|
|
|
|
Obama Administration
Appeals Judge Lamberth's Stem Cell Decision Part Two of Two By Dave Andrusko
The issue was not whether the Obama Administration would appeal Judge Royce Lamberth's August 23 preliminary injunction--that was never in question-- but on what grounds. As you recall Judge Lamberth said that it appeared that the Administration's decision to fund human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research was inconsistent with a federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. [www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Aug10/nv082410.html]. To cover all bases, when the Justice Department yesterday asked Judge Lamberth to lift the temporary injunction, it also filed a notice of plans to appeal Lamberth's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. His preliminary injunction prevents the Obama Administration from continuing to fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. The Justice Department argued that the NIH-funding of research that required human embryos to be destroyed is consistent with the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Also if funding were stopped, its brief contended, it would be "an injury to NIH's mission, the larger biomedical community, the public at large, and, most critically, the millions of people who are hoping to benefit from life-saving therapies made possible by hESC [human embryonic stem cell] research." As if adding an exclamation point, the brief says, "There is great potential for significant breakthroughs, but not if research is halted for the time between the present and when the appeal is decided." [See www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/brief.pdf.] Lamberth's thoughtful temporary injunction had already addressed many of the counterarguments raised by the Justice Department. 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." He dismissed the argument that the Obama Administration was in compliance with the Amendment because private money would be used to obtain embryonic stem cells lines while federal dollars would only be used to conduct subsequent research. "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." Unmentioned in the decision but noteworthy is that to date, there are over 70 published studies that show promising results utilizing morally unobjectionable adult stem cell research versus none with hESC. 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 New York Times reported. In his fifteen-page decision, Lambert concluded, "The Court finds that likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to plaintiffs, the balance of hardships, and public interest consideration each weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44.] 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 |
