“‘Splain to me how a Federal judge can tell a state they must pump state resources ino a provider they have chosen not to fund.”
I can’t. Since the article is so short, much excerpting was needed, but it says the plaintiff’s are PP clinics that purportedly don’t perform abortions themselves and claim the law violates their freedom of speech and association. How they got a judge to buy that, I can’t imagine.
"The court is particularly influenced by the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women," Yeakel wrote in his ruling. "The record before the court at this juncture reflects uncertainty as to the continued viability of the Texas Women's Health Program."That sounds like it's addressed to the immediate harm requirement for a preliminary injunction, but doesn't give much of a clue as to how he thinks the plaintiffs' rights would be impaired.Texas officials have said that if the state is forced to include Planned Parenthood, they will likely shut down the program that serves basic health care and contraception to 130,000 poor women.