By George Whitten, Worthy News International Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Worthy News)-- An appeals court Thursday decided to suspend a district court’s prohibition on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research while the court reviews whether it violates a ban by Congress on spending taxpayer money for experiments that are connected in any way with the destruction of human embryos.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporary lifted U.S. District Judge Royce Lambert’s ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Last month, Judge Lamberth rejected the Obama administration's argument that embryonic stem cell research itself did not result in the destruction of embryos and issued the temporary injunction saying, "If one step or 'piece of research' of an [embryonic stem cell] research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibits federal funds for embryo research in which a human embryo "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research under applicable Federal regulations."

While the decision by the Appeals court was praised by advocates for the research, the appeals court made it clear that it was not making a final decision.

"The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion," the appeals court wrote in its one-page decision.

PRO-LIFE SUPPORTERS DISMAYED BY USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS


"The American people should not be forced to pay for even one more day of experiments that destroy human life, have produced no real-world treatments, and violate an existing federal law," said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden.

"The district court's decision simply enforced that law, which prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos made irrelevant by adult stem cell and other research. In economic times like we are in now, it doesn’t make sense for the federal government to use precious taxpayer dollars for this illegal and unethical purpose."

With the court's decision, twenty-two stem cell projects around the country will receive federal funding in September.

ADVOCATES FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH PLEASED

Lisa Hughes, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, says her organization is very pleased with the appeals court decision and urged Congress to change the law.

"It is crucial that federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research be restored permanently and this stay is a step in that direction," Hughes said in a statement. "While this issue continues to be argued in the courts, we call on Congress to move swiftly to resolve this issue and secure the future of this important biomedical research."

PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER RESCINDED

In 2001, President George W. Bush banned federal funding of new embryonic stem cell (ESC) research citing, "moral concerns". Nevertheless, Bush authorized for the first time federal funds for ESC research on existing embryonic stem cell lines in which "the life and death decision has already been made."

President Obama rescinded the policy by executive order in March 2009, saying federal agencies "may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem research, to the extent permitted by law."
Judicial Philosophy

by Focus on the Family Issue Analysts

Philosophical Origins and Intents

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a set of 85 essays known as the Federalist Papers between October 1787 and August 1788. Their purpose? To explain and advocate for the ratification of the newly-proposed U.S. Constitution, drafted during the summer of 1787 at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. Several of those essays dealt with Article III of the Constitution concerning the powers and duties of the federal judiciary. In Federalist #78, authored by Hamilton, we gain a clear understanding of the Founding Fathers' view on the limits on judicial power:

…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. [Emphasis added.]