Theocracy Here We Come: Federal Judge Puts Stem Cell Research on Hold

Posted on August 23, 2010 by bostonboomer

Judge Royce Lamberth


From Reuters:

A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on 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.

Um…human embryos are destroyed during in vitro fertilization too. I wonder if Judge Lamberth realizes that? Does this judge know that embryos are not presently considered to be citizens? This is truly scary.

Let’s see what The New York Times has to say.

The ruling came as a shock to scientists at the National Institutes of Health and at universities across the country, which had viewed the Obama Administration’s new policy and the grants provided under it as settled law. Scientists scrambled Monday evening to assess the ruling’s immediate impact on their work.

“I have had to tell everyone in my lab that when they feed their cells tomorrow morning, they better use media that has not been funded by the federal government,” said Dr. George Q. Daley, director of the stem cell transplantation program at Children’s Hospital Boston, referring to food given cells. “This ruling means an immediate disruption of dozens of labs doing this work since the Obama Administration made its order.”

In his ruling, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that his temporary injunction returns federal policy to the “status quo,” but few officials, scientists or lawyers in the case were sure Monday night what that meant. Dr. Daley was among those who said they believed that it meant that work funded under the new rules had to stop immediately; others said that it meant that the health institutes had to use Bush Administration rules to fund future grants.

Wouldn’t this ruling also outlaw abortions? I don’t see how this can stand, but for now it means that no more stem cell research can be funded.

Who is Judge Royce Lamberth? According to Mother Jones, Lamberth was “a Clinton-basher on a par with Independent Counsel Ken Starr.”

In 1993, the Reagan appointee fined Ira Magaziner nearly $300,000 for lying in court about the makeup of Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. Lamberth allowed Judicial Watch bulldog Larry Klayman to depose scores of White House staffers in lawsuits most judges would have quickly dismissed. In one of those suits, the judge accused President Clinton of criminal behavior and asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate the president’s alleged violation of the Privacy Act. And in 1999, he fined former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin more than $600,000 and found them in contempt of court in a lawsuit filed by Native Americans over a trust fund held by the Interior Department.

UPDATE: Daniel Dayen at FDL has a good post on the decision. (I admit I’m completely ignorant of the legal issues involved.) Dayen writes:

Adult stem cell researchers filed the suit back in June against the Obama Administration’s executive order on stem cell policy, allowing for federal funding. President George W. Bush banned most stem cell funding except on existing stem cell lines in August 2001.

Judge Royce Lamberth already blocked a similar suit on the grounds that embryos lacked standing to sue “because they are not persons under the law.” This set of adult stem researchers sued on the grounds that they would have to compete for limited funds…

I’ll continue to update this post as I learn more.

Filed under: General

« »

78 Responses

  1. bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 8:08 pm said:

    What is happening to this country?

    • jawbone, on August 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm said:

      We have Congress Critters of both parties who are unable to deal with reality and feel they must kowtow to religious fundies and others who hold embryos to be living human beings.

      We have dumb as rocks people and pols.

      However, the law apparently can be interpreted as Lamberth did. It’s the lawmakers who screwed up. Big time, as Cheney used to say.

  2. Wonk the Vote, on August 23, 2010 at 8:13 pm said:

    ugh this was the one good thing under Obama.

    • bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 8:20 pm said:

      I think this is frightening. His reason is because it “destroys embryos?” Good grief.

      • bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 8:21 pm said:

        All of the anti-abortion websites are going nuts cheering this ruling.

      • Seriously, on August 23, 2010 at 8:22 pm said:

        It reminds me of Mitty Boy and the snowflake babies, remember that?

        • bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 8:33 pm said:

          Guess what? The snowflake babies group brought this lawsuit.

          Monday’s ruling involved a lawsuit against the National Health Institute filed by researchers opposed to use of embryonic stem cells, a group that seeks adoptive parents for human embryos created through in vitro fertilization, the non-profit Christian Medical Association and others.

          • Seriously, on August 23, 2010 at 8:58 pm said:

            Of course they did. Every single day, things just get weirder. How about we ask if we can adopt the embryos, we’re clear up front that we’re not going to give birth to them but we’ll cherish them anyway, we show up at the hearing with tiny embryo snowflake motif sweaters knitted lovingly with our own hands, and then once the adoption is finalized, we foster them with the NIS instead of the Frigidaire? Is that legal?

          • bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 9:06 pm said:

            How about if some gay couples volunteer to adopt the embryos? I wonder how the “Christians” would react?

          • Seriously, on August 24, 2010 at 1:38 am said:

            Probably like Catholic Charities did when they thought they’d have to comply with civil rights for gays. They threatened to refuse to place any more kids.

        • jawbone, on August 24, 2010 at 12:46 pm said:

          I thought it was BushBoy who had the announcement with all the Snowflake baby parents.

          Mitty is Romney, right? Did he do the same thing?

    • SHV, on August 23, 2010 at 8:43 pm said:

      It was just another scam by Obama and the Dems. He/they allowed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to go with the legislation. Just as cynical as the Obama exec. order limiting reproductive choice. He hasn’t done one good thing that I can think of.

      • Wonk the Vote, on August 23, 2010 at 9:01 pm said:

        my understanding was that while the Dickey-Wicker amendment still prevents researchers from creating their own stem cell lines, Obama’s executive order opened up the way for Congress to repeal Dickey-Wicker…

        NYT, March 2009:

        The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury.

        At first, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer-financed embryonic stem cell research, because embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them. But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos — so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.

        On Monday, Mr. Obama will throw open the door much farther with an executive order that will “make clear that the government intends to support” human embryonic stem cell research, said Harold Varmus, the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who advises Mr. Obama on science matters.

        To the delight of patients’ groups and scientists, the order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded.

        The order comes just in time for researchers to take advantage of money in Mr. Obama’s economic recovery package and use it for stem cell studies. But because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, federal researchers would still be unable to create their own stem cell lines.

        Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it. Mr. Obama has not taken a position on the ban and does not intend to, Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser, said Sunday. The president believes stem cell research “should be done in compliance with federal law,” she said, adding that Mr. Obama recognizes the divisiveness of the issue. “We are committed to pursuing stem cell research quite responsibly but we recognize there are a range of beliefs on this,” she said.

  3. bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 8:19 pm said:

    I’m not going to link to it, but at Red State they are saying that “Obama’s love of abortion and infanticide just took a hit.” You can google it if you don’t mind getting sick to your stomach.

  4. Seriously, on August 23, 2010 at 8:20 pm said:

    That’s okay. All we have to do is recind the law banning federal funds from being used to destroy human embryos. With both houses of Congress plus the WH, this will be a slam dunk.

  5. Adrienne in CA, on August 23, 2010 at 8:58 pm said:

    I say Bring It. Let’s settle the question once and for all of whether embryos have human rights. Apparently every entity does, except actual humans. Just decide already and take the consequences.

    *****A

    • bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm said:

      I just updated the post. The group that brought the suit claimed they had standing because they are competing for federal funds for adult stem cell research. The judge had previously said embryos didn’t have standing because they are not persons under the law.

    • bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm said:

      I think you mean female humans, right?

  6. dakinikat, on August 23, 2010 at 9:29 pm said:

    This is another issue that really shouldn’t be an issue. Why can’t we just dump the iron age mythologies now?

  7. RalphB, on August 23, 2010 at 10:05 pm said:

    Unfortunately judges rule on the cases in front of them based on current law. The relevant question is why hasn’t Congress and the Administration overturned Dickey-Wicker?

    Once the judge accepted the suit, this was a done deal. Save for the all too occasional surprise, Lambeth has been a reliable right wing judge since he was appointed. That didn’t change because Obama was elected. Of course, virtually nothing changed because Obama was elected.

    • bostonboomer, on August 23, 2010 at 10:07 pm said:

      The only thing that changed was the occupants of the WH, I guess.

    • RalphB, on August 23, 2010 at 10:18 pm said:

      I think I’m just going to have to join TheRock.

      Asshats,

      Hillary 2012

    • Mary, on August 24, 2010 at 8:02 am said:

      Agree, Ralph.

      It’s just another example of The One’s sloppiness in covering all their bases (like not knowing about the Jones Act for the oil spill).

      Why HASN’T Congress and the Administration overturned Dickey-Wicker? Why didn’t they know it was there and needed to be overturned?

