A Planned Parenthood Clinic in downtown Milwaukee. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin will once again pause abortion services at its clinics next week after an injunction that blocked portions of President Donald Trump’s megabill was lifted.

Three Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin clinics in Madison, Milwaukee and Sheboygan currently offer abortion services and are together the largest provider for abortion services in the state. 

The temporary pause in services will take effect on Oct. 1. Until then, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin says that it is working to see as many patients as possible and continuing to monitor the legal landscape. 

“Our commitment is unwavering: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin will continue to provide the full spectrum of reproductive health care — including abortion — as soon and as we are able to,” Tanya Atkinson, president of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin said in a statement. “In the meantime, we are pursuing every available option — through the courts, through operations, and civic engagement.” 

“To the patients who count on us: we are here for you. To our staff and supporters: thank you for standing with us. We remain dedicated to care — no matter what,” Atkinson said. 

The organization is halting services due the federal tax cut and spending megabill — officially titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act — signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year. 

Federal funds have been prohibited from being used to pay for most abortion care for nearly five decades under the Hyde Amendment. However, Planned Parenthood has been able to use federal funds via Medicaid payments and Title X, a federally funded family planning program, to help provide services other than abortion care, including contraceptive care, STI testing, pregnancy testing, and gynecological services to low-income and uninsured individuals. 

The new law includes a provision, which is set to expire July 4, 2026, that bars Medicaid payments for one year for organizations that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in fiscal year 2023 and primarily engage in family planning services and reproductive health and provide abortions. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin noted that the law was crafted specifically to penalize Planned Parenthood and its patients.

The law is being challenged in court, but an injunction that was blocking the law from taking effect was lifted earlier this month by the First District Court of Appeals.

According to the UW-Madison’s Collaborative for Reproductive Equity (CORE), after October 1, clinic-based abortion care in Wisconsin will only be available at two independent clinics in Milwaukee.

“Effectively, 99% of Wisconsin counties now lack clinic-based abortion care,” the organization said in an email.

This is the second time that abortion services will disappear from the state since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs decision, abortion care in Wisconsin halted for about 15 months from June 2022 until September 2023, when Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin determined it had enough legal standing to resume. 

Abortion had been halted in Wisconsin due to a criminal law enacted in 1849, but that was ruled invalid and unenforceable by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in July. The Court found in its 4-3 decision that the law had effectively been repealed by other laws passed after it. 

A coalition of Illinois abortion providers and advocates said at a press conference in Chicago Thursday morning that they were prepared to take Wisconsin residents who need abortion services. 

Dr. Allison Cowett, an OB-GYN and chief medical officer for Family Planning Associates, which is the largest independent abortion provider in Illinois, said the agency saw a significant jump in patients the last time abortion services were restricted in Wisconsin.

“Before Dobbs, less than 3% of our patients traveled to Illinois from Wisconsin for an abortion. When Wisconsin’s 1849 trigger ban went into effect, that number jumped to 9%,” Cowett said. “One in every 12 patients we cared for here in this building came from Wisconsin. After 15 months of that ban, abortion services in Wisconsin were restored, and that number dropped in half.”

She expects the previous increase to be repeated.  

“With the sharp reduction in abortion access expected in Wisconsin in less than a week, we anticipate a large influx of patients, once again, forced to travel to Illinois for this basic health care,” Cowett said.

Megan Jeyifo, executive director of the Chicago Abortion Fund, said the pause in services amounts to a ban and Illinois is prepared to once again take in patients. 

“Illinois is ready. Our constellation of care, which includes providers, funds, advocates, and our incredible elected officials will not leave people stranded,” Jeyifo said. “We will not abandon people when they need us. We will be here with open arms to support the needs of our neighbors. Abortion is not just a procedure or a few pills. Abortion gives women and girls and trans and non-binary people control of our lives, our families and our futures.”

Wisconsin Democrats were critical of Trump’s law for how it is affecting access and recommended that people continue to reach out to Planned Parenthood if they need care.

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) told reporters after a discussion with people affected by Trump administration changes to the Affordable Care Act in Mount Horeb that Planned Parenthood’s announcement is just one of the health care impacts from Trump’s “big, ugly bill.”

“Planned Parenthood does incredible things for people’s health, cancer screenings, wellness checkups, full range of reproductive care, and this is obviously already having impacts on the type of care that Wisconsinites will be able to receive, and it’s a tragic result,” Baldwin said. 

State Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) and state Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said in a joint statement that “the Trump administration and Republican extremists are focused on targeting access to reproductive health care.” 

