To begin with the government has no right to interfer with medical research with goals to save lives and cure disesases.
This case is one of the most hideous cases of all times and it isn't being argued correctly. The injunction needs to be challenged and overturned.
This is the National Institutes of Health and to conceive of the 'idea' that a federal judge can shut down this institutions right to conduct benevolent research without a full hearing is outrageous. Who the hell does this judge think he is?
Medical research is vital to the populous of the USA. Genetic Research is absolutely no different and Dr. Sherley is in violation of 'conflict of interest.' He is attempting to develop a market in adult stem cell research which he the only research he conducts. It doesn't end there.
The USA passes on constitutional rights to a citizen after the person is born. There is NO 'in utero' rights of a fetus until that point. There is no BIRTH certificate issued until a live birth is realized. Although partial birth abortion has sustained the Supreme Court challenge is its because the fetus is a legal citizen, it was granted on humanitarian grounds and the 'idea' the fetus could feel pain.
Embryos have no rights and this decision and legislation treats them as if they do. They don't. The law is unconstitutional. Abortion is allowed in the USA until the third month of pregnancy. End of discussion. Embryos can be 'treated specially' IF the donor had made that arrangement ahead of time, but, for an embryo that is not wanted by the donor is then committed to research that is all that is necessary. IN THE USA, poeple can donate organs for transplants and embryos can be donated for research as well. The law as it stands today is a double standard and is completely hideous.
Embryos have no constitutional rights, they are not a viable life in any way, shape or form. It is a reasonable 'act' for a person to donate embryos for research and the law is standing in the way of that vital function of any professional medical research.
It is NOT the role of the USA government to make sure there is adequate supply of embryos for a BUSINESS that is predatory upon women. If a couple wants to have donated embryos for uterine transplant for the purpose of having a child they need to seek out a surrogate for embryonic in vitro fertilization. There are many women that donate embryos to couples for this purpose alone, no different than a 'sperm bank.'
This is an outrage and the litigation caters to the Plutocracy while inhibiting the research needed by the MAJORITY of Americans. And to think a judge would actually shut down a federal medical research agency without a full and competent hearing is not only incompetent, it is a vile and hostile act against the citizens of the USA. The judge is a complete idiot. He can't see this case for the thinly veiled COMMERCE issue, then he needs to be examined in his practice and determine his competency to continue his judical rulings.
Date published:
(08 July 2010)
...Last August, several Christian groups joined forces with two scientists to file a lawsuit against the US Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The lawsuit charged that the Obama administration's embryonic stem-cell policy violates the Dickey–Wicker Amendment, a law that prohibits federal funding of research on human embryos. The suit was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no real standing in the case — that is, no tangible interest in its outcome.
But on 25 June, the Court of Appeals in Washington DC reversed the dismissal on the basis of an appeal made by the scientist plaintiffs: James Sherley, a researcher who works with stem cells derived from adult tissue at the Boston Biomedical Research Institute in Watertown, Massachusetts, and Theresa Deisher, research and development director of the firm AVM Biotechnology in Seattle, Washington. To justify their standing as plaintiffs, they argue that because federal funding is now going towards research on embryonic stem cells, there are fewer funding dollars — and therefore “increased competition” — for research using adult stem cells....
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/466159a.html
Sherley and Deisher are practicing 'protectionism' for their own wealth in complete disregard to the well being and needs of the citizens of the USA. Embryos have no constitutional rights and the idea they can be regulated for that purpose is OUTRAGEOUS.
I understand Lamberth believes Voodoo has a place in research as well.
...Injunction preserves ‘status quo’
In terms of its immediate impact, Judge Lamberth however said that the injunction would not seriously harm ESC researchers because the injunction would simply preserve the status quo and would not interfere with their ability to obtain private funding for research. Further, he downplayed the impact that the stoppage of such research could have on individuals suffering from illnesses such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, saying that the possibility of the research leading to their treatment was “speculative”....
http://www.thehindu.com/health/medicine-and-research/article592058.ece
Evidently. Lamberth seems to think he knows more than God as well. Crystal ball maybe. SPECULTATIVE IS A VERY INTERESTING WORD, actually. I am sure the judge's significant other is very proud of him today.
Lamberth was born in 1943 in San Antonio, Texas. He graduated from the University of Texas and from the University of Texas School of Law, receiving an LL.B. in 1967.
Lamberth ruled on this case and ordered less than a half billion be paid to a half billion people in this Native American Class Action Suit. Each Native American Indian in the litigation would get less than a dollar a piece in his ruling.
So, let's see. The plaintiffs are correct, but, the decision will make it meaningless. Good job ! It isn't even a matter of the appeal, it is the decision itself that is faulty.
BOTH the plaintiff and defendant have appealed his ruling.
455 F.3d 317 (2006)
Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al., Appellees
v.
Dirk KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Appellants.
No. 05-5269.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 11, 2006.
Decided July 11, 2006.
...For the ninth time in six years we consider an appeal in this longstanding dispute between beneficiaries of Indian land trusts and their trustee, the United States. In this most recent iteration, the government challenges a district court order requiring that every mailing to trust beneficiaries include a notice stating that "any" information provided about trust matters "may be unreliable." The government also asks us to assign the case to a different district judge. Because we agree with the government that the order exceeded the district court's authority, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. And for the reasons given in this opinion, we instruct the chief judge of the district court to reassign the case....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8630178568765024094&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
