U.S. district court rules against stem cell policy

[Newsjock]

Source: Reuters

A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38820323/ns/health-cloning_and_stem_cells/

[DavidDvorkin]

1. The crazies are winning

The breakthroughs and wonderful new treatments will happen in other countries.

[Igel]

3. So they have to change the law.

Sounds like there's a hair being split.

Depending upon how it's split, Obama's either found to be violating the law he swore to uphold or he's found in compliance with them.

At a minimum it sounds like some of the *-era rules on "dual" use of equipment will be resurrected and others innovated.

[bowens43]

2. Thumpers score another blow against science and our future.....nt

[florida08]

4. what the hell?

the country is being run by the courts now? This is legislating from the bench..

[elleng]

16. You got it wrong; this is a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,

A final injuction will be decided on when all the facts and arguments are considered.

THIS is the way the legal system should work.

[florida08]

19. I realize this is Reuters

but CNN reports:

A U.S. district judge granted a preliminary injunction Monday to stop federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that he said destroys embryos, ruling it went against the will of Congress.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/23/judge-blocks-federal-funding-for-stem-cell-research/

Now first: there is no statute exists that bans stem cell research

Second: Congress passed HR 810 in '05 but Bush vetoed it..again in '07 and again vetoed and was reintroduced in '09

Now please tell me how this in not an activist judge trying to legislate from the bench? Preliminary or not.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_Cell_Research_Enhancement_Act

[Igel]

30. The claim is that there is a law that prevents

federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.

I don't know that this is true. Let's assume it for the time being--if it's not, this injuction won't last until Friday.

Two questions:

1. Do the Obama regulations make the necessary distinctions so that no funding or federally funded equipment is used in the destruction of human embryos? If not, there go the regs. And his staffers can get around the problem by rewriting the regulations to actually conform with the law. Arguing that it's activism to require that the president abide by the explicit wording of the law is to argue that the judge properly has no interest in actually observing the Constitution and the president has no need to observe the Constitution when he has a higher purpose in mind: In other words, that executive-branch regulations trump the Congress and the law. Let's all praise the Philospher King and the Beneficient Tyrant! (/sarcasm off)

2. Is it reasonable to interpret the law as denying funding to research that uses the fruits of research that it would be illegal to fund? On that I have no reasonable or reasoned opinion. I've seen arguments about other laws that seem to say this is a reasonable interpretation; I've seen other arguments about other laws that would seem to say otherwise. I tend to think that the origins of the material used is irrelevant. A lot of people make moral arguments to the contrary--if you own something that is traceable to "blood diamonds" the pieces of carbon are forever morally tainted; you cannot use drawings or data that derived from Nazi experiments; you cannot keep political donations from somebody who was deemed an upstanding citizen 5 years ago but is now under indictment. I think that kind of argument is also irrelevant.

(1), however, is sufficient for this current injunction. However, (1) is not sufficient for overturning a regulation that excludes actual production or supporting production of new HESC lines (assuming, as I did, that the law as summarized is correct).

[elleng]

39. Good NYT OP on the issue:

'The case involves an obscure rider, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, that has been attached to annual appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1996. It prohibits the use of federal funds to support research in which embryos are destroyed or discarded. It does not directly address research on stem cells derived from embryos, a field that developed later.

The Clinton administration and now the Obama administration drew a fine distinction: deriving the stem cells — which results in destruction of the embryos — could not be supported by the federal government but research on stem cells after they were derived with private funds could be financed.

The Bush administration also implicitly accepted this distinction by funding research on a handful of stem cell lines derived with private funds. At no time has Congress disputed this distinction or rewritten Dickey-Wicker to address stem cells directly.

Now Judge Lamberth has ruled that Dickey-Wicker prohibits funding of all research in which a human embryo is destroyed, even if the destruction occurs before the research begins. He claims that the Dickey-Wicker language “unambiguously” prohibits work on stem cells derived from embryos.

How can that be true if the federal government has interpreted it the other way for 11 years and Congress has not disputed that interpretation? If there is any ambiguity, the courts typically give deference to agency interpretations.