“Planned Parenthood’s announcement that it is pausing abortion services is the latest example of the devastating effects of Trump’s Big, Ugly Bill. Wisconsinites will continue to have their lives upended and their wellbeing threatened by that piece of legislation,” the lawmakers said. “It is important to note that abortion is and remains legal in the State of Wisconsin. Those who need that health care should continue to contact Planned Parenthood for help in finding access to those services or reach out to other providers who offer abortion services.”

Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion advocacy organization, celebrated the pause in services in a statement. 

“Taxpayer dollars should never fund the taking of innocent preborn lives,” Executive Director Heather Weininger said, claiming that Planned Parenthood has “long centered its operations around abortion services, and this announcement only confirms that reality.” 

According to Planned Parenthood’s annual report from 2022-23, abortion services accounted for  4% of all the health services the organization provided.

“Women and girls facing difficult or unexpected pregnancies deserve compassion, real support, and life-affirming care — and that’s exactly what the pro-life movement is committed to providing,” Weininger said.

With a new law cutting Medicaid funding to certain clinics, Planned Parenthood estimates 200 of its clinics in 24 states are at risk of closure with the cuts, and nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

A federal judge ruled Friday against the Trump administration’s efforts to strip Medicaid funds from primarily Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.

Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the federal government’s motion to lift a block on a new law, rejecting the U.S. Department of Justice’s argument that allowing Planned Parenthood to continue to bill for Medicaid while their lawsuit plays out would cause the government “irreparable injury.” She said the plaintiffs were more likely to suffer injury if the provision went into effect, such as having to close clinics and reduce services.

“Here, Defendants suffer no irreparable harm where Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 violates several constitutional provisions,” Talwani wrote in an order, denying the federal government’s request to stay two preliminary injunctions. “[I]t is precisely because Congress targeted only a ‘certain’ group of entities for exclusion from Medicaid programs — all but two of which are Planned Parenthood Federation Members — that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 is unconstitutional.”

Late last month Talwani ordered a partial and then a full preliminary injunction after Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates sued in early July over the new federal reproductive health restriction. After unsuccessfully asking the district court to lift the block, the federal government appealed the preliminary injunctions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shortly after, the DOJ filed a motion asking the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunctions. Last week, the appellate court declined the government’s request, pending the district court’s decision. Defendants are now expected to re-appeal the injunction to the First Circuit. 

The provision, set to expire July 4, 2026, would primarily affect health clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which has estimated it could lose 200 of its 600 clinics, many of which are in rural areas and others that are critical abortion-access points. 

But two other affected organizations are Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, which according to WBUR, operates seven clinics and serves about 10,000 patients, and Maine Family Planning, which has also sued over the provision. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker in Maine, an appointee of President Donald Trump, denied Maine Family Planning’s motion for a preliminary injunction, despite the organization facing losses up to nearly $2 million, potential layoffs, and disruption of care for about 8,000 patients.

“This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care,” said George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, according to Maine Morning Star. “The loss of Medicaid funds — which nearly half our patients rely on — threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”

Does the new federal Medicaid rule unlawfully target Planned Parenthood?

Federal funding of abortion is already prohibited in most cases under the Hyde Amendment. But the new funding rule would bar from the Medicaid program reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023 for health services like birth control, cancer and gender-affirming care. 

The legislation has caused confusion throughout the Planned Parenthood network because its definition of “prohibited entity” includes a barred organization’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics.”

The nonprofit health network comprises its national membership and advocacy organization, PPFA, and nearly 50 independently structured and operated affiliates, some of which do not offer abortion, such as co-plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. These organizations are reimbursed after the fact for specific health services covered by Medicaid. 

Even though the provision is currently blocked, several Planned Parenthood clinics around the country have already closed, both because of the new rule and the Trump administration’s other restrictions stripping abortion providers of federal family planning grants. 

Many of the recently shuttered clinics did not provide abortion, like in Ohio, and some are in states where abortion is illegal, like in Louisiana. 

Planned Parenthood’s attorneys have argued that the new federal Medicaid rule violates their equal protection, speech and association rights, because it excludes their clinics from the Medicaid program on the basis of their association to other organizations — in this case organizations that provide abortions and advocate for abortion rights.

“[S]ince this Court issued its decision, the government has now admitted that Section 71113 (the “Defund Provision”) was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for its ‘political advocacy,’” the plaintiffs wrote in a recent brief opposing defendants’ motion to lift the injunction. 

Plaintiffs referred to a recent public statement made by Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for co-defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,” Nixon said, after the district court’s initial preliminary injunction on July 22. 

