BREAKING: Federal judge says he’s going to BLOCK Trump’s new abortion rule

In February, Trump’s HHS created a new rule to Title X that would bar federal funding to family planning clinics that either perform abortions or refer patients to other abortion facilities.

The new rule would have amounted to a significant defunding of Planned Parenthood, to the tune of about 50-60 million dollars per year, and redirected that money towards anti-abortion, faith-based providers.

But a federal judge in Oregon – Obama appointee – has said he will soon block the new rule before it goes into effect in May:

OREGON LIVE – U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane late Tuesday said he’ll grant a preliminary injunction against new federal restrictions that bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring patients to abortion providers, calling the rule a “ham-fisted approach to public health policy.”

McShane said the so-called “gag rule” — barring physicians from referring patients who don’t want to continue their pregnancies to an abortion provider — prevents doctors from behaving like medical professionals.

The judge also found that it would create a class of low-income women who couldn’t receive a full range of medical care options, foster a “geographic vacuum” in reproductive health care clinics and likely an increase in abortions due to more unwanted pregnancies.

He said the rule, which is set to go into effect May 3, represents an “arrogant assumption” that government is better suited to direct health care instead of providers.

The judge said he’d also grant a preliminary injunction to stop another change — the so-called “separation” rule prohibiting federally funded family planning clinics from being housed in the same place as abortion providers.



There may a silver lining to this soon-to-be written injunction.

The judge suggests he’s not going to issue a national injunction, so it may only affect Oregon or the 20 states involved in the lawsuit:

Oregon is one of 20 states and the District of Columbia that challenged the Trump administration’s changes to the Title X family planning program in U.S. District Court in Oregon, along with Planned Parenthood affiliates and the American Medical Association.

They sought a national injunction. But the judge said he’s reluctant to set “national health care’’ policy and would describe the scope of his injunction in a formal written opinion soon. The U.S. Justice Department urged any injunction apply only to the plaintiffs in this case, noting at least four similar suits pending in other states.

This really isn’t a big surprise.

Federal judges love to make a name for themselves blocking anything from the Trump administration. Seriously, anything.

But like everything else this will go to the Supreme Court where they will rule that the Trump rule is constitutional, etc.

As an aside, this is the same judge who legalized same-sex marriage in Oregon by striking down their same-sex marriage ban in 2014. He’s also openly gay.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
Meat Fighter
Member
Member
Meat Fighter

Bullies don’t stop until they’re punched in the mouth. The same is true for these unconstitutional judges. It will only stop when conservatives stop recognizing their authority they were never granted and simply push their policies through regardless of what some tyrant in a black robe opines.

Bob Davis
Member
Active Member
Bob Davis

“As an aside, this is the same judge who legalized same-sex marriage in Oregon by striking down their same-sex marriage ban in 2014. He’s also openly gay.”
In other words, this was blocked by a judge who’s a pervert.

Factotum
Member
Trusted Member
Factotum

Obama judges are building the case why we need Trump 2020. And GOP 2020, so we can finally clear the bench of this partisan, activist judge rot over the next six years.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

It’s possible the Obama lackey will make the abortion (Roe v. Wade) issue go all the way to SCOTUS… something the Left will regret.

Factotum
Member
Trusted Member
Factotum

No right of privacy found in the US Constitution. Roe v Wade overturned. Each state will need to craft their own baby-killing policies.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

You are correct, Factotum. The 10th Amendment… BUT abortion goes against Due Process: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Left is against Due Process… what a surprise!! /s

Bob Davis
Member
Active Member
Bob Davis

Hope you’re right, CE, but can we rely on Roberts? Kavanaugh??

joyfulgiver
Member
Noble Member
joyfulgiver

“taxpayer-funded family planning clinics”

Oh, the hypocrisy of it all. Abortion is NOT family planning. We should ALL be in an uproar that our TAX dollars are funding this. Not only tax dollars, but I bet most of you reading this are paying for abortions with your health insurance coverage. YEP, it’s in there, read the fine print. Not us, we’ve been members of a health share ministry for 6 going on 7 years. NOT ONE CENT pays for abortion services.

Factotum
Member
Trusted Member
Factotum

Solo parenthood is not a family and it is not planning.
Abortion is the antithesis of “family planning”.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

This is the very definition of adding insult to injury.

The Sane Silence Dogood
Member
Active Member
The Sane Silence Dogood

The very fact that this judge opened his mouth like this means that he should be censured and removed from the bench as he clearly doesn’t understand that POTUS has all the authority to do this. Full stop.

D Guest
Member
Active Member
D Guest

It’s an ‘“arrogant assumption” that government is better suited to direct health care instead of providers.’

Well, well, well. Seems an admission that Medicare for all and its ilk are terrible propositions. And it would be right in that case.

What’s not right is the arrogant assumption that these death purveyors have some inherent right to taxpayers’ money. And sadly, no one is stopping ‘physicians’ from referring to such horrible places. We just don’t want to pay for it.

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

‘He said the rule, which is set to go into effect May 3, represents an “arrogant assumption” that government is better suited to direct health care instead of providers.’ Yeah, with ya there, Judge. I would like to hear someone in Congress blast this a___hole and not with a tranquil reprimand. Go on offense: criticize and educate the public that this piss-ant of a Judge is dictating not judging.

ryan-o
Member
Noble Member
ryan-o

So, basically, federal judges make all the decisions around here. Freaking incredible.

expres12
Member
Member
expres12

Ah baby killers must kill babies. Despicable, as is our Judicial system.

