- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
Justices refuse challenge to stem-cell policy
Scientists free to use funding
Question of the Day
The move is certain to delight scientists who are eager to win grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to explore cures for disease using a broader range of embryonic stem-cell lines. But it disappoints pro-life groups and others who see such research as immoral or ineffective.
Congress passed legislation in 1996 “to ensure that Americans don’t pay any more precious taxpayer dollars for needless research made irrelevant by adult stem-cell and other research,” said Steven H. Aden, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). “We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold [the law’s] clear intent.”
Their lawsuit, Sherley v. Sebelius, revolved around the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding for research that destroys, discards or harms a human embryo. The law has enabled private companies, which do not take federal funds, to become leaders in embryonic stem-cell research.
In 2001, the George W. Bush administration eased the policy, permitting federally funded researchers to use embryonic stem-cells derived from some 60 already existing stem-cell lines.
When President Obama took office, he soon rescinded the Bush policy and asked for the Department of Health and Human Services to craft ethically responsible guidelines that would lead to more government-funded embryonic stem-cell research. The new regulations, for instance, permitted researchers to use stem cells from frozen human embryos donated for research by couples who were using fertility clinics.
The two scientists claimed that these regulations violated the 1996 law, and hurt them because it reduced access to federal grants among scientists like themselves who use only adult stem cells. The court dismissed that claim without comment.
In addition to the two plaintiff scientists, the Sherley case was of great interest to embryo-adoption agencies, families who have given birth to “snowflake” children from donated frozen embryos, and pro-life groups that object to destruction of human life.
A flurry of court rulings ended with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissing the case, in favor of the government.
The Supreme Court’s decision Monday means that federal funding will flow to researchers for the foreseeable future.
Many scientists think embryonic stem cells can be manipulated in ways that will cure such maladies as spinal-cord injuries and Parkinson’s disease.
Pro-life groups and their allies counter that adult stem cells are a proven way to develop treatments, and a process using “induced pluripotent stem cells,” which doesn’t involve human embryos, is also likely to be a superior route to find cures.
In 2008, a small nonprofit group named the Real Truth About Obama (later renamed the Real Truth About Abortion) had planned to run two ads critical of Mr. Obama’s pro-choice record on abortion. However, the group felt “chilled” in its fundraising plans because it thought it would be deemed a political action committee, and be subjected to a federal investigation and donor-disclosure rules.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor. Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...
- Panel seeks 'surveillance' system for gay blood donors
- Pregnancies decline overall, up among older women
- Embryonic stem cell research falls out of favor as scientists go ethical
- With new HIV research, FDA may let gay men donate blood
- HHS report shows a decrease in blood supply but also a drop in demand
Latest Blog Entries
- Pro-life, stem-cell bill signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback
- N. Dakota lawmakers approve tough abortion bill
- Pope Benedict XVI's successor should allow priests to get a new title: Husband, poll finds
- House votes to reject Obama welfare shift
- Report: Two out of three Democrats support gay marriage
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Get in the middle of all the action inside and outside the boxing ring.
How does our 50th state view D.C. politics?
White House pets gone wild!