Massachusetts AG Campbell Sues Over Planned Parenthood Defunding in Big Beautiful Bill

Massachusetts Attorney General Sues Over Defunding of Planned Parenthood

On July 29, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over a controversial provision in the Big Beautiful Bill. This sweeping budget bill, signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, included a "Defund Provision" that aims to cut federal Medicaid funds from any medical services provided at Planned Parenthood health centers. These services include critical care such as cancer screenings, pregnancy support, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing.

Campbell, along with a coalition of 21 state attorneys general and one governor, argues that this provision is a direct attack on Planned Parenthood and threatens the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans. In a press release, she stated, “By illegally targeting Planned Parenthood, this provision of the budget bill would threaten millions of Americans’ access to essential health care like cancer screenings and pregnancy care. I will continue to champion reproductive justice and fight back against actions that harm the health and wellbeing of our residents.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and includes the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the governor of Pennsylvania.

Understanding the “Defund Provision”

The Defund Provision is a one-year measure within the Big Beautiful Bill that bars clinics providing abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funding for any of their other reproductive services. While the provision does not explicitly name Planned Parenthood, the organization has called it “a targeted attack.” It claims that a third of its network could face closure under this law.

The Department of Justice has argued that the bill stops federal subsidies for what they refer to as “Big Abortion.” The use of federal funds for most abortions has been illegal since 1976 under the Hyde Amendment.

Why Are the Attorneys General Suing?

The attorneys general argue that Congress specifically designed the provision to punish Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its health centers for advocating abortion access. They referenced a December 4, 2024, interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson, who expressed a desire to “axe” Planned Parenthood.

In a press release, the attorneys general noted, “The provision clearly targets PPFA and its member health centers for their political advocacy in support of abortion rights, as the provision’s four criteria apply to the overwhelming majority of PPFA health centers—regardless of whether they actually provide abortions—but exclude almost all other abortion providers.”

They also claim the provision is “impermissibly ambiguous” and violates the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The states are seeking a court order to stop the administration from enforcing the provision and forcing them to comply.

Impact on Public Health and State Budgets

The attorneys general argue that the provision will negatively impact public health in their states. This could lead to delayed diagnoses of STIs and cancer, increased unintended pregnancies, and higher costs for state healthcare systems due to the disruption of medical ecosystems.

During fiscal year 2023, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts received approximately $4.7 million in Medicaid payments. The lawsuit comes just one day after a federal judge in Boston blocked the enforcement of the provision in a separate lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood. The judge ruled that the law violated the Constitution by specifically targeting Planned Parenthood’s health centers for punishment related to providing abortions.

This legal battle highlights the ongoing debate over reproductive rights, federal funding, and the role of the government in healthcare access. As the case moves forward, it could set a significant precedent for future legislation and policy decisions.