But in court, the federal government argued the tax and spending cuts law excludes large abortion providers only because they provide abortions. They say they are also excluding smaller or non-abortion-providing affiliates, not because of their speech or advocacy, but because of their “non-expressive activities of corporate control and financing.” Their basic argument is that money to any Planned Parenthood clinic — even for health services unrelated to abortion — is money for abortion. 

“[B]ecause money is fungible, extending the funding restriction to affiliates prevents an organization from undermining federal policy not to subsidize abortion providers by shifting funds between entities that do not perform abortions and entities that do,” defendants wrote.  

The DOJ has also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the federal legislation is a bill of attainder, which refers to legislation that unconstitutionally imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial. 

“Halting the flow of federal Medicaid funds to those entities bears no resemblance to the forms of punishment that implicate the Bill of Attainder Clause,” reads the DOJ’s motion. “Historically, bills of attainder involved punishments such as ‘death,’ ‘banishment,’ and ‘imprisonment.’”

But Talwani disagrees with the DOJ’s reasoning.

“[T]here is no indication in the record that Planned Parenthood Members share revenues from Medicaid reimbursements,” she wrote. “The result is a restriction on associational freedom that is in no way ‘essential to the furtherance of [Defendants’] interest’ in withholding funds from certain abortion providers … and instead imposes a wholly unwarranted burden.”

While the new federal tax and spending cuts law does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, a bill introduced this year with similar language is explicitly titled, “Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025.” Meanwhile, several state legislatures have successfully stripped funding from the organization. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in late June after a long legal fight, but the state’s affiliate just sued again over Medicaid eligibility.

“You have to be living in a cave to believe this isn’t about Planned Parenthood,” said abortion law expert Mary Ziegler. “The reason Planned Parenthood is a target is because it’s a twofer. It’s both the nation’s largest abortion provider and also the nation’s best advocate for abortion rights. … But I think the problem for Planned Parenthood is that disaggregating the two is hard, and proving congressional intent to target one rather than the other is challenging.”

Anti-abortion activists and conservative commentators have accused Talwani, an Obama appointee, of judicial activism.

“Now the abortion industry is suing to block the will of the voters, duly passed by Congress,” wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a recent op-ed for National Review. “They argue they’re constitutionally entitled to our tax dollars in perpetuity, and they’ve found a single activist judge willing to take their side and impose that view on the entire nation — for now.”

Ziegler said the bill of attainder argument is rarely used, but is plausible in this case. 

“Generally, with a bill of attainder, you have to show that there’s no other kind of valid legislative purpose, and that it’s selectively targeting the person who’s suing,” she said. “In this case, it seems pretty clear that there’s some targeting of Planned Parenthood happening. … But I think there being no other purpose is more complicated.”

Ziegler said the case will likely be hard to win if it gets to the majority conservative Supreme Court. But if the injunction holds, Planned Parenthood could run out the clock on the one-year Medicaid restriction. She thinks it might seem too politically risky to renew this provision right before the 2026 midterm elections to more moderate Republicans in the House, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, who told NOTUS in May, “from the standpoint of providing health care to women, you know, I’m not for taking away people’s health care.”

“They’ll either have to say, ‘All our boasts about defunding Planned Parenthood were not real, because Planned Parenthood is going to get funded again,’ or they’re going to have to make the funding prohibition permanent, which could have the consequences that people like Lawler were afraid of.”

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

In a 4-3 decision, Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s 1849 law banning abortion had been “impliedly repealed” by the Legislature when it passed laws over the past half century “regulating in detail the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’” of abortion. 

The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Rebecca Dallet and joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, finds that the Legislature could not have passed laws regulating abortion access if the 1849 statute was believed to remain in effect. 

“This case is about giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the Legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how health-care providers may lawfully perform abortions,” Dallet wrote. “The Legislature, as the peoples’ representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future. But the only way to give effect to what the Legislature has actually done over the last 50 years is to conclude that it impliedly repealed the 19th century near-total ban on abortion, and that [the statute] therefore does not prohibit abortion in the State of Wisconsin.” 

Dallet wrote that when the Legislature passed laws restricting abortion under narrower circumstances, guiding “where, when and how” health care providers could perform an abortion and outlining how public money could fund abortion providers, it was repealing the 1849 law. 

The ruling comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark Court ruling that found there was a constitutional right to abortion access and marks the conclusion of a legal dispute that helped Protasiewicz win election to the Court in 2023 and Susan Crawford win election this April. 

In response, the Court’s three conservative justices filed dissents, accusing the majority of “propaganda,” “smoke-and-mirrors legalese” and “pure policymaking.” 

