The following is a Catholic Action League of Massachusetts news release…
Late in the afternoon of July 7th, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, of the District of Massachusetts in Boston, issued a temporary restraining order in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy.
Earlier that day, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed a lawsuit—a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The abortion giant is seeking to block the provision of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act that prohibits federal Medicaid reimbursements to healthcare entities which perform abortions.
In 2024, Planned Parenthood received $792.2 million in taxpayer funding.
In granting a 14 day stay, Judge Talwani did not elaborate her reasons, only stating that the plaintiffs had shown “good cause.”
A hearing will be held in the U.S. District Court in Boston on July 21st.
Indira Talwani was nominated as a Judge of the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts, on September 24, 2013, by President Barack Obama, upon the recommendation of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Talwani was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 8, 2014, by a vote of 94-0.
Earlier in her career, Talwani worked as an organizer for the SEIU, the radically left-wing Service Employees International Union. She also worked, briefly, as a canvasser for the progressivist consumer group, Mass Fair Share.
The Catholic Action League called Judge Talwani’s injunction “another brazen, unashamed usurpation, by a low ranking, unelected judge, of the right of the people, through their elected representatives, to govern.”
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle made the following comment:
“Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States makes clear ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.’
What the Constitution refers to as ‘inferior courts’ have no authority in the making of laws or in the appropriation of monies.
Spending bills, such as the one signed into law on July 4th, originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate may concur or amend them, and the President may sign them or veto them.
The Constitution makes no provision for judicial consent or nullification in such matters.
The time is overdue for the Executive branch to invoke the arguments made by Thomas Jefferson against judicial supremacism, and apply the principle of non acquiescence to unlawful court orders.”