      Basically, the judge had no other choice, given the law’s existence. Doesn’t matter what his own beliefs are.

      This can be fixed, if the Democratic Congress passes legislation rescinding Dickey-Wicker.

      The question will be whether they WANT to, and if not, why not?

      • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 8:36 am said:

        While the Dems are duplicitous and should have already repealed Dickey-Wicker, I think Lamberth’s decision can be challenged. His ruling is even halting the embryonic stem cell lines approved under Bush.

        • Mary, on August 24, 2010 at 11:12 am said:

          Some facts: NIH spent $200 million on non-embryonic stem cell research.

          Only $38 million has been spent on embryonic research.

          Ergo, non-embryonic will continue unabated.

          Congress can FIX the issue with embryonic, if they have the guts.

          It’s not Lamberth’s mistake. It’s Congress’s.

          • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 11:46 am said:

            it’s possibly both their mistakes imho. Lamberth’s ruling that “all embryonic stem cell research destroys embryos” sounds iffy to me, but Congress needs to repeal Dickey-Wicker regardless.

          • Mary, on August 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm said:

            No. It’s Congress’s responsibility to fix it, now.

            Period.

          • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm said:

            I don’t accept that it can only be either the Dems/Obama at fault or the other side’s in every situation. Most of the time it seems like both sides fault.

            USA Today:

            Expect the Obama administration to appeal a judge’s decision that blocks federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

            “From what we can tell, this would also stop the research that President (George W.) Bush had allowed to go forward early in his presidency,” White House spokesman Bill Burton said. “So we’re exploring all possible avenues to make sure that we can continue to do this critical lifesaving research.”


            David Dyden at FDL            :

            Those policy options simply could include fighting it out in court and appealing up the ladder, or they could choose to handle the problem legislatively. As Christina Bellantoni explains, Lamberth said that the new guidelines on funding from President Obama in 2009, and potentially the original guidelines from President Bush in 2001, violates the Dickey-Wicker amendment (and if Jon Stewart does a segment on this, expect “Dickey-Wicker” to be said many times over). The 1996 amendment bans all federal funding for research that destroys human embryos. Both Bush and Obama got around this in the past by essentially segregating the funding for research that destroys the embryos and research that uses the stem cell lines after the destruction.

            The White House could write new rules making the funding segregation more explicit. But they also could apply a fix legislatively. Dickey-Wicker gets renewed every year through appropriations bills, and they could write into the amendment a change that would satisfy the judge’s ruling. They could write the statute to reflect that the ban intends to block funding simply for the discrete destruction of embryos (embryos which would otherwise get flushed down a toilet, I should note).

            [...]

            Congress passed a bill allowing for federal funding for stem cell research in 2007, but President Bush vetoed it. The public has supported such life-saving research for many years. There’s no reason Congress can’t fix the statute.

  8. RalphB, on August 23, 2010 at 10:26 pm said:

    at Red State they are saying that “Obama’s love of abortion and infanticide just took a hit.”

    The old saying that “what you see depends upon where you stand” apparently still holds true. Even so, darned if I know how anyone could come up with that opinion. Guess that means I stand in a much different place ;-)

    • Wonk the Vote, on August 23, 2010 at 11:12 pm said:

      Since Obama has always been flim flam on woman’s rights, always going where the path of least resistance was on the issue of abortion depending on who his audience was, where he was at in his career, and what was most politically expedient for him at the time…………. he can defend himself against the attacks from the rightwing (the same rightwing which he himself is so fond of catering his positions to)

      Since our rights are actually just bargaining chips to Obama and not “real rights,” it’s all the same. Obama’s real love is keeping the issue of abortion in limbo as it serves the purposes of oligarchy.

  9. boogieman7167, on August 23, 2010 at 11:32 pm said:

    agree now it looks like corporations and embryos have more rights then real humans. wait what if there gay or lesbian embryos. do they still have the same rights??

  10. Angelasmith, on August 23, 2010 at 11:35 pm said:

    The Judge’s tie. Am I right? Hitchcock’s Vertigo?

  11. me, on August 23, 2010 at 11:41 pm said:

    Can you guys acknowledge that adult stem cells are valuable in searching for cures to disease? Is this really a step towars theocracy? I’m not trying to troll honest. I just want to understand.

