Courts Cannot Force Congress To Fund Abortion Providers: ACLJ Defends Constitutional Separation of Powers in Maine Case

The ACLJ has filed a critical amicus brief in a Maine federal court case that could fundamentally alter the relationship between Congress and the judiciary. At stake is not just federal funding for abortion policy, but the constitutional principle that Congress – not courts – controls the power of the purse. The issues are the same as in the case brought by Planned Parenthood in Massachusetts, and the ACLJ will defend life wherever the fight may be.

The Case That Could Change Everything

The Family Planning Association of Maine is asking a federal court to do something unprecedented: order Congress to spend taxpayer money that it has specifically voted not to spend. This isn’t just about healthcare funding – it’s an assault on the constitutional separation of powers that protects our republic.

Just like Planned Parenthood, this abortion organization wants the court to force Congress to provide Medicaid funding for its operations, despite Congress’ vote to exclude abortion providers from such funding. Essentially, they’re asking a federal judge to become a super-legislator with the power to override congressional appropriations decisions. They want the court to force Congress to provide Medicaid funding for their operations, despite Congress’ decision to exclude abortion providers from such funding.

Why This Threatens Our Constitutional Order

The Constitution is crystal clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The power to spend taxpayer money belongs to those most accountable to the people: Congress.

What this Maine organization seeks would invert this constitutional design. Courts cannot compel Congress to spend money any more than Congress can compel courts how to decide cases. When federal judges can override legislative spending decisions, we no longer have a constitutional republic – we have judicial tyranny.

For decades, the Supreme Court has consistently held that while the Constitution may prevent the government from placing obstacles in the path of lawful conduct, it does not require the government to fund activities that run counter to its policy judgments.

In landmark cases like Maher v. Roe, Harris v. McRae, and Rust v. Sullivan, the Court repeatedly emphasized that there is no constitutional right to government subsidies. The government can “make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and [] implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds.”

The Fungibility Problem

This organization argues that since Medicaid doesn’t directly fund abortions, its case is different. But this ignores a critical reality: Money is fungible. When the government provides funding to an organization for permitted activities, those funds free up other resources that can be redirected toward activities the government prefers not to support.

Congress has consistently sought to ensure that federal dollars do not indirectly subsidize abortions, and the Constitution fully supports this reasonable policy choice.

Congress didn’t act in isolation. States across the nation have reached similar conclusions, terminating contracts with abortion providers for various reasons, including policy decisions that such providers do not represent the values of the people.

Protecting Democratic Accountability

If courts could force Congress to fund any organization dissatisfied with congressional spending decisions, every budgetary choice would risk becoming a constitutional issue. This would fundamentally transform our system of government, shifting power from elected representatives to unelected judges.

The Constitution assigns spending authority to the branch most accountable to the people whose money is at stake. When Congress makes the considered judgment that federal funds should not support abortion providers, that judgment deserves judicial respect, not judicial override.

Standing for Constitutional Principles

We cannot allow courts to usurp Congress’ constitutional authority over federal spending, especially when that authority is being exercised to protect innocent human life. This case is about preserving the constitutional structure that protects our freedom and ensures democratic accountability. The ACLJ will continue fighting to protect both constitutional governance and the sanctity of life against this dangerous attempt to transform judges into super-legislators.