“The majority’s smoke-and-mirrors legalese is nothing more than ‘painting a mule to resemble a zebra, and then going zebra hunting. But paint does not change the mule into a zebra,’” Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. “Those in the majority know better, but they do so anyway because they like the result and promised to deliver it.” 

In his dissent, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the majority failed to show when the law was presumably repealed by the Legislature, saying that the opinion doesn’t properly address the Legislature’s actions in 2011 and 2015 amending the 1849 law.  

“The majority does not say when over those 40 years the Legislature once and for all repealed [the statute],” he wrote. “Was it when the Legislature passed a postviability ban? A partial-birth abortion ban? A twenty-week ban? A waiting period? A physician licensing requirement? The majority fails to say.”

23AP2362 Mandate

Following the ruling’s release, the state’s Democratic elected officials and abortion access activists celebrated the decision as a “win” for reproductive health care in the state. 

“Thanks to our lawsuit, today’s decision affirms that access to reproductive healthcare will continue to be available, helping ensure Wisconsin women today are not forced to face firsthand what it’s like to live in a state that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “Today is a win for women and families, a win for healthcare professionals who want to provide medically accurate care to their patients, and a win for basic freedoms in Wisconsin, but our work is not over. I will continue to fight any effort that takes away Wisconsinites’ reproductive freedom or makes reproductive healthcare, whether birth control, abortion, IVF, or fertility treatments, any less accessible in Wisconsin than it is today. That is a promise.”

Attorney General Josh Kaul, who brought the lawsuit against the law, said at a Wednesday morning news conference that the decision was an important step toward ensuring all Wisconsinites have the freedom to access abortion care, but that the Legislature should step up and further clarify the law.

“I thought we were right on the law. The arguments we made have now been vindicated,” Kaul said. “But at a time when the rights of Wisconsinites and Americans are under threat, this case is a stark reminder of how important it is that we fight for our rights, that we advocate for what is in the best interest of the people of our state, and that we stand on the side of freedom. Here today, we were able to achieve a significant victory for the freedom of Wisconsinites.”

Wisconsin’s state and federal Democratic lawmakers responded to the ruling by saying it wasn’t enough, promising to continue working to codify abortion access in law. 

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she will continue to work to enact her proposal to ensure women across the country have access to abortion care. 

“Today’s ruling tells women across Wisconsin that we will not go back,” Baldwin said. “Today’s ruling tells women that our government trusts you to make decisions about your own body and your future. Today’s ruling tells women in our state that they are not second-class citizens. But, this fight is not over. Every woman, in every zip code, in every state deserves the same rights and freedoms. I will not stop fighting until we make that a reality and pass my bill to restore the right to abortion nationwide and allow women to make their own health care decisions without interference from judges or politicians.”

State Sen. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said the Legislature must now pass a bill guaranteeing the right to an abortion. 

“Now that the courts have made it clear that Wisconsin does not have a total abortion ban, we must go further,” Subeck said. “It’s time to protect reproductive rights not just in practice, but in law. We must pass the Abortion Rights Restoration Act to guarantee the right to abortion and eliminate the medically unjustified, politically motivated restrictions that still exist in our state statutes. The people of Wisconsin deserve nothing less than full access to safe and legal reproductive health care without unnecessary barriers and free from judgement.”

In a concurring opinion, Karofsky wrote that interpreting the 1849 law as banning abortion gives the state the authority to “exert total control” over women and “strips women and pregnant people of the dignity and authority to make intimate and personal choices by exposing medical professionals who perform abortions to 15-year prison terms.” 

In her opinion, Karofsky details the history of abortion access in the U.S. and highlights four women who died because of restrictive abortion bans, including the recent deaths of two Black women in Georgia and a Honduran immigrant in Texas as well as the death of her own great-grandmother in Boston in 1929. 

“I tell the stories of Amber, Candi, Josseli, and my great-grandmother Julia to remind us that severe abortion restrictions operate like death warrants,” Karofsky wrote. “Under such restrictions women, children, and pregnant people are denied life-saving medical care while medical professionals are forced to sit idly at their bedsides, unable to do their jobs. Extreme abortion restrictions revive a time in our history driven by misogyny and racism, divorced from medical science; it is a world that must be left behind.” 

In her dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley accused Karofsky of rewriting history to achieve a desired outcome in the case. 

“Not content with effacing the law, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky rewrites history, erases and insults women by referring to mothers as ‘pregnant people,’ slanders proponents of the pro-life perspective, and broadcasts dangerously false narratives about laws restricting abortion,” Bradley wrote. “Laden with emotion, steeped in myth, and light on the law, the concurrence reads as a parody of progressive politics rather than the opinion of a jurist.”