  12. DandyTiger, on August 23, 2010 at 11:49 pm said:

    I think embryos only have these rights because there is a chance that they could be male. If they could tell the difference, you’d probably have half of them you could use.

    • Seriously, on August 23, 2010 at 11:54 pm said:

      You gotta go through the subhumans to get to the humans.

    • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 12:19 am said:

      well female embryos are future incubators, so they get personhood until they become an actual human. Goodness forbid they refuse to carry a pregnancy to term someday, gotta keep those non-embryonic wimmenz in line.

      The “culture of (selective) life” is about power and control more than anything else.

  13. Angelasmith, on August 24, 2010 at 12:11 am said:

    Test

  14. GAgal, on August 24, 2010 at 12:13 am said:

    The right wing thinks OReagan is pro choice because he voted “for” late term abortion. Which he didn’t. After pontificating and waffling as usual, he voted Present. As usual. Kinda like some of the left thought he was anti-war because he voted “against it”.

    • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 12:20 am said:

      Kinda like some of the left thought he was anti-war because he voted “against it”.

      Shouldn’t ‘voted’ be in quotes? ;)

      • GAgal, on August 24, 2010 at 2:31 am said:

        Thanks “punctuation” police. I’ll be sure to wear sniff my underarms and check my deodorant too, before I comment again. Will that be okay with you and miq2xu?

        • Seriously, on August 24, 2010 at 2:45 am said:

          WTF? Wonk wasn’t correcting your punctuation, she was just making a joke about O’s voting habits. And it also wasn’t myiq playing punctuation police, that was some other guy who jumped all over DT for some stupid error. Jeebus.

        • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 2:46 am said:

          GAgal, that was a dig at Obama for not even voting in the first place, that wasn’t a dig at your punctuation at all.

          • Pilgrim, on August 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm said:

            That’s the way I read you, because, I thought, he didn’t vote on Iraq war because he wasn’t in the Senate when that vote was taken.

            He just went around making speeches about how he would vote, and of course knocking Hillary.

            He waffles all over the place about anything and everything. Says one thing today, contradicts it tomorrow (e.g. Islamic Centre).

            I can’t stand him.

          • gxm17, on August 24, 2010 at 12:28 pm said:

            That’s how I read it too, Pilgrim. It seemed pretty clear to me.

            Back in 2008, I loved reminded people that only ONE candidate voted against the war: And her name is Cynthia McKinney.

  15. Angelasmith, on August 24, 2010 at 12:16 am said:

    I’m thinking that Judge’s tie looks like a backdrop from Hitchcock’s Vertigo.

    • Seriously, on August 24, 2010 at 1:35 am said:

      They kind of look like doughnuts. That’s the way to be taken seriously in the judiciary.

  16. Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 1:39 am said:

    California Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s statement:

    SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — The leadership of CIRM, the state stem cell agency, deplores the decision of U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to freeze federal funding of all human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. This decision will disrupt the advances that are happening across the country to bring hESC-based therapies to patients in need.

    Under this decision, even research using on the hESC lines approved by President George W. Bush will be halted.

    However, CIRM will continue to fund research on all hESC lines recognized by the Bush administration as well as newer lines approved by the National Institutes of Health during the past eight months. This points to the importance of CIRM’s California model of sustained funding in this field that promises to create thousands of jobs in California as well as improved therapies for patients in Californian and around the world.

    With federal funding uncertain, CIRM will continue providing a stable source of funding for those researchers who have committed their labs to pursuing new therapies based on work with human embryonic stem cells. Through this ongoing funding, CIRM expects to be able to continue to leverage California’s investment through its Collaborative Funding Partners, grant-making agencies in seven countries and Maryland and New York.

    “The decision is a deplorable brake on all stem cell research,” said CIRM president Alan Trounson. “Many discoveries with other cell types, notably the so-called reprogrammed iPS cells, would not happen without ongoing research in human embryonic stem cells. This decision leaves CIRM as the most significant source of funding for human embryonic stem cells in the U.S.

    Pioneering work on four “Disease Teams” CIRM funded last fall using hESC lines will not be interrupted by this court order. Each of those teams is working within a time commitment to file for permission to begin a clinical trial within four years. Those four teams provide hope for patients with stroke, type1 diabetes, age-related macular degeneration (blindness), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease). It is critical for the millions of patients suffering from these diseases, along with paralysis and other areas under development with hESCs, that this research not be delayed.

