Tag Archives: Topic: Bioethics

American Medical News: “The plaintiffs — which include the Christian Medical & Dental Assns., an adoption agency and others — are confident they will prevail, said [Steve Aden], senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, part of the plaintiffs’ legal team. The alliance takes on cases involving religious freedom. ‘We’re still looking forward to briefing the case and ultimately prevailing, because we think the law is clear,’ Aden said.”

Washington Post: “An appeals court Thursday allowed the federal government to resume funding human 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 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 [Steven H. Aden], a lawyer at the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit.”

OneNewsNow: An appeals court has overturned a lower court’s decision to halt federal funding of research on human embryos . . . ‘[It's] something the circuit court routinely does, and as the court itself said in the order, it does not signal any decision about the merits of the case either way,’ explains Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney [Steven H. Aden].”

The Christian Institute: “[Stephen H. Aden], a lawyer at the Alliance Defense Fund, said: ‘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’. He added: ‘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.’”

LifeNews.com: “With perhaps just days before the judge potentially issues a permanent injunction, Obama officials are scurrying to fund more research . . . [Steve Aden], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the pro-life legal groups involved in the lawsuit filed against the executive order, told LifeNews.com at the time that he questioned the legality of the NIH guidelines. ‘Federal grants incorporate federal law. To the extent that federal law has now been tentatively interpreted by a federal court to prohibit funding this research, I find the NIH’s position questionable,’ Aden said.”

Talk News Media: “An appeals court in Washington, D.C. today issued a hold on a U.S. District Judge’s ruling prohibiting the Obama administration from funding embryonic stem cell research . . . The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal group, sued the Obama administration over the order, saying it promoted the destruction of human embryos and would force Americans to pay for ‘experiments.’”

“The government says it’s back in the business of funding embryonic stem cell research – at least for now – after an appeals court temporarily lifted a judge’s ban.”

Family Research Council: “The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. today allowed the Obama administration to continue funding embryonic stem cell research while the Department of Justice appeals Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision preventing it.”

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided Thursday to suspend a district court’s prohibition on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, allowing the Obama administration to continue with a policy that is in violation of federal law while the court considers additional arguments over suspending the policy.”

“U.S. Appeals court on Thursday delayed a judge’s ban on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to consider the merits of the Obama administration’s request for a stay.

ilsussidiaro.net [modified Google translation]: “[He is a Catholic Italian-American lawyer who was an] architect of the defeat of Barack Obama on . . . funding to research on embryonic stem cells . . . [Piero Tozzi] and the Alliance Legal Defense Fund (ADF), an association that has dared to challenge legally the power of the American president . . . [Q.] How did you manage to win this first battle against Obama [in] the difficult field of stem cells? [A.] Like Italy, the law of the United States decided to protect life in its early stages from research that aim to destroy it. The court ruled that the Obama administration, with guidance issued in April 2009 for funding for research using embryonic stem cells derived from human embryos created through in vitro fertilization ‘clearly violated the law.’”

LifeSiteNews: “A federal judge has denied the U.S. Justice Department’s request to stay his order stopping the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) embryo-destroying stem-cell research, dismissing their allegations that scientific research over the past decade would be irreparably harmed . . . The attorneys litigating the case against the NIH are Advocates International, Alliance Defense Fund, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.”

LifeNews: “The attorneys for the scientists who are challenging the executive order President Barack Obama issued forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research are applauding a judge’s decision yesterday to deny the Obama administration’s request to delay his injunction . . . Advocates International and the Alliance Defense Fund are teaming up to help two adult stem cell scientists who brought the lawsuit.”

Russell Korobkin writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “Following the August 23 preliminary injunction issued by federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth to block NIH funding of embryonic stem cell research, the Justice Department filed a motion requesting that the injunction be stayed pending an appeal to the D.C. Circuit. In a very short, 2-page order this afternoon, Judge Lamberth denied the stay motion . . . For practical purposes, the most important point in today’s order — and the one that should be the lead in tomorrow’s newspapers — is Lamberth’s surprising statement that his injunction does not prohibit the NIH from continuing to fund embryonic stem cell research that was permitted by the Bush Administration under its restrictive rules.” Text of order in Sherley v. Sebelius | More information from Religion Clause.

“A federal judge has denied a request by the Obama administration to allow it to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research while it defends President Barack Obama’s executive order from a lawsuit alleging it violates federal law . . . ”

CTV Ottawa: “As public hearings on the controversial topic of dying with dignity get underway in Quebec, the chair of the committee expects debate to become emotional. Quebec Liberal MNA Geoff Kelley says it’s been 17 years since B.C.’s Sue Rodriguez brought the issues of mercy killing to the fore, when she fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to kill herself. And though the court eventually ruled against her, the debate has never gone away, he says.”

