Federal judge blocks Obama’s stem cell research policy
On Monday, Federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction barring the use of federal money for stem cell research. The ban only applies to the use of federal funds for this research. Private funds can still be used.
What is interesting here is that the court did not rule on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of spending federal money on this type of medical research.
As background, in 2001 then President Bush allowed the use of federal funds for stem cell research in certain limited areas, to wit: already established stem cell lines. Then, in 2009, as one of his first official acts, President Obama greatly expanded upon Bush’s policy by allowing new stem cell lines to be used.
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.
Obama’s policy thus allowed private labs with no federal funding to create stem cells, and once created, other labs using federal funds could use those cells for research.
Here’s the problem. When stem cells are “created” an embryo is destroyed no matter who creates the stem cells. And,
[k]ey to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress adds to budget legislation every year [and which president’s sign every year]. It bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.
The court reasoned that embryonic stem cell research “necessarily depends on the destruction of a human embryo”, and thus, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment applied and precluded the use of federal funds for any such research.
What is notable here is that this ruling confirms the proposition that a president cannot, by executive order or otherwise, overturn a law validly passed by Congress. This is the beauty of our system of checks and balances. Presidential fiats of any sort cannot be used to circumvent federal laws enacted by congress and signed into law by presidents.
10 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Can we get an "Amen"? Heard this news this morning and it brought a smile to my face that a federal judge didn't bow to the great and powerful Obama. He tried sneak around to the side door and was stopped. And in my opinion (in this case) it's not about the research and how it's done, but about upholding an existing law.
It's awesome when our system of checks and balances works like it's supposed to!
And in another related story… The Obama administration "unexpectadly" will fight this ruling.
Go figure!
I don't usually do this, but, your comment "unexpectedly" caused me to respond. I'm still laughing.
Thanks for bringing a smile to my face.
Why, your reply is "unprecedented"!!
GdavidH…pleeeeease tell me you're kidding? If not, I'm just going to go back to bed for the rest of the day.
Holy cow…you weren't kidding…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014579-5…
Why am I continuously surprised by this stuff? Am I really that naive? sheesh…Maybe Obama IS transparent and I'm just clueless. Darnit…and I was all excited that he was finally brought to heel by ANY federal judge. No more enthusiasm from commandoWinnie888. Obama's killed it.
It seems the only thing our DOJ can't deal with in a timely manner are absentee ballots for our troops serving overseas
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/doj-re…
http://politifi.com/news/Getting-Timely-Ballots-t…
This judge is obviously an out-of-control right winger because he did not allow Obama to act extra-legally.
It's funny how Nancy Reagan became a proponent of stem cell research when she had a personal stake in it, that would probably change a lot of peoples views if a loved one was suffering.
And I could list off at least three or four personal friends who have loved ones suffering from various, terrible medical issues who are champions of stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. There is a huge difference, and quite honestly many articles seem to mix and match the terms with such disregard to keep readers confused or misinformed.
In early 2009, we learned embryonic stem cell research is, or may be obsolete. Plus, California spent $3 billion yielding no treatment alternatives at all. Yet, adult stem cell research continues to prove a return. Could adult stem cell funding resources be directed towards embryonic stem cell research for medical or political reasons?