A newly filed friend-of-the-court brief in the legal battle over sending taxpayer cash to abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood, over the objections of taxpayers, Congress and the president, warns just exactly how dangerous is the precedent the abortionists want.
They are, in fact, endorsing a system in which court judges would be able to allocate tax money to their pet causes, thereby violating the “constitutional separation of powers” that allows only Congress that power.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that has filed the arguments in the legal fight over the law of the land – adopted by Congress and signed by the president, that no tax money should go to Planned Parenthood.
Then there is a single pro-abortion judge, Indira Talwani, who claimed the power of Congress and is insisting that tax money be handed over to the abortionists.
“Our brief makes a fundamental point that Planned Parenthood desperately wants to obscure: There is no constitutional right to government subsidies. The Supreme Court established this principle decades ago and has reaffirmed it consistently, even during the Roe v. Wade era,” the ACLU reported.
“When Americans elect representatives who prioritize protecting life over funding abortion providers, those policy choices must be respected. The Constitution does not transform every legal activity into a taxpayer-funded entitlement, and courts cannot conscript unwilling taxpayers to subsidize practices they find morally objectionable.”
It explained, “Planned Parenthood’s argument ignores a critical reality that the Supreme Court has acknowledged: Money is fungible. When the government provides funding to an organization for one purpose, those funds free up other resources that can be redirected toward activities the government prefers not to support.”
The brief to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals defends Congress’ constitutional authority to decline to fund abortion providers like the industry giant.
“This case, Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., represents far more than a dispute over government funding – it strikes at the heart of our constitutional separation of powers and America’s commitment to protecting life,” the organization confirmed.
It was Talwani, in a Massachusetts court, who is insisting that Planned Parenthood get all of the money it requests from taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars.
“This judicial activism represents nothing less than a direct assault on the will of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress, who voted to stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion,” the legal team noted.
“When Congress exercises its constitutional authority to direct taxpayer dollars away from organizations that perform abortions, it reflects the deeply held values of millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not subsidize the taking of innocent life.”
In the case of Planned Parenthood, when it gets Medicaid payments for “family planning services, that money allows the organization to redirect other funds toward performing abortions. Congress has every right – indeed, the responsibility to taxpayers who oppose abortion – to prevent this indirect subsidization of abortion providers.”
The congressional action, it explained, “involves no punishment whatsoever.”
“Planned Parenthood remains free to operate, employ staff, and provide services. No one is barred from working there or prohibited from seeking their services. Congress has simply decided not to pay for its activities with taxpayer dollars – a decision well within legislative authority. Every time Congress makes funding choices – supporting some activities while declining to fund others – it could face similar challenges if Planned Parenthood’s theory prevailed. This would transform every appropriations decision into potential constitutional litigation, undermining the democratic process and separation of powers,” the ACLJ argued.
But maybe most troubling is the assault in the case on “constitutional separation of powers.”
“The Appropriations Clause could not be clearer: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ This power belongs exclusively to Congress, not to courts or executive agencies.”
But the abortion industry leader is demanding courts order Congress to spend money “it has explicitly declined to appropriate.”