After a new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule and victories in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against Planned Parenthood, President Trump is set to cut $60 million dollars in taxpayer funding from the abortion giant’s budget.
Today on Jay Sekulow Live, we discussed a big victory for life, as according to HHS, Monday, August 19th is the first deadline for Title X recipients to provide “assurance and action plan documenting steps to come into compliance” with the new rule stripping abortion providers of Title X funding.
In March, the Trump Administration finalized the administrative rule by HHS to defund Planned Parenthood’s abortion business of up to $60 million dollars in taxpayer funds.
That was then challenged in Federal Court in California and Oregon, which is of course in the 9th Circuit. In a surprise ruling, the 9th Circuit in a 3 judge panel and then in an en banc order ruled against Planned Parenthood and FOR the Trump Administration, allowing them to cut Planned Parenthood out of Title X funds. We filed amicus briefs in these cases, and the court agreed with our reasoning.
Title X grants were never supposed to be used for abortion, but as we’ve told you, that hasn’t stop Planned Parenthood in the past:
The Title X Family Planning program is a federal grant program dedicated to providing low-income families and individuals with family planning and preventive health services. It was never intended to fund abortions in any way.
Yet, until now, Planned Parenthood has managed to get its hands on about $60 million dollars of Title X funding every year by convincing HHS to administer the program in a way that is inconsistent with the law. In fact, Planned Parenthood has accounted for as much as 41% of the services funded by Title X.
The new rule requires Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to completely separate its abortion businesses from its taxpayer funded services. That would mean housing its family planning services in separate buildings with separate staff from its abortion services. Essentially creating two separate entities.
But instead, Planned Parenthood chose abortion and thought it could fight the rule in court. But it lost.
When the Trump Administration first proposed this new rule a year ago, we took action, submitting public comments in support of defunding Planned Parenthood. We also asked ACLJ members to take action and submit their own comments. You responded in droves, submitting over 13,000 individual comments. In fact ACLJ members accounted for 10% of all comments received by HHS. That’s incredible.
Together we fought back against Planned Parenthood and taxpayer funded abortion on demand, and we won.
You can listen to the full episode here.
We’re taking on the abortion industry at the Supreme Court and fighting to defund Planned Parenthood. Your gift - of any size - will be DOUBLED to save lives. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
Right now is a pivotal time for unborn babies across the United States. $60 million was defunded from Planned Parenthood , we won victories for sidewalk counselors who counsel young women outside of abortion clinics, and we stood up for nurses forced to participate in abortions against their...
After a nearly two-month trial, on November 15th, a San Francisco jury ruled against David Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), its former board members, including our client, and the investigators in Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress . This is the case filed by Planned...
We at the ACLJ are constantly fighting for the unborn. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live we discussed a series of cases we are engaged in, fighting for the unborn and Virginia’s new abortion constitutional amendment. A lot of these cases have huge ramifications but we’re looking at the first case on the...
This is going to be a major showdown at the Supreme Court against the abortion industry, as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a big abortion related case – a case we urged the Court to take. Months ago we told you how we filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court of the United States in Gee v.