|
|
|
|
Judge Slaps Preliminary
Injunction on Obama Embryonic Stem Cell Policy Part One of Three By Dave Andrusko Good evening and thanks for reading--and responding to--TN&V and National Right to Life News Today. Part Two sheds light on the murky practice of "Telemedical" abortions. Over at www.nationalrighttolifenews.org, we unpack the decline of pro-abortion President Barack Obama and offer further illustrations of how adult stem cells are making a real difference in people's lives. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.
A federal district judge has issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the Obama Administration from continuing to fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. In his August 23 order, Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that it appeared that the Administration's decision to fund embryonic stem cell (ESC) research was inconsistent with a federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The ruling was preliminary, but the judge ordered the funding to cease while the case progresses. Predictably, the decision was greeted with wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who've sold embryonic stem cell (ESC) research as an all-purpose medical elixir [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44]. In fact, to date, there are over 70 published studies that show promising results utilizing morally unobjectionable adult stem cell research versus none with ESC. Lamberth's 15-page decision was closely reasoned and flatly refused to accept distinctions offered by the Obama Administration. Lamberth noted that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment very clearly bans federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Operationally, the Obama Administration built a Rube Goldberg contraption which, it argued, meant its policy was in compliance. Obtaining embryonic stem cells lines--which required the death of human embryos--would be funded with private money, not public. The federal dollars would only be used to conduct subsequent research, the Administration argued. Lamberth made short work of that. "The language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed," he wrote. "Simply because embryonic stem cell research involves multiple steps does not mean that each step is a separate 'piece of research' that may be federally funded." Surprisingly, the New York Times characterization is 100% accurate: "In other words, the neat lines that the government had drawn between the process of embryonic destruction and the results of that destruction are not valid, the judge ruled." Lamberth had initially dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that plaintiffs did not have standing. "But the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling last year, saying the two researchers [Dr. Sherley and Dr. Deisher] could be harmed by the new policy since they worked exclusively with adult stem cells and would face increased competition for federal financing under the new policy," the Times reported. Yesterday, a Justice Department spokeswoman said only that "we're reviewing the decision." |
