Breaking: Appeals court suspends embryonic stem cell research ban during Obama’s appeal
UPDATE, 1:43p: Statement by our side’s attorneys:
We are not surprised that the court granted the government a short administrative stay. The Order itself makes clear that: “The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”
As ordered by the court, we will be pleased to timely file our opposition to the government’s 160 page stay request that offers no new arguments not already considered and rejected by the federal district court earlier this week.
We remain confident in our case against the unlawful, unethical and unnecessary federal funding of experimentation on human embryos.
We expect that when the Court of Appeals reviews the merits of the case, it will agree with the logic that led Judge Lamberth to issue the preliminary injunction and to refuse to stay that injunction pending appeal.
12:26p: From Bloomberg, within the hour:
President Barack Obama’s administration can fund embryonic stem-cell research while it appeals a decision banning government support for any activity using cells taken from human embryos, an appeals court said.
The US Court of Appeals in Washington today put on hold a ruling by District Judge Royce Lamberth during its review of the ban. The Justice Dept. argued that the judge’s decision would cause irreparable harm to researchers, taxpayers and scientific progress.
Lifting the ban allows the government to temporarily continue funneling tens of millions of dollars to scientists seeking cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, and genetic conditions. Embryonic stem cells can grow into any kind of tissue and may have the potential to accelerate a range of research.
“The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” the appeals court wrote in its decision.
Opponents of the stem-cell funding have until Sept. 14 to file a response, and the US can submit a response on Sept. 20, the appeals court said.
Lamberth on Aug. 23 issued an order temporarily stopping the Health and Human Services Dept. and the National Institutes of Health from funding or conducting the studies. On Sept. 7, Lamberth denied a US request to reconsider his ruling.
The judge cited the still-in-force 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment in his ruling, saying that Congress prohibited funding any research in which a human embryo was destroyed. By implication, that included all stem-cell research, Lamberth said.
“A stay would flout the will of Congress, as this court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment,” Lamberth wrote on Sept. 7. “Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This court is not free to do so.”
In March 2009, Obama reversed an executive order of former President George W. Bush to allow research on cells derived from embryos that would otherwise be disposed of after in vitro fertilization procedures.
Under the Bush order, Dickey-Wicker was interpreted to allow research on lines of stem cells that already had been created using human embryos. In his August 2001 executive order, Bush limited federal funding for such research to about 20 existing lines of embryonic cells and banned federal funding on lines created after that time.
Grants Stymied
In his Aug. 23 ruling, Lamberth said the administration was attempting to separate the derivation of the embryonic stem cells from research on them, and “the two cannot be separated.”
Lamberth’s order will prevent the National Institutes of Health from acting on grant applications that have been reviewed, and from considering dozens of other applications that are in the review process, the U.S. wrote in a Sept. 8 appeal. It may take as long as eight months to reinitiate the review process for grant applications, the U.S. said.
“Disruption of ongoing research will result in irreparable setbacks and, in many cases, may destroy a project altogether,” attorneys for the U.S. wrote.
The case is Sherley v. Sebelius, 10-5287, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).
[HT: Claude]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The Justice Dept. argued that the judge’s decision would cause irreparable harm to researchers, taxpayer and scientific progress.
Did they argue that with straight faces?
Embryonic stem cells can grow into any kind of tissue and may have the potential to accelerate a range of research.
Wow. “May have the potential.” Not even “HAVE the potential,” but “MAY HAVE the potential.” In other words, we think there’s a possibility, but we don’t really know. Meanwhile, taxpayers dollars that could be spent on adult stem cell research (which has more than POTENTIAL) are being funneled to ESCR. *headdesk*
“The Justice Dept. argued that the judge’s decision would cause irreparable harm to researchers, taxpayer and scientific progress.”
Irreparable harm? Do they mean it would kill them? Scientific progress would be absolutely unable to recover? Taxpayers and researchers would have no other options than to kill themselves or live forever-maimed by the funding ban?
If only there were another source we could tap for stem cells.
What a load of rubbish. This decision is charged by so much agenda it’s laughable.
Brings to mind the pro-abort argument regarding unborn babies that they “may have the potential to become human beings” but it depends on if their mother wants them but if their mother doesn’t want them they are “a blob of cells and a product of conception”. Sounds like a plan to me. NOT!
I have worked with expectant moms and dads for years and have NEVER asked them “how is your blob of cells or product of conception doing”, during their entire prenatal period or during their labor. I have held moms as they sobbed uncontrollably who have experienced a miscarriage or a stillborn, I have NEVER said “Sorry your blob of cells or product of conception died”.
This POTUS has sworn allegiance not just to abortion-on-demand but ESCR even though real cures are being found in adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells. God help us.
We also hear today that a court has ruled the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military is unconstitutional because it denies 1st amendment rights to those affected.
So here we have yet another activist court, as in the above and in the recent California “marriage” ruling, that ignores the voice of the people expressed either through their elected representatives or through a plebiscite. Of course pro-lifers know better than most how the court overreaches–Roe v. Wade being the most egregious example.
Hopefully these things will help the conservative majority in our country wake up. So many of us are so busy minding our own business and just trying to build a better life for ourselves and our loved ones that we tend to put the political stuff on the back burner.
This must change now and change dramatically if we want to see our liberties and common values maintained. The huge “tea party” rallies and the ascendancy of conservative candidates is a start. But we cannot go back to the same ol same ol once some of our candidates are elected. We are in a super “sense of urgency” mode that must be extended through several election cycles for any chance of real reform sticking.
What this means for working families and business owners is that we are going to have to adjust our priorities and make time for political action. It must become more than a thing we do–it must be put front and center. For those of us nearing or who are already in our retirement years we are going to have to forgoe some of our retirement plans and sign up for activities to support candidates and issues–if for no other reason so we can pass on our freedoms to the next generations.
Our churches, especially the mainline churches who are afraid of losing their tax status, are going to have to get bold. Our morals are weakening, our values under assault, our families and the institution of marriage are being attacked at every turn. All who love our country and the values and principles by which it was founded have our work cut out for us. The old saying that freedom isn’t free certainly applies.