Fundamentalist activist loon susepnds federally funded embroyonic stem cell research

[Gish08]

Judge Suspends Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Research - ABC News

ABC News
Court Suspends Federally Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Ruling Undermines Obama Administration Effort to Expand Research of Controversial Cells
By DEVIN DWYER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23, 2010—

A judge today halted federally funded research of human embryonic stem cells, which had been approved under guidelines issued by President Obama shortly after his inauguration.

The temporary injunction, approved by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, takes effect as two Christian doctors, who work exclusively with adult stem cells, ask a court to rule that the government's funding for research involving embryonic stem cells is against the law.

The Justice Department said it is "reviewing the judge's ruling."

At the heart of the legal battle is a law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits federally funded research in which a human embryo is "destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subject to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed under applicable regulations."

The measure has been attached to every appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1996. The department oversees the federal government's primary health research arm, the National Institutes of Health.

The plaintiffs, part of the nonprofit group Nightlight Christian Adoptions, have argued working with embryonic stem cells by nature depends upon the destruction of an embryo, and that the new guidelines therefore violate the law.

"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," Lamberth wrote.

"Because ESC research requires the derivation of ESCs, ESC research is research in which an embryo is destroyed," the judge wrote. "Accordingly, the Court concludes that, by allowing federal funding of ESC research, the Guidelines are in violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."

Stem cell research is widely believed to have the potential to significantly advance treatment of human diseases and disabilities. There are three different types of stem cells, but only one type -- embryonic -- requires the controversial destruction of a human embryo.

President George W. Bush banned federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in 2001, citing "moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryonic stem cell research. Even the most noble ends don't justify the means."

But President Obama reversed the policy by executive order in March 2009, saying federal agencies "may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem research, to the extent permitted by law.

"In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," he said. "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."

Appeals Court to Hear Stem Cell Case

The National Institutes of Health have since allowed for "funding for research using human embryonic stem cells that were derived from human embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for that purpose."

Nearly six in 10 Americans support loosening restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. Proponents of stem cell research say Obama's order is a promising sign that progress can be made after a more-than-eight-year stalemate, while others say it is only a tiny step. Anti-abortion groups say the research is unethical and unreliable.

Lamberth had originally dismissed the case, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the government. An appeals court reversed that decision, agreeing to hear the case and forcing Lamberth to reconsider a request to issue a temporary injunction.

ABC News' Jason Ryan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

Yet another huge step backwards that will leave the US in the dust compared to emerging countries in the next few decades.

Tell me, how can anyone here who may support this decision justify it? Some argue it will promote more adoptions -- this is the among the most asinine logic I've ever heard.

Leave it to some fundamentalist fuck from the South to force us back into the dark ages.

[redbreegull]

Won't Obama just appeal

[Gish08]

Maybe, but we all know how this movie ends.

[Future Boy]

why is he an activist loon.

[bahnzah]

Because gish08 is posting about it

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Gish08

Judge Suspends Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Research - ABC News

Yet another huge step backwards that will leave the US in the dust compared to emerging countries in the next few decades.

Tell me, how can anyone here who may support this decision justify it? Some argue it will promote more adoptions -- this is the among the most asinine logic I've ever heard.

Leave it to some fundamentalist fuck from the South to force us back into the dark ages.

I don't really oppose embryonic stem cell research, but it doesn't seem like there's anything thing fundamentally wrong with the opinion. It looks like Congress passed into law that the government can't fund research that destroys embryos, and so any guidelines Obama puts in place that destroys embryos violates that. Really, this couldn't be much more straightforward. Congress made a questionable law, and the judge applied it exactly like he was supposed to. It really was the only way he could rule.

And I'm not sure where this "fundamentalist" stuff is coming from.

[Eulogy]

you don't really oppose it?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

you don't really oppose it?

That's what I said. I'm not especially comfortable with the idea of destroying embryos, but balanced against all other considerations it does not make me uncomfortable enough to think it shouldn't be allowed if it's necessary for research.

[Eulogy]

The NYT editorial today seems to contradict Corganist pretty soundly.

[redbull]

jew york time$$$

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

The NYT editorial today seems to contradict Corganist pretty soundly.

Not really. It doesn't say that the judge's interpretation of Dickey-Wicker is wrong in any way, shape, or form. The argument is basically "previous administrations interpreted the law loosely, Congress didn't seem to care, so the courts shouldn't either." But that's not a legal argument. That's a "everybody should just look the other way" argument.

The language of the amendment is pretty unambiguous. It doesn't make exceptions dependent upon what point in the research the funding comes in. It says that it doesn't fund research where embryos are destroyed, period. I think it is a clearly viable interpretation to take that to mean research that requires destruction of embryos at any point in the process is banned from funding. Besides, does it not seem like a pretty big cop out to say "Well, we can't fund you if you destroy embryos to get your stem cells...but if you just happen to find your own embryonic stem cells laying around somewhere, we'll just pretend that the destruction of embryos played no part in your research"? Come on.

