Yesterday a federal judge placed an injunction on President Obama's new stem cell policy. Thoughts?
Asked by
Dr_Dredd (
10540
)
August 25th, 2010
President Obama expanded stem cell research in 2009 with an executive order. Private money was still needed to actually obtain the embryonic stem cells, but federal money could be used to conduct research, as long as certain other rules were followed. Yesterday, as a result of a lawsuit filed by Nightlight Christian Adoptions, the judge issued the injunction. He wrote, “If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an stem cell research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding.” One of the problems is that this order might make all stem cell research illegal, even under the limited Bush administration regulations.
What does everyone think? Do you agree with the judge? Should the Christian adoption group even have standing to sue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
24 Answers
There are more cells in a fly’s brain than in a blastocyst…....Such ignorance…......I can’t believe these people are supposedly educated leaders.
This was bound to happen. The issue has to get to the Supreme Court somehow.
Infuriates me; that’s all.
Another well-timed, politically motivated nuisance suit brought before a hand-picked judge comfortable with overturning 11 years of established policy
“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 administration needs to appeal this quickly, but so close to an election, it becomes yet another wedge issue for Republicans. How convenient.
Back in 2004, I held a long discussion with my parents about why I wanted them to approve Proposition 71. They both voted yes. I was a happy camper.
It irritates me that when some people hear the phrase “embryonic stem cell research” they grab for the term “embryo” and ignore everything else concerning the topic. We shouldn’t still be arguing about funding this type of research.
It is a combination of ignorance and political maneuvering. .
The timing makes this pure politics. Nothing can be done before the election. Pure grandstanding.
It makes me spitting nails angry for many, many reason.
Stupid. Short-sighted. Political.
He’s a pawn and the Nighlight Christian Adoptions…seriously? I suppose they can do whatever they can legally, given their views…but no federal judge should validate their ideas – they’re out of their league and are too short-sighted to see the benefits and ramifications of stem cell research.
It will go to the Supreme Court. The country and the world has too much to lose.
And what else could possibly happen to those unwanted embryos?
That cellular life without consciousness?
Obama does not need the Christian right. He never had them anyway.
It will cost lives without saving ANY lives. The embryos used in embryonic stem-cell research are ones that were saved for use by fertility clinics but never needed. They cannot be kept forever and if not used in research, will just be uselessly destroyed. Claiming that this ban will save innocent babies is either a moronic lack of understanding or a bald-faced lie.
@ETpro How about both? Why can’t it be both?
@Simone_De_Beauvoir It most likely is both. I just can’t look into the hearts of those opposing the research, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
@ETpro You’re a better man than me.
I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. Most of them are mindless types going for the pie in the sky by blindly following some preacher. Brainless drones, dangerous because they give weight to demagogues.
I’m pleasantly surprised by all the responses. I never understood why people who call themselves pro-life are so adamantly against saving already-born lives.
I did a little more reading on the actual case (Sherley et al v. Sebelius), and it turns out that one of the co-plaintiffs is an adult stem-cell researcher (studies stem cells from bone marrow or umbilical cord). The researcher filed the suit because he was afraid the embryonic stem cell researchers would steal all the funding.
The same judge actually approved a motion to dismiss this case last year, on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. Unfortunately, an appeals court reversed the decision because of the fact that one of the plaintiffs was a competing stem cell researcher. The other co-plaintiffs (including the Christian adoption agency) were still found to have lacked standing.
So, in the end, is this a case about destroying embryos, or a case about money? The more I read, the more I start to wonder…
@Dr_Dredd Today’s appellate and Supreme Court are heavily stacked with picks made by the corporatocracy. If money is involved, it almost always wins. The judges are just selected to find the wording in the Constitution or prior decisions that will justify giving the corporate masters what they want.
Oh man. This just sucks. Whether it’s because of “baby killing” or trying to hog all the research funding, it’s incredibly shallow.
@augustlan & @Dr_Dredd I disagree with thise who think that embryonic stem cell research is murder, but I far more respect their position than that of a doctor who calously disregards the lives that might be saved by the research just so his project gets more funding.
@ETpro No argument from me, either. Unfortunately, the action of the latter just gives the former group more ammunition to use.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
