Judge Says He Must Defer to Congress in Abortion Provider Defunding Suit

A similar case in Massachusetts led a judge to block the defunding effort.

A Planned Parenthood facility in Anaheim, Calif., on Sept. 10, 2020. The new legislation ends Medicaid funding for health care nonprofits that post more than $800,000 in profit in a year, including Planned Parenthood. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

A federal judge in Maine has refused to block Congress’s attempt to defund large abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“Were I to enjoin [the Trump administration] against obeying Congress’ funding instructions, I cannot say that I would be acting on any other basis than a difference of opinion as to ’the wisdom, fairness, or logic or legislative choices,'” U.S. District Judge Lance Walker said in a ruling on Aug. 25.

Walker’s decision came after another federal judge’s move to block Congress’s defunding of abortion providers. In both cases, the providers alleged that the legislation violated the organizations’ right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and that lawmakers were illegally targeting certain providers.

Signed by President Donald Trump in July, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act targets organizations based on multiple criteria, including if they received Medicaid funding in excess of $800,000 in fiscal year 2023 and provided abortions other than in cases of rape, incest, or a danger to the mother’s life. Federal law prohibits the use of federal funds on abortions other than for those three exceptions.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s criteria swept in Planned Parenthood, which was able to secure a temporary block in its lawsuit against the Trump administration in Massachusetts. In that case, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said that Planned Parenthood was likely to succeed in its claim that the legislation violated the equal protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment. Separately, a group of attorneys general has sued to stop the bill.

Walker’s decision focused on a group known as Maine Family Planning, which had also sued to prevent the Trump administration from implementing Congress’s restrictions. In his opinion, he acknowledged that the organization received much of its funding from Medicaid and that clinic closures by Maine Family Planning would affect its patients.

He also indicated that based on the harms resulting from the defunding effort, he would grant an injunction if not for the legal problems involved.

Walker determined that he couldn’t block Congress if there was a rational basis for its legislation. Maine Family Planning alleged that it was “illegally ensnared as a byproduct” of an intent to defund Planned Parenthood.

Meanwhile, Walker said that a “more plausible likelihood” for Congress’s criteria was that the politicians who voted for the bill “likely hold a variety of serious and sincerely held perspectives on the issue, including a rational desire to withhold Medicaid subsidy from the primary providers of non-qualifying abortions.”

The unfolding legal disputes come after major Supreme Court decisions on abortion in recent years. That included one this year, in which a majority of justices effectively made it easier for states to defund Planned Parenthood through their Medicaid programs. Prior to that, the Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which returned lawmaking on the issue of abortion back to individual states.

In his decision, Walker cited Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs, which said in part that “the permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

According to Walker, “that is precisely the type of democratic exercise that produced the [One Big Beautiful Bill Act].”

“It would be a special kind of judicial hubris to declare that the public interest has been undermined by the public,” he added.

Attorneys for Maine Family Planning did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment before publishing time. In its motion for a temporary restraining order, the organization said that the law would impact its Medicaid patients who don’t receive abortions.

Without an injunction, the organization said, it would have to start “discharging existing family planning and primary care Medicaid patients no later than September 30, 2025 and will not be able to see these patients after October 31, 2025.”

It added that “thousands of patients will be left without access to time-sensitive, life-saving health care. For these reasons, a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is warranted.”