(07-10-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 10:58 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

Planned Parenthood is not a private entity.
It is a nonprofit organization that operates through a network of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 600 health clinics in the United States.

It absolutely is a private entity -- by being a 503 (or whatever) non-profit, as is every party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a legal context, a private actor refers to an individual or entity that is not part of the government or law enforcement.

Im making the distinction between a state actor / state entity and private actor / private entity.

(07-10-2025 12:03 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Planned Parenthood…..hhhmmmm…….what a crafty pseudonym for an organization that is planning on you NOT BECOMING A PARENT so their coffers can be filled with GOLD.

UGLY TRUTH

Exactly the organization I’d want to be arguing to get funded.

But, then again just look at who is arguing for it!

(07-10-2025 12:49 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 10:58 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

Planned Parenthood is not a private entity.
It is a nonprofit organization that operates through a network of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 600 health clinics in the United States.

It absolutely is a private entity -- by being a 503 (or whatever) non-profit, as is every party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a legal context, a private actor refers to an individual or entity that is not part of the government or law enforcement.

Im making the distinction between a state actor / state entity and private actor / private entity.

It's a 501©(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

(07-10-2025 12:49 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 10:58 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

Planned Parenthood is not a private entity.
It is a nonprofit organization that operates through a network of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 600 health clinics in the United States.

It absolutely is a private entity -- by being a 503 (or whatever) non-profit, as is every party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a legal context, a private actor refers to an individual or entity that is not part of the government or law enforcement.

Im making the distinction between a state actor / state entity and private actor / private entity.

It's a 501©(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

(07-10-2025 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 12:49 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 10:58 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

Planned Parenthood is not a private entity.
It is a nonprofit organization that operates through a network of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 600 health clinics in the United States.

It absolutely is a private entity -- by being a 503 (or whatever) non-profit, as is every party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a legal context, a private actor refers to an individual or entity that is not part of the government or law enforcement.

Im making the distinction between a state actor / state entity and private actor / private entity.

It's a 501©(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

Not a memorization by rote on all the 500 designations. Sounds good to me. Still a non government corporation. Still a private actor / private entity.

(07-10-2025 01:31 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 12:49 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 10:58 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Planned Parenthood is not a private entity.
It is a nonprofit organization that operates through a network of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 600 health clinics in the United States.

It absolutely is a private entity -- by being a 503 (or whatever) non-profit, as is every party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a legal context, a private actor refers to an individual or entity that is not part of the government or law enforcement.

Im making the distinction between a state actor / state entity and private actor / private entity.

It's a 501©(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

Not a memorization by rote on all the 500 designations. Sounds good to me. Still a non government corporation. Still a private actor / private entity.

which by default, is now under the 'rule' by the states...

spin such however ... dgaf...

losing sucks, eh?! ... it's a biatch...

(07-10-2025 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 01:31 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 12:49 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It absolutely is a private entity -- by being a 503 (or whatever) non-profit, as is every party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a legal context, a private actor refers to an individual or entity that is not part of the government or law enforcement.

Im making the distinction between a state actor / state entity and private actor / private entity.

It's a 501©(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

Not a memorization by rote on all the 500 designations. Sounds good to me. Still a non government corporation. Still a private actor / private entity.

which by default, is now under the 'rule' by the states...

spin such however ... dgaf...

losing sucks, eh?! ... it's a biatch...

Im not getting your point.

(07-10-2025 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

okay ... I'm invoicing ... I'll play...

define "precisely" in a sentence ... as in, "precedent fk's one up the pooper w/o a condom, prison, and the moist necessary - BIDET!"

today is not the day you want to fk with me ... I'm not rehashing this bs ... I only get nastier from this point...

btw, how's that donktard infiltration last year being addressed (remember, where I back out of bet due to lack of current knowledge) .... have they prosecuted (persecuted) one of those biatches, yet .... I'm betting those libtard fagoos haven't torched a soul...

bwahahahahahahaha

Later decisions have said that the action or speech the government can tie funds to has to be in the area that the program is specifically directed at. Not the broad rule statement of "allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs".

