POS judge rules against the fed. funding for stem cell research...

[R13]

A Reagan boy, makes sense, this is awful though. Highly, highly pissed.

Washington (CNN) -- 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.

The ruling by Judge Royce C. Lamberth was a blow to the Obama administration, which last year issued guidelines to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Lamberth's ruling said all embryonic stem cell research involves destroying embryos, which violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment included in federal spending bills.

"The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed," Lamberth's ruling said. "It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the 'piece of research' in which an embryo is destroyed. Thus, if ESC [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."

The field of embryonic stem cells has been highly controversial because the research process involves destroying the embryo, typically four or five days old, after removing stem cells. These cells are then blank and can become any cell in the body.

President Barack Obama signed an executive order in March 2009 that repealed a Bush-era policy limiting federal dollars for human stem cell research. Obama's act permitted the National Institutes of Health to conduct and fund studies on embryonic stem cells.

Some scientists believe embryonic stem cells could help treat many diseases and disabilities, because of their potential to develop into many different cell types in the body.

While some advocates praised the executive order as a giant step forward for medical research, conservatives groups objected, contending that the destruction of human embryos ends human life.

Lamberth was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Judge stops federal funding of embryonic stem cell research - CNN.com

[centennialdawg]

Well, just to let everyone know, I think that the use of stem cells is a science that we should explores to its fullest. It should not be a controversy. If there is a way to possibly save any lives with this knowledge, then we should use it, short of actually cloning a human. Now, that, I will never agree with. But I do think that The Good Lord gave us the knowledge to improve our lives.

[1inStripes]

So the judge is a POS because he accurately ruled on whats in the law books? Maybe you should be mad at those who created that law, not the judge.

[R13]

Who said he accurately ruled? The cells themselves are not embryos and do not fall under that particular amendment IMO, not just the opinion of me, but about 10 years ago it was questions and a the dept. of health and human services. This was carefully put together with all of the guidelines to not violate that amendment, which was to investigate cells and tissues from embryos and not actually creating them and destroying them. A judge, conservative mind you,(makes sense) stretching an amendment to delay research that could lead to countless cures and treatments for people is always a POS. The law could and should be changed so this wouldn't be a problem though. This is a huge setback for just everyone in general, not to mention the scientific world, the US should lead the world in something like this...but religious law has dictated enough to put us behind really everyone in this area.

[1inStripes]

If the cells themselves are not embryos, how do you acquire the cells? If you acquire them, does it, or does it not harm/kill what you receive the cells from?

[R13]

It's really a matter of wording, what you said would be correct if I think, but it was carefully worded and put together to not conflict with the amendment. I really don't think it should apply at all, since they are being donated and informed of what would happen and they agree. I like the analogy of donating your body as human cadaver's to science, there is not "abuse of corpse" because it's donated and agreed on. Not a great comparison nor are they are the same, but it's sort of the same principles when looking at that particular argument(donation).