From what I could gather, some pro-abortion group or lawyers convinced a judge that the purpose of the defunding was to restrict abortions (beyond whatever law Ohio has). And it seems the judge was open to reaching far across the lines of his actual authority.
This seems to be the new norm in the USA, that judges are deciding that people have RIGHTS to things that must be funded by the taxpayers, whether they like it or not. Seems to be an overreach, IMHO.
Yep, I see your point.
Even if we say there is a constitutional right to abortion, how does it follow that there is a constitutional right for taxpayers to fund a specific abortion provider????