If a landlord collects rent from everybody in the building and uses that money directly to remodel one tenant’s apartment without asking the others, would that be fair?
Of course not.
That principle applies to taxpayer dollars, which come from all citizens, so they should be used in ways that respect everybody’s views and follow clearly written rules.
I know, that’s a pipe dream coming from a guy who firmly believes in the chance Bigfoot exists.
However, this idea is central to recent news about Planned Parenthood dropping a lawsuit over federal funding costs. The organization had challenged changes made by the Trump administration that limited taxpayer money for certain services.
When the case was a yuuge loss for Planned Parenthood, it made me think about where public money should go and who gets to decide.
The Lawsuit and Its Collapse
After losing funding from Title X, Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed suit to restore what the organization describes as family planning services like birth control, health screenings for low-income people, and abortion services.
Alexis McGill, the group’s president, said the cuts hurt clinics, making it harder for patients to get care.
Planned Parenthood has argued that federal dollars do not go to abortions at affiliate clinics, but rather to other women’s health care services. Critics have long noted that the money is fungible.
Planned Parenthood leaders have vowed to fight for funding on other fronts.
“President Trump and his allies in Congress have weaponized the federal government to target Planned Parenthood at the expense of patients — stripping people of the care they rely on,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a public statement.
“Through every attack, Planned Parenthood has never lost sight of its focus: ensuring patients can get the care they need from the provider they trust.”
The Trump team argued that federal money shouldn’t support services linked to abortions, even directly. On a side note, this line from the above quote made me laugh: “Critics have long noted that the money is fungible.”
Those critics must be paid by the hour.
In the end, Planned Parenthood opted to quietly drop the case; courts didn’t change any rules, and government agencies stuck to their guns. The legal challenge didn’t prove that taxpayers had to keep paying for these services, but it showed how tricky it is to mix public funds with terrible medical choices.
President Richard Nixon signed Title X into law as part of the Public Health Service Act, created with support from both political parties to offer affordable birth control and reproductive healthcare to everybody, especially those who couldn’t pay.
From the beginning, Title X rules clearly stated that no funds could go toward abortions.
Planned Parenthood has been a considerable part of the program, serving about 40% of its patients at times, but it was required to follow strict guidelines to keep abortion services separate.
Trump’s Policies and the Bigger Changes
President Donald Trump didn’t outlaw abortions, but his administration gave teeth to the old rules to keep federal funds away from groups that provide or refer for them. This action was built on the Protect Life Rule from 2019, which required Title X clinics to physically and financially separate abortion services from other care. At the time, Health and Human Services officials said this act protected taxpayers from subsidizing something that many people oppose.
This shift wasn’t just about one president; it reached back to long-standing laws like the Hyde Amendment, enacted by Congress in 1976. The Hyde Amendment was named after Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and banned federal funds for most abortions, with the usual exceptions: if the woman’s life was in danger, or cases of rape or incest.
Using public money, Medicaid covered around 300,000 abortions annually before the Hyde Amendment, but that number quickly dropped after the amendment took effect.
The Hyde Amendment isn’t a permanent law; it’s added to budget bills each year, showing how Congress keeps beating abortion funding, giving the Trump Administration a framework to redirect money, while using government oversight as separate from direct financial support.
Taxpayers’ Rights and the Issue of Choice
As an American taxpayer, I don’t get to pick and choose where my tax money goes because it’s automatically deducted from my paycheck, without a vote on each spending item. This places extra responsibility on officials to use those funds fairly. But when the government picks specific clinics to support, it feels like one side is favored during a heated debate.
If our money goes to abortion-related services at places like Planned Parenthood, shouldn’t that also apply to all legal medical providers?
Good in theory, but ridiculous in reality.
Better choices would include avoiding direct funding for any of them and letting private choices guide the market, thereby avoiding forcing people to pay for services they morally object to.
The Hyde Amendment has had a big impact over the years, especially on low-income women, and has affected programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and the Indian Health Service, which limit abortion coverage in most states.
Supporters say it respects the taxpayer conscience, while critics argue that it creates barriers for those who rely on public health plans.
Separating Rules from Money
The government is supposed to act like a referee in a game, setting safety standards, issuing licenses, and protecting families without handing out cash. Planned Parenthood claimed they had a right to the money, but the clinics stayed open, doctors kept working, and patients still could get legal care. All this fight was about was losing a financial edge, not “losing basic rights.”
After several back-and-forth discussions, the Trump administration restored some Title X funds to Planned Parenthood and others, leading groups like the ACLU to drop related lawsuits.
All this happened quietly late last year, showing that day-to-day funding shifts based on reviews and compliance, even as the big policy battles continue.
Why This Debate Keeps Going
Planned Parenthood’s decision to drop the lawsuit didn’t end the morality arguments over abortion, but it did clear up some policy lines. When the government pays for medical procedures, it picks winners and creates unwilling participants, while taxpayers foot the bill without even having a say.
Regardless of anybody’s position on abortion, there will never be a consensus agreement. But neutral funding, either supporting all providers equally or none at all, could be a somewhat middle ground, placing fairness above choosing sides.
Think about how Title X has evolved; beginning as part of the War on Poverty under President Lyndon Johnson, with early grants in 1965 for birth control to help low-income families.
Funding has continually remained around $286 million a year, but rules such as the Hyde Amendment and Title X restrictions have shaped how it’s used.
These changes have reflected ongoing tensions between access to care and limits on public spending for abortions.
The porch light clicks off at sunrise, and bills still need to be paid. Forcing somebody to fund their neighbor’s project isn’t right, no matter the argument.
Final Thoughts
Planned Parenthood decided to back off because there was no guarantee of endless funding, as Trump’s policies reinforced existing boundaries, giving taxpayers more say without punishing anybody.
True fairness begins when the government sticks to regulating, not sponsoring.
PJ Media VIP supports writers who value clarity, accountability, and constitutional restraint over institutional entitlement. Subscribing strengthens independent commentary that still asks hard questions about power and money.
