This decision goes in the "bat**** crazy nonsense" column. That is not a bill of attainder and it's not close. It's a bill of "leftist/democrat darling planned parenthood doesn't like it."

I'm going to go on record and say it gets upheld. Pretty clear bill of attainder and strong equal protection argument. A clinic in a state that banned abortion gets to continue to operate. Exact same clinic in a state that hasn't banned abortion is forced to close.

I think this is a terrible part of the bill. The vast majority of services PP provides (I know the name PP has been demonized and = abortion to many of you, but that is not all they do) is NOT abortion so shutting down all those clinics is going to result in cervical cancers and STDs going undetected/untreated.

The Pro Life crowd acts like it's a states' right issue, then pulls this crap. Pro Life my ass. Let's force a bunch of clinics to close so women die of cervical cancer so we can force women to have babies even in states voters have decided abortion is legal. Pro Life until birth. And let's cause an STD explosion while we're at it.

They don't have the votes to outlaw abortion nationwide (or want to suffer the political fallout from doing it or from trying) so they pull this evil crap. States' Rights my ass. There is no federal funding of abortion.

IANAL, but as I understand it, a bill of attainder is an act that declares a person guilty of a crime without a trial.

Planned Parenthood isn't being accused of a crime here. Abortion is still legal at the federal level (even if some states are now restricting it). So I just don't see what the constitutional issue is here.

Unless PP is arguing that their defunding is a "fine", but that's a stretch.

GeorgiAg said:

---

The Pro Life crowd acts like it's a states' right issue, then pulls this crap. Pro Life my ass. Let's force a bunch of clinics to close so women die of cervical cancer so we can force women to have babies even in states voters have decided abortion is legal. Pro Life until birth. And let's cause an STD explosion while we're at it.

They don't have the votes to outlaw abortion nationwide (or want to suffer the political fallout from doing it or from trying) so they pull this evil crap. States' Rights my ass. There is no federal funding of abortion.

---

Don't do this. If the feds give PP a single dime, there is federal funding of abortion, no matter how PP chooses to lie about it.

I think we just offer up that the judge can fund PP out of their budget.

Quote:

---

I think this is a terrible part of the bill. The vast majority of services PP provides (I know the name PP has been demonized and = abortion to many of you, but that is not all they do) is NOT abortion so shutting down all those clinics is going to result in cervical cancers and STDs going undetected/untreated.

---

Gee, I wish there were hospitals that treated these problems.

GeorgiAg said:

---

. Let's force a bunch of clinics to close so women die of cervical cancer so we can force women to have babies even in states voters have decided abortion is legal. Pro Life until birth. And let's cause an STD explosion while we're at it.

---

Making crap up, give us the data, and why do other people always want to spend other peoples money? STD? Thats easy to avoid....dont need PP tax money

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

The Pro Life crowd acts like it's a states' right issue, then pulls this crap. Pro Life my ass. Let's force a bunch of clinics to close so women die of cervical cancer so we can force women to have babies even in states voters have decided abortion is legal. Pro Life until birth. And let's cause an STD explosion while we're at it.

They don't have the votes to outlaw abortion nationwide (or want to suffer the political fallout from doing it or from trying) so they pull this evil crap. States' Rights my ass. There is no federal funding of abortion.

---

Don't do this. If the feds give PP a single dime, there is federal funding of abortion, no matter how PP chooses to lie about it.

---

Exactly, they can stay open WITHOUT tax dollars

GeorgiAg said:

---

There is no federal funding of abortion.

---

You have absolutely zero idea of wtf you're talking about.

Money is fungible. PP is an evil taint on humanity. They can either exist on money they make through profit, or donations, or not exist.

BigRobSA said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

There is no federal funding of abortion.

---

You have absolutely zero idea of wtf you're talking about.

Money is fungible. PP is an evil taint on humanity. They can either exist on money they make through profit, or donations, or not exist.

---

Dude, you're killing it this week. Perfectly stated.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Or course it could be could be written:

ultraconservatives/liberals have opinions on abortion, even though the constitution does not mention it

ultraconservatives/liberals have opinions on gun control, even though the constitution prefaces the right to bear arms with conditions (the need to bear arms)

ultraconservatives/liberals just want to impose their wills on everyone

D. Turner said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Of course the opposite could be written
ultraconservatives/liberals on abortion, even though the constitution does not mention it.

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm going to go on record and say it gets upheld. Pretty clear bill of attainder and strong equal protection argument.

---

quit while you're this far behind. And please tell me you're not actually a lawyer because you would have failed 1L con law with this nonsense. You haven't read the actual statue and you obviously don't know what a bill of attainder actually is.

GeorgiAg said:

---

The vast majority of services PP provides (I know the name PP has been demonized and = abortion to many of you, but that is not all they do) is NOT abortion

---

If we ever meet in person, I'll make sure to fart right in front of you.