It'd be much easier to just get Congress to clarify the law than to try and tackle this through the judicial system.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

It'd be much easier to just get Congress to clarify the law than to try and tackle this through the judicial system.

......what?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

......what?

Maybe I (once again) place too much faith in the courts in thinking that a straightforward law like this will continue to be applied in a straightforward way when higher courts get a hold of it. Maybe it would be technically "easier" if some judge or handful of judges just decide to do whatever the hell they want, law be damned. But the easiest way to solve this problem in a way that's legal and right is to just get Congress to repeal or revise the amendment.

[Eulogy]

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.

Your spin is not gospel. It's most certainly not an "unambiguous" prohibition on any research that involves embryos that were derived using private funds. But that's what you want it to be, so feel free to paint anyone who disagrees with you as "judges doing whatever the hell they want, the law be damned!" It sounds more dramatic that way.

[Eulogy]

additonally, when was the last thing with even a whiff of controversy went through congress quickly and/or easily? are you out of your mind?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Your spin is not gospel. It's most certainly not an "unambiguous" prohibition on any research that involves embryos that were derived using private funds. But that's what you want it to be, so feel free to paint anyone who disagrees with you as "judges doing whatever the hell they want, the law be damned!" It sounds more dramatic that way.

Again, nothing in that article does anything to discredit or even dispute the judge's interpretation of the law. It doesn't matter if previous administrations tried to get around the law or if Congress let them do it. That has nothing to do with what the law actually says and what it actually means, and that's all the courts are allowed to deal with.

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 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 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

Please, point out the ambiguity in this provision that clearly proves this judge was off base. Do you really think that it is a legally untenable position that any research that uses embryonic stem cells by its very nature is research "in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death"? I don't think you really believe that.

[Eulogy]

This applies to publicly funded research. If the embryos are derived via privately funded research, then the resulting stem cells should be, based on the law you quote, able to be used in publicly funded research.

[Eulogy]

The law does not say "research that uses stem cells that came about as the result of embryo destruction."

To claim that the law is "unambiguous" is idiotic, and yes, untenable.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

additonally, when was the last thing with even a whiff of controversy went through congress quickly and/or easily? are you out of your mind?

Never said it'd be quick or easy. I just said it'd be easier than trying to get the courts to somehow invalidate the law through some weird extralegal gymnastics.

[Eulogy]

i mean if one side can make the "unambiguous" argument, it's mine.

The research that the judge barred does not destroy embryos. Period.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

This applies to publicly funded research. If the embryos are derived via privately funded research, then the resulting stem cells should be, based on the law you quote, able to be used in publicly funded research.

The law says nothing at all about how the embryos are derived.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

The law does not say "research that uses stem cells that came about as the result of embryo destruction."

Explain how that is different than "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Embryonic stem cells by their very nature require embryos to be destroyed or discarded to make them, do they not? And you can't seriously expect the intent of the law to have been to allow the government to say "Oh, you have embryonic stem cells to research? Well, we have no way of knowing if embryos were destroyed in making those cells, so here's your check!" That's a preposterous reading of the law, and you know it. Again, the way the law reads it suggests strongly that research where embryo destruction comes in at any point is off limits for funding. There are no exceptions for when the embryos were destroyed or for merely using the byproducts of said destruction.

To claim that the law is "unambiguous" is idiotic, and yes, untenable.

*sigh*

You just really can't get your head out of your ass long enough to realize that the law can't always reflect your precious little worldview, can you? Look, I don't like that there's a law holding back stem cell research any more than you do, but you can't pretend that it's not a real obstacle to be dealt with just because you don't like it. The law is legit. The judge's interpretation is solid. The only answer is to change the law.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

The law says nothing at all about how the embryos are derived.

So if they're derived using private funding, then the resulting stem cells cannot be controlled by this law. You dolt.

Explain how that is different than "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Embryonic stem cells by their very nature require embryos to be destroyed or discarded to make them, do they not? And you can't seriously expect the intent of the law to have been to allow the government to say "Oh, you have embryonic stem cells to research? Well, we have no way of knowing if embryos were destroyed in making those cells, so here's your check!" That's a preposterous reading of the law, and you know it. Again, the way the law reads it suggests strongly that research where embryo destruction comes in at any point is off limits for funding. There are no exceptions for when the embryos were destroyed or for merely using the byproducts of said destruction.

"Research using stem cells that resulted from privately funded derivation [that entails embryo destruction]" =/= "Research in which embryos are destroyed."

