The U.S. Justice Department has asked that the injunction apply only to the plaintiffs. There are four similar lawsuits pending in other states.
In his discussion of the case, McShane said the ban on abortion referrals prevent doctors from behaving like medical professionals. He ruled the new regulation would remove the full range of medical options for low-income women, create a "geographic vacuum" in reproductive health care, and would likely increase abortion numbers due to more unwanted pregnancies, The Oregonian reports.
The rule's prohibition on federal funding for family planning clinics housed in the same location as abortion providers will also be the subject of an injunction, the judge said.
Attorney Andrew Bernie argued on behalf of the federal government, saying there was no proof of "irreparable harm" to the plaintiffs. The administrative record did not show a political motive for the changes.
Further, the changes are in line with the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld federal regulations barring abortion counselling by employees of federally funded family planning facilities. The Department of Health and Human Services holds that the new rules best reflect a Title X section which bars abortion as a family planning method, said Bernie.
McShane, however, said "good health outcomes" are the standard.
"Are these rules going to bring about good health outcomes?" he asked Bernie, according to The Oregonian.
The judge said the government hadn't provided data to counter medical experts' claims that the rule's restrictions on medical professionals regarding abortion referral would result in unwanted pregnancies, ineffective contraceptive use, and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.
Cooper, of the Oregon Catholic Conference, questioned the judge's conclusion.
"Abortion is not a good health outcome," he told CNA, asking for more evidence for the claim that the rule could result in more abortions.
Attorney Alan Schoenfeld, who represented Planned Parenthood and the American Medical Association, said all Planned Parenthood providers would leave the Title X program because the rules, which they consider a "gag rule," require unethical health care practice. Planned Parenthood operates about 40 percent of health care clinics in the U.S. If they reduce or close operations, Schoenfeld argued, some communities could not replace the resulting vacuum in health care, which would reduce low-income women's access to cancer screening and other health services.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Anderson of Oregon Right to Life, however, rejected this argument. The refusal of Planned Parenthood to comply would mean the money would go to federally-qualified healthcare clinics, of which there are over 13,500 across the U.S., she said.
"In Oregon alone, there are 24 (federally-qualified healthcare clinics) for every single Planned Parenthood clinic," said Anderson. "The idea that there would be a dearth of providers should this rule take affect is an outright lie."
Enacting the rule, she said, "would ensure that family-planning funds go towards actual family-planning, not killing members of families."
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum argued against the rule in court, saying that Title X funds are "a true safety net for low income individuals and those who would not be able to access care, due to a lack of insurance or other barriers."
After the finalized rule was announced in February, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, praised the Trump administration for "reaffirming that abortion is not family planning."
"Abortion ends the lives of families' most vulnerable members, as well as damaging the spiritual, mental and physical health of mothers," said the archbishop.