Since 99% of the gas is odorless (N2, CO2, H2, etc.), you'll have no reason to complain.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm going to go on record and say it gets upheld. Pretty clear bill of attainder and strong equal protection argument.

---

quit while you're this far behind. And please tell me you're not actually a lawyer because you would have failed 1L con law with this nonsense. You haven't read the actual statue and you obviously don't know what a bill of attainder actually is.

---

This^. For GaAg, so how is it unconstitutional for congress to decide to remove funding via legislation for a group that was funded via legislation passed by congress? On what planet is that a bill of attainder?

from PP's opening paragraph:

"With no reason other than plain animus, the law will prevent Planned Parenthood Members from providing vitalindeed, lifesavingcare to more than one million patients."

FIFT:

"With no reason other than plan animus and a strong desire to kill fetuses, Planned Parenthood Members' decisions to perform abortions will prevent it from providing vitalindeed, lifesavingcare to more than one million patients."

Ok close all the PPs. Have you guys seen any projection of what the results are? 5 years 10 years.

Any thoughts? JFC

GeorgiAg said:

---

Ok close all the PPs. Have you guys seen any projection of what the results are? 5 years 10 years.

Any thoughts? JFC

---

Eliminate entitlements, and I couldn't care less.

GeorgiAg said:

---

No legal reasoning?

She needs to be punished. Edit: i read the whole order. Man that is lazy. They have law clerks. She probably didn't want to state reasoning because she doesn't have any.

Edit 2:

Here is the Plaintiff's Brief

https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Planned-Parenthood_2025.07.07._PLAINTIFFS-EMERGENCY-MOTION-FOR-A-TEMPORARY-RESTRAINING-ORDER-AND-PRELIMINARY-INUNCTION.pdf

---

For TexAgs, it should be brutal that you have this analysis.

Too many here don't understand you try to call legitimate balls and strikes when you do legal analysis.

Thank you.


Libs don't come here.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Thank you.


Libs don't come here.

---

Yeah...

That's over there at surly...

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm going to go on record and say it gets upheld. Pretty clear bill of attainder and strong equal protection argument.

---

quit while you're this far behind. And please tell me you're not actually a lawyer because you would have failed 1L con law with this nonsense. You haven't read the actual statue and you obviously don't know what a bill of attainder actually is.

---

United States v. Lovett, 66 S. Ct. 1073, 328 U.S. 303 (1946)

&ct=g

People who believe in the Constitution and rule of law are "ultra conservative?" We're fringe like people who believe others should pay for them to slaughter children? All our founding fathers were "ultra conservatives?"

Huh? Do you hear how ridiculous that is?

Who gives a ***** Murdering babies:

a. Is not a constitutional right
b. Should be paid for by the murderer, if anyone. If you want to do the act, own it. Leftists are so proud of it, that it makes no sense not to get the joy of paying for it. I want no part of that transaction.

txags92 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm going to go on record and say it gets upheld. Pretty clear bill of attainder and strong equal protection argument.

---

quit while you're this far behind. And please tell me you're not actually a lawyer because you would have failed 1L con law with this nonsense. You haven't read the actual statue and you obviously don't know what a bill of attainder actually is.

---

This^. For GaAg, so how is it unconstitutional for congress to decide to remove funding via legislation for a group that was funded via legislation passed by congress? On what planet is that a bill of attainder?

---

it wasn't even for that group. But our resident "here's my wreck and here's my check" legal eagle is at bat for the scrape doctor/dem money laundering industry. He even misread a SCOTUS opinion to support his nonsense.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Ok close all the PPs. Have you guys seen any projection of what the results are? 5 years 10 years.

Any thoughts? JFC

---

Holy crap!

Top of the page Georgi: "PP does so much general good"

Bottom page Georgi: "you'll be sorry when our inability to continue with mechanize infanticide results in a black and brown baby boom!"

Doesn't our checks and balances also include impeachment of judges if they are out of contro?
.

heavens11 said:

---

Doesn't our checks and balances also include impeachment of judges if they are out of contro?
.

---

Politics is a team sport these days. Nobody is getting impeached as long as there are only two teams and neither has a 2/3 majority.

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration files Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order judge handed Planned Parenthood. 🧵Link & Analysis to follow. 1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 11, 2025

txags92 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm going to go on record and say it gets upheld. Pretty clear bill of attainder and strong equal protection argument.

---

quit while you're this far behind. And please tell me you're not actually a lawyer because you would have failed 1L con law with this nonsense. You haven't read the actual statue and you obviously don't know what a bill of attainder actually is.

---

This^. For GaAg, so how is it unconstitutional for congress to decide to remove funding via legislation for a group that was funded via legislation passed by congress? On what planet is that a bill of attainder?