RWrad
Member
Noble Member
RWrad

This judge is one sick, perverted POS. How did this puke ever make it to the federal bench? Take a look at this piece written by him.

https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2018/1/25/you-never-forget-your-first-circle-gay-friends

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

So a homosexual, leftist, activist judge has “ruled” that the federal government cannot stop sending federal money to an organization that he for some reason favors. I see. So the Judicial branch (so to speak) wants to legislate or undermine the Executive branch and make, modify, reinforce law… or something? I don’t see how this is allowed to happen. Regardless of my ignorance, I hope it is taken up by the SCOTUS and sets an defunding precedence. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that tax-payers must unwillingly have their taxes go to an organization that blatantly murders human beings or that the POTUS/congress doesn’t have the right to stop sending those monies out.

IBJr.
Member
Active Member
IBJr.

“He said the rule, which is set to go into effect May 3, represents an “arrogant assumption” that government is better suited to direct health care instead of providers.”

And yet I’ll bet this White liberal supports ObamaCare, including it’s mandate.

Locks
Member
Member
Locks

I didn’t know that Judge Michael J. McShane had been elected President or to any national office.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

It’s really simple:

I, Chris, oppose abortion.

I, Chris, don’t want my tax money going to fund an abortion.

See? Simple. Let the baby murderers pay their own butcher’s bill and leave my name out of it.

John Henry
Member
Active Member
John Henry

It’s really simple Chris, if you quit paying your taxes, your NOT supporting Abortion.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

Yeah but who would build muh roads?

John Henry
Member
Active Member
John Henry

If you get a mule, no need fo yo roads.

russ
Member
Active Member
russ

Amazing another Obama appointee…when do these ever get in front of a republican appointee

Memo to the joke and disgrace john Roberts who of course criticized trump for call out Obama appointed judges.

Rino’s Could be just as disgraceful as leftist

Charli
Member
Noble Member
Charli

Shouldn’t the American people think hard about the fact that the progressives in our nation, who think murdering a newborn baby is a great thing to do, also wants to control OUR health care? Eugenics is alive and well in the DemocRat and RINO party.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

But AOC says the current government run health plan is great. The VA. Works fine. Ain’t broke, don’t fix.

(Now, granted, I had to wait 9 years for a simple, routine surgery by the VA and only got it done, finally, through a stroke of luck, but hey. What the hell do I know.)

pinkflowers
Member
Member
pinkflowers

Doctors are free to practice medicine as they wish within professional guidelines. However, we aren’t obligated to fund anything that they decide they want to do. If promoting the killing of children is so important to them, they should raise the funding in other ways.

Charli
Member
Noble Member
Charli

Why didn’t he simply take away taxpayer funding to all facilities that perform abortions? Give the money back to the people! Redistributing the tens of millions of dollars to right to life based businesses is challengable. Defunding of taxpayer monies does not. sigh…so often missing the mark, just as with placing a moratorium on ALL immigration and asylum being valid, rather than targeting specific groups which nutjob radicals deem “racist.”

Thomas-Aquinas
Member
Noble Member
Thomas-Aquinas

>> prevents doctors from behaving like medical professionals. <<

Because the primary duty of medical professionals is to kill human beings.

Charli
Member
Noble Member
Charli

Yep. The Hippocratic oath no longer means a darned thing.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

They don’t even take that oath any more.

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

He said the rule, which is set to go into effect May 3, represents an “arrogant assumption” that government is better suited to direct health care instead of providers.

Betcha the judge had no problem with the government directing health care instead of providers … when it was Obamacare.

Are they even trying to make sense any more?

Charli
Member
Noble Member
Charli

Trump and the DOJ could so easily use that judge’s comment to overturn government oversight on all health related issues and save us trillions of dollars immediately.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Maybe it’s just me, but since when is ANYONE entitled to receive taxpayer money for something that is not directly a government responsibility? People on welfare can be cut off any time government wishes, for example. These judges are coming out of the woodwork as if this money is owed to those clinics. I just don’t get it. On what basis of law would this be justified for the judge to intervene? What law says that government MUST fund abortions?

Thomas-Aquinas
Member
Noble Member
Thomas-Aquinas

This is primary a spiritual battle. They want to kill and nothing will stand in their way

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

It’s definitely one of their highest priority issues…..if not the highest.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

100% agree!

Raptor Rider
Member
Active Member
Raptor Rider

I wish someone would tell these activist judges to go play on the highway. I’m sure in some cases judges do actually have the power to stop some things, but often they are overstepping and trying to create law when that is not their job. Unfortunately the other two branches of government seem to be fine with letting the judiciary decide things so they don’t have to take a stand. Another thing I wish for a strong leader with an actual conservative ideology and moral clarity. Sigh.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

Agreed.

michaelpshayes
Member
Member
michaelpshayes

farewell to the democratic republic, hello kritarchy

bannedquran4
Member
Member
bannedquran4

Let’s see now..second trimester for an example..first a sulfur clamp with sharp teeth and when it gets a hold, it will not let go. You pull hard and out pops an arm. You go back in again and pull out a leg, almost the same size as the arm. You go back in again and spine, intestines and heart, lung, etc, are also laid on the table. Finally, you go for the head of the baby which is probably the size of a large plum. You know you have grabbed on to the baby’s head since your fingers holding the clamp cannot open any further and so you close the clamp, crushing the baby’s skull and the brain starts to run down the cervix. The baby’s body parts must be inventoried that’s piled up on the table. It would be a great idea if pictures are taken of the baby’s… Read more »

New West
Member
Trusted Member
New West

Why not just have them phone in their decisions. The Goon has already said he’s going to block it….

Back to Top of Comments