Daily Archives: August 25, 2010

Mass Device: “‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,’ senior legal counsel [Steven Aden] told The Associated Press. ‘The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos.’”

Associated Press: “Promising medical research is in disarray as scientists await an appeal by the Obama administration of a judge’s ruling that undercuts taxpayer-funded research using human embryonic stem cells . . . ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,’ said [Steven H. Aden], the group’s senior legal counsel.”

The Harvard Crimson: “A federal judge’s decision to block the Obama administration’s stem cell research expansion efforts was met with surprise and disappointment by Harvard scientists, who say that the ruling brings back the harsh restrictions enacted by the Bush administration on human embryonic stem cell research . . . [Steven H. Aden]–senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit group of Christian attorneys and co-counsel in the suit–said in a statement Monday that the federal government should not use taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research, especially in difficult economic times.”

The Boston Globe: But scientists who have already received federal money, including Harvard Stem Cell Institute researchers, can continue their work on these cells, said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the NIH . . . Sherley and a second scientist, Theresa Deisher of Seattle, assert in their suit that they would be harmed by increased competition for federal grants created by the new stem cell funding rules. [Steven H. Aden], senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a cocounsel in the suit, said Sherley would not be available to comment. He called Sherley and Deisher ‘well-known leaders in the field of adult stem cell research.’”

Winston-Salem Journal: “The National Institutes of Health announced yesterday that it had suspended funding new human embryonic stem-cell research and that all federally funded experiments already under way would be cut off when they come up for renewal if a new court order was not overturned . . . ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life. The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos,’ said Steven H. Aden, the group’s senior legal counsel.”

Kansas City Star: “At the University of Missouri, Michael Roberts has a handful of plastic dishes containing human embryonic stem cells warming in an incubator — research suddenly ineligible for new federal money. ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,’ said [Steven Aden], the ADF’s senior legal counsel. ‘The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos.’”

Statesman.com (L.A. Times): “With the clock ticking, scientists working with human embryonic stem cells were grappling Tuesday with how to use their remaining federal research funds before a court ruling forces them to bring their work to an abrupt end . . . The ruling drew praise from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian attorneys who helped with the lawsuit filed by the two researchers. They contend that federal law precludes the government from spending money on any research that involves the destruction of human embryos.”

The Medical News: “A US district court has issued a temporary injunction stopping President Obama’s plans to increase funding for human embryonic stem cell research . . . The lawsuit was also backed by Christian groups including the Alliance Defense Fund and is against the National Institutes of Health (NIH).”

ADF attorney Byron Babione appeared on KFUO with Roland Lettner to discuss the ruling in American Atheists v. Davenport. | MP3 25:05 mins | ADF Media Information

ADF attorney Steve Aden appeared on Radio Boston to discuss the ruling in Sherley v. Sebelius. | MP3 4:40 mins| ADF Media Information

RH Reality Check: “[Urban Outfitters] began selling Proper Attire condoms online . . . [Rita Diller, National Director of STOP Planned Parenthood] emailed STOP PP supporters . . . The email was widely reposted by dozens of local anti-choice and church groups and by major national organizations including the Alliance Defense Fund . . . The next day, Urban Outfitters pulled Proper Attire from its catalog . . . According to PPFA, the decision to sever ties between the reproductive health group and Urban Outfitters had little to do with anti-abortion backlash and was instead a mutual business decision.”

SCOTUS Blog has posted their most recent edition of notable petitions.  The list includes this entry . . .

Singularity Hub: “The court case in question is a lawsuit filed by several parties against the federal government to stop public funding of embryonic stem cells. Those parties were led by the Alliance Defense Fund (a conservative Christian legal group) but included an adoption agency, embryos (on their behalf), and two scientists.”

Huffington Post (RNS): “Conservative activists, led by the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, quickly claimed victory.”

Politico: “The Justice Department said Tuesday it will appeal an injunction that temporarily halts federal funding for embryonic stem cell research . . . But [Steve Aden], senior counsel at the anti-abortion Alliance Defense Fund, said the injunction represents a step toward better public policy. Aden, who represents the plaintiffs – two scientists who conduct similar research using adult stem cells – believes they can achieve better medical breakthroughs than researchers who use embryonic stem cells.”

Los Angeles Times: “Dr. James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher, the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit that threatens to end federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells, are perhaps better known for their extracurricular activities than for their scientific feats . . . Neither plaintiff is talking to the media, according to [Steven H. Aden], senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents them in the suit.”

BBC: “The US government will appeal after a US district court issued a temporary injunction blocking plans by the Obama administration to increase funding for human embryonic stem cell research . . . The suit, which was also backed by Christian groups including the Alliance Defense Fund, is against the National Institutes of Health (NIH).”

