September 7th, 2010
06:18 PM ET
4 years ago

Judge: No delay in ruling blocking stem-cell research funding

Washington (CNN) – A federal judge Tuesday rejected the Obama administration's request to stay his recently imposed injunction against use of public funds in embryonic stem-cell research.

District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said he could not agree to delay his injunction while the case is appealed.

"Defendants (the government) are incorrect about much of their 'parade of horribles' that will supposedly result from this Court's preliminary injunction," Lamberth wrote in his court order.

The "horribles" he referred to are an extensive list of research projects outlined by the National Institutes of Health that will have to be shelved if a stay is not granted.

"Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos," Lamberth said

"In this court's view a stay would flout the will of Congress as this Court understands what Congress has enacted...Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so," Lamberth concluded.

Justice Department lawyers informed Lamberth they intend to appeal his ruling.

The ruling, which had stunned the administration, prevents any further medical research that involves the use of taxpayer dollars to fund projects requiring the destruction of embryos.


Filed under: Stem Cell Research
soundoff (12 Responses)
  1. Hunter of the lib hunter

    Another clueless republican judge. Hey, did you see the Florida wingnut minister who thinks he represents the world's only religion, is headed to ground zero to protest freedom of religion?

    September 7, 2010 06:23 pm at 6:23 pm |
  2. Anonymous

    What happened to the appeals process that delays reversal of law?

    September 7, 2010 06:32 pm at 6:32 pm |
  3. Jeff Brown in Jersey

    Another nutjob judge with an agenda!

    September 7, 2010 06:57 pm at 6:57 pm |
  4. Frank in Valparaiso Indiana

    Nice legislating from the bench. I thought the GOP didn't like that, wanted a strict constructionist. No wait, only when its their agenda.

    Another bought member of the legal system. What else is new.

    Embryos aren't people, neither are corporations. I don't care what the GOP thinks.

    September 7, 2010 06:59 pm at 6:59 pm |
  5. jefflz

    The religious right is again dictating science policy. The vast majority of embryos used are slated for disposal and there is no reason why these materials should not be used to save future lives. Get religion out of government!!

    September 7, 2010 07:07 pm at 7:07 pm |
  6. Julie C

    This is a perfect example of religion getting in the way of science. Let's just make it so those who oppose stem cell research can be denied access to the cures and advances that result. Stopping this research is the true crime here.

    September 7, 2010 07:23 pm at 7:23 pm |
  7. Clwyd

    Just another right wing nut Judge who puts religion ahead of the research and development of treatment that could help and save lives. Embryos are just that! Not fertilized and flushed through a woman's system each month. Disgusting how the right and religion are playing with life! Most of the embryos are going to be destroyed if not used for research!

    September 7, 2010 07:30 pm at 7:30 pm |
  8. Henry Miller, Libertarian, Cary, NC

    Judge Lamberth would no doubt have voted to torture Galileo and likely still thinks the Earth is flat.

    September 7, 2010 07:37 pm at 7:37 pm |
  9. Carl

    So what I don't understand is why this is coming up now. Why wouldn't this have been news during the time of the ruling made years ago under Bush (or maybe before). However, anything funded under Bush should be "Grandfathered" in and thus untouchable. Way to put more people out of work, while stopping progress.

    I think "leftover' embryos should be able to be donated. What about abortions? Why not use those for stem cell research? I really just don't get it. Can we worry about the people that are already alive and struggling??

    September 7, 2010 07:49 pm at 7:49 pm |
  10. Sniffit

    "In this court's view a stay would flout the will of Congress as this Court understands what Congress has enacted...Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so," Lamberth concluded."

    While I disagree with his ruling because I think he misinterprets the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment by applying it too broadly, he was certainly correct that all Congres has to do is not enact it in the next Appropriations Bill. Perhaps this means he hopes we have a GOP Congress after November, perhaps not...personally, I think the only thing you can really read into it is that he was making the "safe" decision. However, certainly means that this issue isn't dead if you get off your butt and vote D. Otherwise, we're looking at at least 6 months of battling over whether a budget even gets passed and the federal government funded...this issue will be right up there with "how much can we defund SS and Medicare/caid?" and "do we really even NEED an environmental protection agency?"

    GOPers: Elect me because I believe my job is to do nothing.

    September 7, 2010 08:21 pm at 8:21 pm |
  11. BJ

    Who is your copy editor? The Judge is probably part of the NEW RIGHT!

    September 7, 2010 08:53 pm at 8:53 pm |
  12. Nunya

    This is a prime example of the right wing legislating from the bench, which is pretty hypocritcal in light of all the complaining they do about the left doing it...

    September 7, 2010 09:06 pm at 9:06 pm |