Late Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a Temporary Restraining Order, pausing the amendment in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill that would redirect taxpayer-funded Medicaid away from Planned Parenthood. Talwani ruled the move unconstitutional, ordering Medicaid to continue sending funds for 14 days.
The bill’s defunding provision stops Medicaid support for providers that perform abortions and receive over $800K in federal reimbursements—Prudently targeting Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Under existing federal rules like the Hyde Amendment, direct abortion funding is already illegal—but Planned Parenthood still benefits from Medicaid for other healthcare services.
National Review praised the move as a “One Big Beautiful Victory,” reinforcing taxpayer protection and bypassing the traditional 60-vote mechanism through reconciliation . Pro-life groups celebrated this as a chance to end taxpayer backing of abortion-linked entities.
Planned Parenthood warns the funding cut could shutter nearly 200 clinics, mainly in rural or underserved regions, and disrupt care for over 1 million Medicaid patients. They argue this could disrupt essential services like contraception, cancer screenings, and STI treatments.
It’s a classic conservative dilemma: Protect limited-government principles and prudent taxpayer spending, or risk service disruptions among vulnerable populations. States with Medicaid autonomy, backed by a recent Supreme Court ruling, have the option to replace federal dollars on a case-by-case basis. That ensures local control—a hallmark of conservative policy thinking.
Sen. Mike Lee (R‑UT) called the TRO “an abuse of judicial power,” warning it overrides the will of 77 million voters. Rep. Mary Miller (R‑IL) argued the Constitution grants spending control to Congress, not “unelected judges” .
This showdown goes to the heart of conservative values:
- Limited government spending: Preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortion-linked entities.
- Federalism in action: Letting states decide how best to substitute funding, keeping authority closer to citizens.
- Judicial restraint: Pushing back against activist judges overriding legislative decisions.
The coming weeks will determine if courts block the provision long-term—or if states step in to fill the gap, marking a potential turning point in taxpayer-backed healthcare.
