- Last laugh: Marine vet fires off jokes from the grave with own obituary
- Deportations come mostly from border, DHS chief says
- NATO sends surveillance planes to watch Ukraine
- Climate change not a top concern of Americans, poll shows
- GM faces federal investigation for slow recall that led to 13 deaths
- Iran president reaches out to Oman on friendship tour
- FAA’s pre-Malaysia flight warning: 777s have cracking, corrosion issues
- Facebook HQ locked down; employees searched as police field threat
- Glenn Ford free, after serving 30 years for murder he didn’t commit
- Congressman: McAuliffe victory means gun control a winning message
Judge puts Obama stem cell policy on hold
Injunction suggests executive order violates law
A federal judge issued a temporary hold Monday on the Obama administration’s new guidelines on human embryonic stem cell research, dealing the White House a serious setback in its efforts to promote the highly sensitive research with federal funding.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction to a coalition of researchers and Christian groups and gave them hope for a successful trial outcome by indicating that President Obama’s executive order likely violates federal law.
In his March 2009 signing order, Mr. Obama lifted the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The National Institutes of Health published its final guidelines on the research in July 2009.
The problem, according to the 15-page opinion, is that the guidelines appear to violate an annually passed appropriations rule that prohibits the use of federal funds for research in which a human embryo is deliberately destroyed.
“[P]laintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success that the Guidelines violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment,” Judge Lamberth wrote in the opinion.
“Congress has spoken to the precise question at issue — whether federal funds may be used for research in which an embryo is destroyed,” he said. “Thus, as demonstrated by the plain language of the statute, the unambiguous intent of Congress is to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds on ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.’”
Once the question of the law is decided, Judge Lamberth added in a passage that heartened pro-lifers, the fact question “is whether [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which a human embryo is destroyed. The court concludes that it is.”
Steven H. Aden, a counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the conservative groups that provided legal help in the case, said, “The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life. The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos.”
Attorneys for the Justice Department had argued that the destruction of an embryo and research on the destroyed embryo should be viewed as separate legal acts.
The NIH guidelines “recognize the distinction … between the derivation of stem cells from an embryo that results in the embryo’s destruction, for which federal funding is prohibited, and research involving [stem cells] that does not involve an embryo nor result in an embryo’s destruction, for which federal funding is permitted,” according to the defense brief.
But the judge rejected the argument.
“If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an [embryonic stem cell] research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment,” wrote Judge Lamberth, a 1987 appointee of President Reagan.
Foes of embryonic stem cell research applauded the ruling.
“The court said, ‘Hey, listen, all of this is part of the research. You can’t do the research without killing embryos,’” said Dr. David Stevens, chief executive officer of the Christian Medical and Dental Association, one of the organizations that filed the lawsuit.
However, Sean Tipton, public affairs director for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, called the decision “incredibly disruptive.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Six Senate seats could hinge on Keystone pipeline
- Stars not aligned with polls on Keystone
- Former Greenpeace insider Patrick Moore who questions climate change says he can stand the heat
- Pot shot: GOP candidates see hit to Colorado's image from legal weed
- Arizona veto likely to chill other religious freedom bills
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
An America drowning in red ink is the land of the free no more
- Inside the Beltway: A new interest in Rahm Emanuel for 2016?
- Deportations come mostly from border, DHS chief says
- HURT: John Kerry The ridiculous face of a ridiculous U.S. diplomacy
- David Jolly wins in Florida, GOP keeps swing district seat
- Brennan: Russia 'absolutely' could invade eastern Ukraine
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Obamacare 3 million shy of target with 19 days left to sign up
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- Special ops forces wearing thin from high demand
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again