When Judges Use Faulty Logic To Save Planned Parenthood

One of the best aspects of the Big, Beautiful Bill was its defunding of Planned Parenthood. Of course, it was entirely predictable that the corrupt judiciary would overturn that particular provision.

Judge Talwani uses three loosey-goosey arguments to suggest that the defunding is illegitimate. (HT: Fred)

First, she states that targeting Planned Parenthood is an unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder”– i.e., a legislative punishment without due process.

Second, she cites freedom of association, equal protection and freedom of expression.

Third, she claims there will be certain adverse effects on Planned Parenthood’s clients.

The Bill of Attainder argument is absurd. The decision to defund was not designed or intended as punishment. Instead, it is a policy decision.

Equal protection as cited in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution applies to persons, not organizations. Nobody is stopping from Planned Parenthood or its affiliates from associating or expressing themselves. Instead, a decision was made to withhold funding.

The claims the judge makes regarding adverse effects on clients is irrelevant. The question is whether the law passed by Congress is legal and constitutional, not whether it might result in some theoretical harm to some people.

I think the appellate courts or the Supreme Court will dispose of Talwani’s arguments fairly easily. She ought to be removed from the bench.