CBC News (AP): A U.S. court ruling that undercut federally funded embryonic stem cell research will be quickly appealed, the Obama administration declared Tuesday . . . However, the ruling drew praise from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian attorneys who helped with the lawsuit filed by two researchers against the administration rules. ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,’ said [Steven Aden], the group’s senior legal counsel.”

NPR: “However, the ruling drew praise from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian attorneys who helped with the lawsuit filed by two researchers against the administration rules. ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life. The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos,’ said [Steven H. Aden], the group’s senior legal counsel.”

Tom Strode reports at Baptist Press: “[Steven Aden], senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a written release, ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life. The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos. No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless.’”

Transcript from NPR News, All Things Considered: “Steven Aden is the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. STEVEN ADEN (Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund): ‘He, in essence, said that Congress intended much more in passing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment than an arcane interpretation that says as long as the taxpayer dollars did not specifically go for the destruction of the embryo, it’s okay.’”

Think Progress: “[Y]esterday’s decision did not occur in a vacuum. It is the product of many right-wing activists working very, very hard for a very long time . . . as Michael Tomasky explains in the Guardian . . . ‘The plaintiff Alliance Defense Fund has a history of anti-gay activism. The group’s standing to sue was in question. In fact, on a previous occasion, Lamberth tossed the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing.’”

The Detroit News: “Stem cell researchers in Michigan are anxiously awaiting a clarification on the federal judge’s ruling on Monday that blocked government rules expanding embryonic stem cell research . . . ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life. The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos,’ [Steven H. Aden], ADF’s senior legal counsel, said.”

LifeNews: “And Advocates International, part of the public interest legal team along with the Alliance Defense Fund litigating the case for stem cell researchers opposed to Obama’s order, also weighed in with a response.”

Bloomberg: “Investors will face defaults on government bonds given the burden of aging populations and the difficulty of securing more tax revenue, according to Morgan Stanley.”

The Arizona Republic reports: “In a surprising reversal, Tom Horne came from behind late Tuesday to take the lead against Andrew Thomas in the race to become Republican nominee for attorney general. As of 5:55 a.m. Wednesday, Horne still had a lead of 373 votes with 13 of 15 counties reporting, according to the state secretary of state’s election website.” | Arizona Secretary of State Election Results

Politico is reporting results in various states.

97.9% of precincts reporting 55.49% YES, 44.51% NO.

“. . . science itself has ended the debate . . . Nowadays, everyone wants a bailout. Embryo-destructive scientists are only the latest group to claim they’re too big to fail, when in fact they’ve never succeeded . . . ”

I. Glenn Cohen and Daniel L. Chen, Trading-Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Does Subsidizing in Vitro Fertilization Decrease Adoption Rates and Should it Matter? (August 24, 2010). Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1664501

“For those facing infertility, using assisted reproductive technology to have genetically related children is a very expensive proposition. In particular, to produce a live birth through in vitro fertilization (IVF) will cost an individual (on average) between $66,667 and $114,286 in the U.S. If forced to pay these prices out of pocket, many would be unable to afford this technology. Given this reality, a number of states have attempted to improve access to reproductive technology through state-level insurance mandates that cover IVF. Several scholars, however, have worried that increasing access in this way will cause a diminution in adoptions and have argued against enactment of state mandates for that reason.

In this paper, which was selected for presentation at the 2010 Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum, we push against that conclusion on two fronts.”

John T. Valauri, As Time Goes by: Hermeneutica and Originalism (August 23, 2010). Nevada Law Review, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1663937

“What is the continuing relevance of hermeneutics to legal theory in general and to constitutional theory in particular if we are all originalists now? Both seem to be vital despite the decline of interest in hermeneutics recently. This article argues for the continuing relevance of hermeneutics to both fields because of the centrality of issues of application and practical reasoning in both. Law seeks for find the meaning of texts applied over time; legal texts are truly letters of transit. That we are all originalists, yet still have the same sort of interpretive debates we have always had, only indicates the continuing need to work on hermeneutic questions of application and practical reasoning. These issues are explored in the context of the Dworkin/Scalia discussion of the distinction between expectation and semantic originalism.”

Scott Titshaw, A Modest Proposal: To Deport the Children of Gay Citizens, & Etc.: Immigration Law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Children of Same-Sex Couples (August 18, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1661276

“This article explores the language, context, legislative history, and purposes of both DOMA and relevant sections of the INA. In the absence of reported cases on point, it reviews opinions in related areas, such as the recognition of children born to concubines or second-wives in polygamous marriages. Finally, it analyzes each relevant section of the INA in turn, concluding that DOMA does not proscribe recognition of parent-child relationships resulting from same-sex marriages under most, or all, of the sections.”