I'm not making that up. It's right fucking there. And I think it's so goddamn rich that this comes from the guy who said that "finding loopholes in laws is a way of showing respect for them."

This judge didn't close a loophole. He made a decision based on his personal politics to disregard what the law actually says.

*sigh*

You just really can't get your head out of your ass long enough to realize that the law can't always reflect your precious little worldview, can you? Look, I don't like that there's a law holding back stem cell research any more than you do, but you can't pretend that it's not a real obstacle to be dealt with just because you don't like it. The law is legit. The judge's interpretation is solid. The only answer is to change the law.

You haven't explained why I'm wrong except for saying "that clear difference in language clearly doesn't mean anything! Get your head out of your ass!"

You have an embryo. Private funds lead to its derivation and destruction. Then you have stem cells. Just stem cells. Not embryos. That law has no bearing on whether or not public funds can be used for the motherfucking stem cells.

[Eulogy]

also lol at how the judge can rule that a law unambiguously prohibits something that didn't even exist when the law was written.

[Eulogy]

*SIGH*

[Eulogy]

Walker's ruling is full of holes and worthless. This guy's though? Iron-clad! Who cares if it completely disregards the actual language in the existing law!

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

So if they're derived using private funding, then the resulting stem cells cannot be controlled by this law. You dolt.

So the embryos were being destroyed just for the hell of it, and then someone else comes along and says "Oh hey look! Stem cells! Mind if we borrow those?"

If you're destroying embryos for stem cell research, and the government comes in and funds you halfway into the process (between the derivation of the stem cell line and the research on the cells themselves), your "research" (which has destroyed embryos) has not changed. The derivation of the stem cells is part and parcel of the research. There's absolutely nothing in the language of the law itself that gives rise to any ability to compartmentalize the research in the way that you're doing. The law says "research," period, regardless of who is funding it at what time.

"Research using stem cells that resulted from privately funded derivation [that entails embryo destruction]" =/= "Research in which embryos are destroyed."

I'm not making that up. It's right fucking there.

Again, there's nothing in the language of the law that makes any distinction whatsoever between the two. If there is, point it out to me.

And I think it's so goddamn rich that this comes from the guy who said that "finding loopholes in laws is a way of showing respect for them."

This judge didn't close a loophole. He made a decision based on his personal politics to disregard what the law actually says.

You're right that the judge did not close a loophole. There's no loophole there. As it is, the law is general and expansive enough (too much so, IMO) to completely cover this ridiculous distinction you're struggling to make. There's just nothing there to support you. All Congress has to do is say "research on stem cells is cool" and it wouldn't be an issue, but as the law stands now there's just nothing that can justify that interpretation.

You haven't explained why I'm wrong except for saying "that clear difference in language clearly doesn't mean anything! Get your head out of your ass!"

You have an embryo. Private funds lead to its derivation and destruction. Then you have stem cells. Just stem cells. Not embryos. That law has no bearing on whether or not public funds can be used for the motherfucking stem cells.

You're smarter than this. (Aren't you?) You can't seriously believe that when scientists derive a stem cell line that it is completely different research than the research on the cells themselves. It's all part of the same whole as far as the law is concerned. That's why Congress has to step in and clarify.

Considering that what we're talking about is an amendment that gets routinely tucked away in big appropriations bills, it's likely most congressmen didn't even know this thing was in effect. Now that it's had light shone on it, I'd imagine it'll at least get debated a little before it ends up in the fine print of another bill.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Walker's ruling is full of holes and worthless. This guy's though? Iron-clad! Who cares if it completely disregards the actual language in the existing law!

I never said it was ironclad. I'm not sure that his rationale that the preliminary injunction was necessary holds water. I'm not sure the plaintiffs really were going to suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction wasn't granted. But that doesn't mean that the judge was wrong on his assertion that the plaintiffs have a good chance of succeeding on the merits, and no one seems to want to show otherwise.

[Eulogy]

I can't believe you're still trying to act as though I'm struggling to make a distinction that is right there in black and white.

Each step of the research process very likely receives different funding from different places. If the federal funds don't go toward destroying the embryos (hint: they don't), then this doesn't apply, and the judge is wrong.

I'd say that I think you're smarter than this, but that would be a lie.

[Eulogy]

he wasn't wrong in saying it's "unambiguous?" can you at the very fucking least admit that?

[Eulogy]

i mean if the intent of the law was to disallow this kind of funding, why doesn't it say "research in which embryos are destroyed or research that uses destroyed embryos that were destroyed for research purposes?"

You're going to tell me that the people who drafted this couldn't see this kind of thing coming if that's what they were aiming for? They didn't know that someone could privately fund the destruction and then hand the cells off so researchers could receive public funding?????

seriously?