The judge also finds that the two adult stem cell researchers who brought the case would suffer imminent and irreparable harm without the injunction because they would have to compete with embryonic stem cell researchers for research funds. That is absurd. Adult stem cell research is funded far more generously than work with embryonic stem cells. And there is no firm limit on the amount of money that can be spent on each.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/opinion/25wed1.html?_r=1&hp

[tomm2thumbs]

5. Oh Nancy, Nancy - Ronnie's memory needs you

sounds like all the tap dancing around the issue needs to be revisited - just rewrite the thing and stop this nonsense

and get Nancy Reagan back on the stump, to knock down these idiots who all thought Ronnie Reagan was the second coming, so she can finish what she started

[tridim]

11. Rewrite it, and add additional funds as a parting "f*ck you" to the fundies.

[tomm2thumbs]

33. I like the additional funding part - and put Ronnie's name on it

[lobodons]

6. This is why Dems MUST come out in force in November!!

We cannot afford to lose any more ground to these right wing fundamentalists.

[SkyDaddy7]

7. I see a BRAIN DRAIN coming!!

All our scientist are just going to say F-IT and leave to study somewhere else that actually cares about its people
1 A place where the folks who choose to live in the Bronze Age are ignored & science can operate in an ethical but productive manner.

[bergie321]

12. What do you mean 'coming'?

Why go into science when you can make 10 times as much gambling away people's retirement dreams on Wall Street?

[SkyDaddy7]

29. VERY VERY TRUE!!

I feel like I am living in a nightmare watching what is happening to America!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

8. Diseased Republicans sure do a turnaround, don't they?

I remember when Snarlin' Arlen Specter got cancer, lost his hair, and got cured with some therapies related to stem cells. He mentioned it too, on the Senate floor.

These Repukes sure change their tune when a terminal illness is staring them in the face.

[Bitwit1234]

9. That comes from Bush packing the court with all those

Roberts, Alitios, Scalias and Thomas'.

[happyslug]

15. No, it is Bush and the GOP using the Budget to pass things they wanted

One of the ways to get things passed in Congress when a sizable minority of Congressmen oppose that law being proposed is to attach it to the Budget. The underlying stature is such a law. The downside is such a law must be passed EVERY YEAR or it dies with the end of the Budget Year. Congress has passed the underlying statute every year since 1996, this includes the Democratic Controlled Congress since 2006.

[happyslug]

10. Here is the opinion, This is a Budget Reconciliation law restriction

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44

This case had been DISMISSED on the Plaintiff's lacking standing to bring the action, but that was reversed on the ground they did have standing under the "The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Drs. Sherley and Deisher had standing under the competitor standing doctrine. Sherely v. Sebelius, – F.3d –, 2010 WL 2540358, (D.C. Cir. 2010).

The Court then determined it was bound by a Statute passed by Congress:

"Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibited the use of federal funds for “(1) the
creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human
embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death
greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under” applicable federal regulations.

Thus this is a STATUTORY problem, that Obama apparently tried to work around by Regulation. You can NOT do that.

The sad part of this is this Statute comes through the budget process and has since 1996. What that means is Congress MUST pass it every year along with the rest of the Budget. If NOT passed as part of the Budget, it dies i.e. is NO longer a Statute passed by Congress. Now, several other aspects of the law is passed as part of the Budget process (For example evictions from Public Housing based on activities on or OFF Public Housing property, another Budget included restriction, if NOT passed as part of the Budget the law reverts back to what it was prior to 1996, eviction for actions on or near Public Housing property). The Congress could have killed this statute since the Democrats won control of the House and Senate in 2006, The Democrats have refused NOT to pass these "Budget Reconciliation" bills, thus they remain the law of the land.

P.S. Another statute passed as part of the Budget is the requirement that Food Stamps recipients who are over paid Food Stamps MUST pay them back. Prior to 1996, Food Stamps recipients who were over paid could pay them back, but unless they agreed, did not have to. You can get forgiveness for NOT paying your Taxes, for being overpaid Social Security, being overpaid wages, etc, but if you are overpaid Food Stamps or Welfare, even if it is the Government's fault, you MUST pay it back. Yes, if you have money but the payment to the Government will cause you a severe Hardship, the payment can be forgiven EXCEPT for people on Welfare or Food Stamps.

My point is all three of these problems can be addressed as part of the Budget by just removing them from the Budget. These are NOT statute passed by Congress in the normal course of passing laws, but as part of the Budget and ALL Budgets (and anything passed as part of the Budget) expire with the end of the Budget year.