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Ok close all the PPs. Have you guys seen any projection of what the results are? 5 years 10 years.

Any thoughts? JFC

---

Holy crap!

Top of the page Georgi: "PP does so much general good"

Bottom page Georgi: "you'll be sorry when our inability to continue with mechanize infanticide results in a black and brown baby boom!"

---

Yeah. It's irrelevant gibberish and feels

The issue is if this is a bill of attainer, and the case Georgi boy drops his mike on involved congress withholding paychecks from actual federal employees who were performing services. In other words, the federal employees weren't fired, they were showing up for work, doing their job, congress just voted not to pay them. Kind of like when Lumberg just quit paying Milton. The employees worked, were owed money, congress just stiffed them as punishment for "subversive activities"

In the PP case, PP is not a federal employee or entity, but they do receive reimbursement from the government for work performed, AS APPROPRIATED by congress. Congress decided not to reimburse future claims, and told them ahead of time. Planned Parenthood has no "right" to federal funding as far as I'm aware of. Yeah they'll argue whether the Act is legislative "punishment', but I think the issue will also be whether PP has any right to the funding in the first place, and whether Congress has any obligation to fund PP, or not, at Congress's discretion, regardless of motivation

I can see this as one of those bad decisions that the SCOTUS doesn't touch, or eventually, a 5-4 with Roberts siding with PP.

And then there's ABC, who seems fed up with KBJ as it is, but who knows

As for Georgi's lamentation of people not getting health care, and too many babies being born, that's just the lib in Georgi coming out. It's irrelevant

Captain Pablo said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Ok close all the PPs. Have you guys seen any projection of what the results are? 5 years 10 years.

Any thoughts? JFC

---

Holy crap!

Top of the page Georgi: "PP does so much general good"

Bottom page Georgi: "you'll be sorry when our inability to continue with mechanize infanticide results in a black and brown baby boom!"

---

Yeah. It's irrelevant gibberish and feels

The issue is if this is a bill of attainer, and the case Georgi boy drops his mike on involved congress withholding paychecks from actual federal employees who were performing services. In other words, the federal employees weren't fired, they were showing up for work, doing their job, congress just voted not to pay them. Kind of like when Lumberg just quit paying Milton. The employees worked, were owed money, congress just stiffed them as punishment for "subversive activities"

In the PP case, PP is not a federal employee or entity, but they do receive reimbursement from the government for work performed, AS APPROPRIATED by congress. Congress decided not to reimburse future claims, and told them ahead of time. Planned Parenthood has no "right" to federal funding as far as I'm aware of. Yeah they'll argue whether the Act is legislative "punishment', but I think the issue will also be whether PP has any right to the funding in the first place, and whether Congress has any obligation to fund PP, or not, at Congress's discretion, regardless of motivation

I can see this as one of those bad decisions that the SCOTUS doesn't touch, or eventually, a 5-4 with Roberts siding with PP.

And then there's ABC, who seems fed up with KBJ as it is, but who knows

As for Georgi's lamentation of people not getting health care, and too many babies being born, that's just the lib in Georgi coming out. It's irrelevant

---

Congress can decide not to fund things for any reason they choose, including "legislative punishment". There is no "right to government funding" enshrined in the constitution.

Got to love all the judicial precedent that's being established as a result of their insanity though. Four years of establishing the fact that a president can gut years of Democrat bloat is fantastic.

txags92 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm going to go on record and say it gets upheld. Pretty clear bill of attainder and strong equal protection argument.

---

quit while you're this far behind. And please tell me you're not actually a lawyer because you would have failed 1L con law with this nonsense. You haven't read the actual statue and you obviously don't know what a bill of attainder actually is.

---

This^. For GaAg, so how is it unconstitutional for congress to decide to remove funding via legislation for a group that was funded via legislation passed by congress? On what planet is that a bill of attainder?

---

... [L]egislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution....Section 304, thus, clearly accomplishes the punishment of named individuals without a judicial trial. The fact that the punishment is inflicted through the instrumentality of an Act specifically cutting off the pay of certain named individuals found guilty of disloyalty, makes it no less galling or effective than if it had been done by an Act which designated the conduct as criminal.

United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 316, 66 S. Ct. 1073, 1079, 90 L. Ed. 1252 (1946).

The law is specifically designed to punish PP because it provides abortion services. "Cutting off the pay of" is a punishment, according to this case.

It isn;'t cutting off abortion funding. That already does not exist. It is cutting off funding of other approved medical services as a punishment for doing abortions.

The Supreme Court would have to overrule this case to uphold this portion of the BBB.

Federal funding of abortion absolutely exists. PP is a child slaughterhouse. That's the only reason they exist. Stop defending it.