It is proper for the government to tie Highway funds to a requirement that a movie on highway safety must be shown to every new licensee.

It isnt proper for the government to tie highway funds to a requirement that a brochure stating 'kamala harris is the best legislator' be included in every new licensee bundle.

In this case the funds are tied to Medicaid. The program scope is to distribute funds to cover the medical expenses of people who fall under certain financial thresholds. The issue of whether abortions are performed, and not even under the program, has literally nothing to do with the scope of the program nor the program funds.

whose later decisions ... oh, yeah, 10A trumps all that bs, funds or not ... have 'em fund uber to another fk'n dipshite state ('sip still zero abby-bortion tolerance)

but for argument sake, that would be helpful during discovery...

or is it another of too many schisms...

you're a trip, bruv ... please continue...

(07-10-2025 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

okay ... I'm invoicing ... I'll play...

define "precisely" in a sentence ... as in, "precedent fk's one up the pooper w/o a condom, prison, and the moist necessary - BIDET!"

today is not the day you want to fk with me ... I'm not rehashing this bs ... I only get nastier from this point...

btw, how's that donktard infiltration last year being addressed (remember, where I back out of bet due to lack of current knowledge) .... have they prosecuted (persecuted) one of those biatches, yet .... I'm betting those libtard fagoos haven't torched a soul...

bwahahahahahahaha

Later decisions have said that the action or speech the government can tie funds to has to be in the area that the program is specifically directed at. Not the broad rule statement of "allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs".

It is proper for the government to tie Highway funds to a requirement that a movie on highway safety must be shown to every new licensee.

It isnt proper for the government to tie highway funds to a requirement that a brochure stating 'kamala harris is the best legislator' be included in every new licensee bundle.

In this case the funds are tied to Medicaid. The program scope is to distribute funds to cover the medical expenses of people who fall under certain financial thresholds. The issue of whether abortions are performed, and not even under the program, has literally nothing to do with the scope of the program nor the program funds.

whose later decisions ... oh, yeah, 10A trumps all that bs, funds or not ... have 'em fund uber to another fk'n dipshite state ('sip still zero abby-bortion tolerance)

but for argument sake, that would be helpful during discovery...

or is it another of too many schisms...

you're a trip, bruv ... please continue...

Stink, the current issue is a Federal law telling the Federal govt what they have to do. 10a isn't an issue.

And if a state adopts similar guidelines, each state is also subject to the same 1st amendment issue.

Quote:On Friday evening, US District Judge Indira Talwani reaffirmed her order blocking President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill that barred Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

Judge Talwani dissolved her Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and entered an amended one that complied with the requirements.

The Trump DOJ argued that the judge issued a TRO without notice.

On Monday, Judge Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued a TRO and set a preliminary injunction hearing for July 21.

“This Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect for fourteen days, unless vacated, modified or extended by the court,” the judge wrote.

Planned Parenthood sued the Trump Administration over its funding cuts written into the newly-passed reconciliation bill.

The House passed the Big Beautiful Bill last week and President Trump signed in on July 4th at the White House.

“Everyone deserves access to high-quality, affordable health care. That’s what we’ve been fighting for the last century — and we’ll never stop,” President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Alexis McGill Johnson said last week. “We’ll be suing the Trump administration to stop this unlawful attack. See you in court.”

(07-11-2025 11:25 PM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  If the blue states want to burn money on the murder of babies, they should fund it. Not a dime should come from federal.

(07-12-2025 07:56 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Who cares what it's for?

Appeals court or SCOTUS will pimp slap this silliness and you know it.

I hope for your clients' sake you are more effective in your primary practice area than you are with these ideological tilts at windmills.

The energy you waste on it can't be healthy.

(07-12-2025 08:17 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Good lord you were that nerd in law school who argued what the law should be rather than what it is.

(07-12-2025 08:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 08:17 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Good lord you were that nerd in law school who argued what the law should be rather than what it is.

And your the prick that thinks they can roll every one by being a dumb*** namecaller. Oh, a dumass namecaller who seemingly also feels the prerequisite of pulling predicates put of his ass, to be specific.

Care to exhibit that some more for us, my friend?