[dipsydoodle]

13. Can't President Obama use the backdoor

and pay for the research to be conducted in the UK ?

[happyslug]

14. Just remove the restriction from the BUDGET it is easier

Remember the underlying Law being enforced by the Judge is part of the Budget. As part of the Budget it dies each year with the end of the Budget year. Since 1996 Congress has passed this law EVERY YEAR as part of the Budget. Thus all Congress and Obama can do to end this ruling is make sure the Law is NOT included in this year's budget. Congress and Obama has NOT done that.

[fascisthunter]

17. What a Bunch of Idiots These People Are...

just plain fucking stupid and a bit nuts to boot.

[Vehl]

18. if america fails in the future...stuff like this would be the reason

When the rest of the world is rushing headlong into reaping the benefits of such technologies....America is actually doing the reverse!


i just cant believe what i'm seeing.
How the hell can religious fundies keep an entire nation hostage like this!

:mad:

PS:

When i was a kid growing up in south Asia...America stood for science and tech. Everyone wanted to be like America. Now i'm astonished by how much things have changed in but a few years!

the funny part is..some of my friends back in south Asia are appalled when they hear about the debate people here over stuff such as evolution...some even thought i was joking. They would be like "man....are you trying to pull our legs? this cannot be true!"

if only they knew!

[AsahinaKimi]

20. Welcome to DU!

Agree with your sentiment, and cool Sig by the way!

[Vehl]

21. Thank you for the welcome :)

yeah i made the sig cos people always assume that if one is a Hindu he should also be a theist :P

btw, i liked your Tallest Torii article. :)

[AsahinaKimi]

22. Thanks!

My parents are Buddhist Shinto, I have kind of leaned that way...But have made no commitments. I like some of the ideas too of many of the Eastern Religions.. but I try to "keep it real"! See you are in Cali too? San Francisco here!

[Vehl]

24. Thats cool :)

I'm in San Jose! and hating the super hot weather today.lol

my parents are Shaivite Hindus, so i pretty much grew up in a Monistic environment. Its easy for me to be an atheist in the sense that just like buddhism, my version of hinduism does not bother about a divine being.

Shinto is cool...in fact..we also have small kami-shrine like stuff in our place, so i can kinda relate to it....one of my relatives used to teach in a japanese university for a couple of decades, so i know a lil bit about the culture :). And yes..you are correct..most eastern religions have a lot of similarities.sometimes its almost as if the ideas are the same, but only the language differs.

[elleng]

23. Not as simple, or dire, as it may first appear. More facts here:

The suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued the NIH policy violated U.S. law and took funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells. . .

Key to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress adds to budget legislation every year. It bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. . .

Privately funded researchers could do as they pleased, but federal funding is the cornerstone of such basic biological research.

NEW POLICY

As one of his first acts after taking office, Obama overturned that decision and the NIH set up a careful process for deciding which batches of human embryonic stem cells could be used by federally funded researchers.

The new guidelines do not allow the use of federal dollars to create the stem cells but do allow researchers to work with them if they are made by another lab.

Dr. James Sherley of Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of Washington-based AVM Biotechnology, who both work with adult stem cells, filed the original suit {saying the guidelines would harm their work by increasing competition for limited federal funding.} {Plaintiffs argue against the competition enabled by NIH regulations.} They both oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells.

"There is no after-the-fact remedy for this injury because the Court cannot compensate plaintiffs for their lost opportunity to receive funds," Lamberth wrote. . .

He found that the injunction would not seriously harm researchers who focus on human embryonic stem cells because it would preserve the status quo and not interfere with their ability to get private funding.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/23/us/politics/politics-us-stemcells-injunction.html?hp

[Nihil]

28. With a name like that ...

> Key to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, ...

... I'd have thought it had more to do with Viagra funding than embryos ...

:hide:

[elleng]

40. Sounds that way, doesn't it?

Good discussion here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/opinion/25wed1.html?_r=1&hp

[Hawkeye-X]

25. It will be appealed, and then give a big fat slap to the Raygun appointee

and suggest strongly that he fucking retire.

