APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS MEDICAID FUNDING CUT FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD IN RULING THAT REINFORCES TRUMP-ERA ABORTION POLICY AND DEEPENS ONGOING LEGAL BATTLE OVER ACCESS, FEDERAL AUTHORITY, AND HEALTH CARE FUNDING NATIONWIDE

A federal appeals court on Friday delivered a significant victory to the Trump administration and congressional Republicans by upholding a provision of President Donald Trump’s signature tax and domestic policy legislation that cuts Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood entities that perform abortions. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the provision does not amount to unconstitutional punishment, overturning an earlier decision that had temporarily blocked its enforcement. The ruling marks a critical development in a broader legal and political struggle over abortion access, federal funding, and the role of nonprofit health providers in delivering care to low-income Americans.

The appeals court reversed a preliminary injunction issued in July by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who had previously found that the law likely violated the Constitution by singling out Planned Parenthood health centers for financial penalties. Talwani had concluded that the measure appeared punitive in nature, targeting a specific organization rather than applying neutral eligibility standards. However, the appellate panel disagreed, determining that Congress acted within its authority when it set conditions on Medicaid funding. In doing so, the court allowed the provision to take effect in September while it continued to review the Trump administration’s appeal, signaling skepticism toward arguments that the law crossed constitutional boundaries.

At the center of the dispute is a provision within the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a sweeping piece of legislation passed by the Republican-led Congress and signed into law by President Trump in July. The measure bars Medicaid funding for nonprofit organizations that provide family planning services if they also perform abortions and received more than $800,000 in Medicaid funds during the 2023 fiscal year. Supporters of the law argue it reflects the will of taxpayers who oppose subsidizing organizations involved in abortion services, even though federal law already prohibits Medicaid funds from being used directly to pay for most abortions. Critics counter that the provision effectively penalizes providers for offering constitutionally protected medical services using non-federal funds.

Planned Parenthood has warned that the funding restriction is already having tangible consequences. According to the organization, at least 20 health centers have closed since the law was enacted, limiting access to services such as cancer screenings, contraception, and routine gynecological care for low-income patients. Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said Friday’s decision would accelerate those impacts. In a statement, she argued that the ruling enables the administration to push health centers to the financial brink and restrict care for patients who rely on Medicaid as their primary source of health coverage.

The legal fight is far from over. Judge Talwani later blocked enforcement of the same provision in a separate lawsuit brought by 22 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, which argue that the funding cut undermines state Medicaid programs and interferes with their ability to ensure adequate provider networks. That injunction, however, has been temporarily stayed by the appeals court while it considers whether to lift it permanently. The overlapping cases highlight the complex and fragmented legal landscape surrounding abortion-related policies, where rulings can differ depending on jurisdiction, plaintiffs, and procedural posture.

Friday’s decision underscores how abortion policy continues to reverberate through federal courts long after the Supreme Court’s reshaping of reproductive rights jurisprudence. By framing the Medicaid restriction as a permissible funding condition rather than punitive targeting, the appeals court reinforced Congress’s broad discretion over federal spending priorities. At the same time, the ruling deepens uncertainty for providers and patients alike, as additional court decisions loom. As legal challenges proceed and political divisions harden, the future of Medicaid-funded reproductive health care remains a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over access, autonomy, and the role of government in American health care.