There is a problem with Turley’s argument.
And here’s X’s daily problem: BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!!!
As a mostly conservative who voted for Trump but who is pro-choice on abortion I abhor this decision and this rogue judge. The plain reading of the statute as well as the Constitution renders this and other decisions absurd and plainly unintelligent. This is what passes as legal thought these days. This is what comes out of Law Schools (and J schools and even Medical Schools) these days. This is the new deconstruction method, the new objectivity is bad theory, the new results oriented rule of law. We have seen this with Katanji Brown Jackson and even as it shocks the (legal) conscience and bends our minds trying to understand the reasoning we have to accept that it is happening and we need to fix it.
One of the things that needs to happen is that we need the appeals process to move quicker and that includes the SCOTUS. As Roberts tries to save the judiciary he is fiddling while it sinks. Judges like this, and Boasberg, need to be legally shut down quicker, more harshly and done with finality.
Impeach them! But for what?
Boasberg, need to be legally shut down… for what?
You must come from the KBJ school of critical thinking. To not see or know what Boasberg has done over the last 5 years is to be either ignorant of legal current events or of the same mindset that allows these nonsensical, unconstitutional decisions.
Not one of you people on this forum has put forth the crime and remedy that would dispose of the above named judge.
Now slow down here, what crime – be specific – has Boasberg committed?
Does a president have to commit a crime to be impeached by a Democrat led House? If so please tell us what crime Trump committed that was cited in his impeachments.
I would put forth that Boasberg knowingly approved FISA warrants based on Clinton’s fraudulent scheme and Comey and Brennans false statements and omissions. Pretty sure I read that he was the judge in that up to his bald head.
Why is Hillary Clinton not in jail yet? She cost the taxpayers over $42million with her BS. Whatever happened to false police report and fraud that resulted in this erroneous spending of taxpayer money?
It seems to me that we are experiencing an insurrection by district court judges. They object to the policies being pursued by this administration so twist the law to reach the outcome they prefer. They do this even in the face of Circuit Court or Supreme Court decisions, sometimes in the same or similar cases, after they are overruled. Ultimately their views are likely to be definitively rejected, but time is lost and money wasted. This is a new reality, and a remedy is needed. Harsh words from Gorsuch complaining in an recent opinion about lower court “defiance” appear to have made little difference. Perhaps impeachment proceedings for repeat offenders, such as Talwani and Boasberg, might concentrate the mind. Not a great solution, but there seem to be few alternatives.
Planned Parenthood was started by a pioneer of Eugenics in order to purify the race of humanity. All of this effort in order to slaughter fetuses. I guess the good justice has neglected to say anything about the prior laws that prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions and i don’t believe that they have been overturned or removed. Seems she should have better things to do than stand as the protector of Planned Parenthood.
Judge Talwani is a stooge for the lawfare crowd led by Eisen. She lacks an creditability as a Judge and should be a good candidate for TV Night Court.
How about we finally make legislating from the bench a crime? Secondly, maybe it’s time to just start ignoring these rogue judges.
I offer no legal support for my opinion other than I am against abortion as a form of birth control. Murdering a healthy innocent precious child is vile. As a Christian, judge not least you be judged. We have far too many active judges daily controlling our lives morally, financially and politically. Perhaps some abortion should be performed by Chief Justice Roberts, on these far-left active judges but I doubt he has the courage! Thank you for allowing me to comment!
And it is opinions like hers that are diminishing the trust people have in the judiciary. Absent evidence of actual corruption, she will remain on the Bench despite her obviously partisan opinions.
Diminishing trust? Hardly, it empowers women to act in their best interest.
If that isn’t sarcasm it is just plain dumb. I am guessing dumb.
Who are you to tell a woman how she should live her life? Abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Have a problem with the Constitution?
Where is the word “abortion” — or any description thereof — in the Constitution?
Who are you to tell a woman how she should live her life? Abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Have a problem with the Constitution?
Your problem with the Constitution is that you believe abortion is a right guaranteed in that Constitution. It’s like we’re talking to a crack smoking 14 year old hooker here.
Where did you find a constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion in the Constitution? Failing that, where do you find that right confirmed anywhere in the Dobbs decision?
Surely the Democrat Borg could get some monkeys and train them to present more lucid arguments here.
Only stupid women.
If you can’t control a woman, people like you either intimidate them into submission or beat them to a pulp.
And people like you are the crack whores that claim they were controlled and intimidated into repeatedly smoking crack.
I can’t imagine any man – or homosexual woman – wanting to get anywhere within touching distance of a revulsive cull that thinks like you.
*. There’s a moral and ethical foundation problem among the people. Additionally There’s a problem with reasoning , lack of education and training.
ALL living organisms multiply, reproduce. This is taken from ancient observations of nature. Reproduction and survival are the reason for life. This is nature’s prolife stand. It’s science. It’s the foundation. It’s the kernel of existence.
Who set this as the meaning of life? It just is. It’s self evident.
PP has was started as a great idea to help teens and young parents plan for a child. It was noble and at the time a needed assistant. Somewhere in the late 80’s to early 90’s it was morphed into a money making machine using Federal dollars to prop up its payroll and NGO supporters. In the 2000’s it exploded into a Billion dollar abortion factory. It then became a top donor to the DNC and other “worthy” political supporters. It’s demise is a benefit to the country.
I want these criminal judges jailed!
What makes them criminal?
They are actually breaking the law by violating the Constitution.
Violating the Constitution is not a criminal offense, nor even a civil offense. It it was Trump would have been in jail his first day of this first term.
For?
Basing decisions on politics rather than the law, i.e. lawfare.