[happyslug]

38. He has been repealed, but was reversed and this is the result

Read the Opinion of the Judge, which I posted above, in it he clearly points out he had DISMISSED this case on a standing issue but that was REVERSED by the Ninth Circuit.

He also points out that the law he must address and follow is passed each year by Congress as part of the Budget Process. In simple terms every Congress since 1996, including the last three Democratic Congresses, have passed the underlying law.

Your anger should NOT be at the Judge, but at Congress for passing the law the Judge MUST follow.

[Canuckistanian]

26. In vitro fertilization ALSO destroys embryonic tissues

In fact, in astronomically larger numbers than stem cell research labs.

Is the judge going to slap an injunction on IVF labs, too?

[Igel]

31. Is IVF paid for by federal funds?

If not, why slap an injunction on the federal government?

After all, the injuction wasn't filed against the labs.

[awoke_in_2003]

27. this country...

is rapidly falling behind the rest of the world in just about every category. We are bringing back the dark ages, when religion ruled all.

[and-justice-for-all]

32. Nice demonstration of ignorance...nt

[happyslug]

37. How is the Judge showing Ignorance? He reads the laws as passed by Congress and is following them.

In my post above I give you a chance to read the actual Opinion of the Judge. He makes it clear he is enforcing the law as written by Congress. Obama can NOT repeal a law by regulation, only Congress can change the law AND in this case it is easy, Congress just has to decide NOT to pass the law.

That sounds stupid, but the law that comes into play is passed as part of the US Budget and as such dies with the Budget (i.e. dies at the end of every Fiscal year). The next year Congress passes a new Budget. Every year since 1996 Congress has included this ban as part of the Budget as opposed to a regular law. Thus each year it must be re-passed. Congress passes it every year since 1996, including the last three years when the Democrats have been in Charge of Congress.

Don;t blame the Judge, he first dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff had no standing to bring the action. He was REVERSED by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals on that issue. He now has to rule on the merits of the action and the action is based on the clear language of the underlying law passed by Congress.

The Judge is just practicing law and showing his knowledge of the law. That is NOT ignorance. The problem is the underlying law, passed each year by Congress AND Congress's refusal to NOT pass it each year.

[Judi Lynn]

34. Scientists attack court ruling against Barack Obama's stem cell policy

Scientists attack court ruling against Barack Obama's stem cell policy
Order blocking government funding of stem cell research is a serious setback in search for cures to diseases, say scientists
Chris McGreal in Washington guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 24 August 2010 19.24 BST

American scientists have reacted with anger at a court ruling that strikes down Barack Obama's decision to greatly expand medical research using stem cells taken from human embryos.

Scientists described the order by a federal judge in Washington, who said that the president had overstepped a law barring the government funding of research in which human embryos are destroyed, as "deplorable" and "a serious setback" in the search for cures to major diseases.

Lawyers for an alliance of Christian groups who brought the case, which tied opposition to experiments on embryonic stem cells to the anti-abortion campaign, said the ruling appeared to go further than restrictions under President George Bush and bar all government funding for such research. It also pushes the ever-contentious issue of abortion to the fore again in the runup to November's mid-term elections and presents Obama with the difficult choice of whether he wants a battle in the courts and in Congress to repeal the legislation.

The court order came after an executive order by Obama in March last year that lifted restrictions put in place by Bush eight years earlier. Those restrictions limited government funding to a small number of existing lines of human embryonic stem cells. The administration had allocated about $250m (£160m) to the research. The National Institutes of Health added an additional 70 lines after Obama's order. But Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the president's decision was in conflict with the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a 1996 law that bars the use of government funds for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed". The law has been renewed by Congress each year.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/24/scientists-attack-stem-cells-ruling

[Odin2005]

35. GOD DAMMIT!

:grr:

[happyslug]

36. Doesn't anyone read here? The Opinion makes it quite clear where the problem lay

And that is with Congress, not this Judge. The Judge actually tried to Dismiss this case (and did dismiss this case on the issue of Standing) but was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (California and the West). Once it was determined that the Plaintiffs had standing, the case was easy, the Plaintiff won for the underlying law is quite clear.

On the other hand that law is passed EVERY YEAR as part of the Budget. That means it can be "repealed" by the simple act of NOT passing it as part of the Budget. See my previous post that included a reference to the actual decision and an explanation of HOW this is the law.