    “It would be immoral to unnecessarily delay the critical medical research that is vital for human embryonic stem cell therapies to reach patients suffering from chronic disease and injury,” said Robert Klein, chairman of the CIRM governing board. “We must remember that the microscopic cells used for this research would otherwise be thrown away by in vitro fertilization clinics, by couples that had finished their family planning.”

    CIRM will also continue to fund research with other types of stem cells, particularly progenitor cells that can create many cell types and other pluripotent cells such as induced Pluripotent Stem cells (iPS cells). However, it is important to note that work in all these cells types requires insights gained through work with hESCs to proceed with maximum efficiency. hESC research informs the entire field.

    About CIRM CIRM was established in November 2004 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The statewide ballot measure, which provided $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions, was overwhelmingly approved by voters, and called for the establishment of an entity to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other vital research opportunities. To date, the CIRM governing board has approved 364 research, training and facility grants totaling more than $1 billion, making CIRM the largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the world. Estimates suggest that these grants already awarded will generate tens of thousands of job-years of employment in the state.

    Contact:
    Don Gibbons
    dgibbons@cirm.ca.gov
    (415) 396-9117

  17. janicen, on August 24, 2010 at 4:35 am said:

    Well, I’m sure we’ll be hearing quite a bit from our friends on the right complaining about “activist judges”. (snark)

  18. bandit, on August 24, 2010 at 9:09 am said:

    You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the words you’re using. The law needs to be changed. What does that have to do with theocracy?

    • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 10:37 am said:

      Look into the group that filed the lawsuit, CMDA. Guess what the C stands for.

      • Mary, on August 24, 2010 at 11:15 am said:

        Doesn’t matter who filed the lawsuit.

        The judge had no other choice.

        Congress and the Obama administratio can fix it if they want to.

        How bout a left-wing petition urging them to do so?

        • Wonk the Vote, on August 24, 2010 at 11:32 am said:

          I was responding to the commenter asking why the word theocracy was in the title. I do think it is germane to the discussion here to discuss who brought the suit.

          • Pilgrim, on August 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm said:

            I think theocracy is definitely something to be very concerned about, not just on this topic, but many others.

            And Obama’s no help.

            He has this Rev. Joshua DuBois as his head personal clergyman. Rev. DuBois is clergy in Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) church.

            As always, he has it both ways. He’s never goes to church, but he’s very religious.

          • Mary, on August 24, 2010 at 1:06 pm said:

            Aw Jesus. A frikkin Pentecostal is advising the President spiritually?

            THERE’s the theocracy you should worry about.

            Ugh.

          • Pilgrim, on August 24, 2010 at 2:47 pm said:

            Mary, I agree.

          • Pilgrim, on August 24, 2010 at 2:55 pm said:

            But I also agree about CMDA. Look it up:

            Mission: to glorify God by motivating, educating and equipping Christian doctors……

            I’m a Christian myself, and I do go to church, but I strongly believe in separation of church and state

            and these folks are doing all in their power to bring them together in an unwholesome way, with state taking orders from religious outfits

            They (fundamentalists, etc.) even have a name for their movement–”dominionism”, meaning they will have dominion/rule. Read up on it. It’s frightening, and very real.

          • Pilgrim, on August 24, 2010 at 6:40 pm said:

            “Not every conspiracy is a theory.”

  19. Pilgrim, on August 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm said:

    Pentecostal church is pretty right-wing, by the way.

  20. tle, on August 24, 2010 at 12:18 pm said:

    When I heard this story on NPR this morning, the standout point was the deal about “competing for the same funds.” This isn’t about anything but money. Since Bush II started funding religion (or at least certain religions) out of taxpayer funds, they are all crawling over each other to get their own cut. The moral superiority is just a front for the benefit of the folks who can’t pay the rent but can always come up with something for the collection plate.

    And while I know it’s not a good thing to snicker at people’s names — Dickey-Wicker? Really unfortunate combination of sponsors for this, or any other, amendment.. Actually, really unfortunate that either of these guys was able to hold public office.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 256 other followers