Robert P. George, Yuval Levin, and Matthew J. Franck writing at National Review Online: “[I]t is the president who fails to be open to the inconvenient truth about the human embryo, namely, that from the single-cell stage of development onward, the human embryo is a distinct, determinate, self-directing, integrated human organism — a living member of the human species who, if given a suitable environment, will move along the seamless trajectory of biological development toward maturity. At the so-called ‘blastocyst stage,’ when the embryo might be destroyed to derive embryonic stem cells, he or she is already a living individuated organism . . . Is our humanity alone enough to merit protection and regard, or are we required to prove we have some other set of qualities or capacities to qualify for respect and protection?”

The Tech (MIT): “Many stem cell researchers have been left uncertain about their own future and the future of their field as they wait for a federal judge to decide whether to allow the NIH to fund human embryonic stem cell research, within and without of its walls . . . According to an article in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Sherley and Deisher were ‘recruited separately’ by lawyers looking to challenge the federal policy. They had never met until last week, the Journal said . . . Gibson & Dunn referred inquiries to the Alliance Defense Fund. The Alliance Defense Fund and Human Life Advocates have both not returned inquiries.”

ChristianNewsWire: “Advocates International (AI), part of the public interest legal team along with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (GD&C) who brought the case before the court more than a year ago, seeks to maintain the preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia enjoining HHS and NIH from unlawfully expending taxpayer funds on research involving the destruction of living human embryos.”

Non-treatment Decisions on Grounds of “Medical Futility” and “Quality of Life”: Interviews with Fourteen Dutch Neonatologists
Sofia Moratti, J.D., D.Phil., Issues in Law & Medicine 2010; 26: 3-11

“This essay opens with background information about the concept of ‘medical futility’ and the regulation of nontreatment decisions in Dutch neonatology. The regulations include a list of criteria for predicting the baby’s future quality of life. The second part presents the findings from interviews with fourteen Dutch neonatologists on the manner in which they apply the criteria in their practice.”

Wibren Van der Burg, Legislation on Human Embryos: From Status Theories to Value Theories (August 30, 2010). Erasmus Working Paper Series on Jurisprudence and Socio-legal Studies No. 10-03. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1668407

“In this paper I argue that we should separate the legal-political debate on embryos from the ethical debate, and focus on the functions of legislation rather than on the moral status of the embryo. The two major theoretical positions in the moral and legal debates are a rights theory and an interests theory. Each of these two theories may be connected to one of the two classical functions of the law: the protective function and the instrumental function. Each of these theories may shed light on some dimensions of embryo legislation; each, however, is also seriously inadequate in some respects. These inadequacies may, at first sight, be avoided in an intermediate position: the idea of a ‘growing protectability’ or growing status of the embryo. However, from a legal point of view, this is not an adequate solution at all, because the lack of theoretical foundation for this position makes it almost impossible to implement it and to elaborate it in an unambiguous legal theory.”

Peter J. Boyer writing at The New Yorker: “The objection to [geneticist Francis Collins] was his faith—or, at least, the ardency of it. Collins is a believing Christian, which places him in the minority among his peers in the National Academy of Science . . . The President had found not only a man who reflected his own view of the harmony between science and faith but an evangelical Christian who hoped that the government’s expansion of embryonic-stem-cell research might bring the culture war over science to a quiet end. On August 23rd, however, Judge Royce C. Lamberth, of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, halted federal spending for embryonic-stem-cell research, putting hundreds of research projects in limbo and plunging the N.I.H. back into a newly contentious national debate.”

The Christian Institute: President Obama’s administration has formally challenged a court order which temporarily blocks federal funding of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States . . . [ADF Attorney Steven H. Aden] said: ‘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.’”

Yale Daily News: “Rizzolo’s laboratory is one of about a dozen facilities on campus that use stem cells. Haifan Lin, director of the Yale Stem Cell Center, said he did not yet know how the moratorium will affect Yale researchers . . . ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,’ said [Steven Aden], the legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advised the party that brought the lawsuit to court.”

LifeSiteNews: “The Obama Administration is appealing the decision, and said that a stay ‘should not be denied for the benefit of two scientists whose only alleged harm is increased competition from other meritorious research projects that may ultimately save lives.’ As a result of the injunction, NIH has cut off funding to its eight ‘intra-mural’ hESC research projects . . . ‘We think it’s a start,’ [Steven Aden], Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview.”

Steven Aden, a lead attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the adult stem cell researchers who filed the case against the Obama administration, applauded the decision. ‘The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,’ he said. ‘The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos.’

ADF attorney Matt Bowman appeared on the Mike Gallagher Show to discuss the embryonic stem cell research ruling. | MP3 Audio 7:55 mins | Related ADF Media | Matt Bowman’s USA Today article: Matt Bowman v. USA Today: On Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Michael Foust writes at Baptist Press: “A federal judge’s ruling has thrust the issue of embryonic stem cell research back into the news. Following are five questions and answers about the decision. — Did the judge’s ruling block all stem cell research? Among the pro-life groups involved in the case are the Alliance Defense Fund, Advocates International and the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher . . . — What are the differences between the three types of stem cells? . . . — How does the Obama administration interpret the Dickey-Wicker Amendment? . . . — Has stem cell research led to any cures? . . . ”

“The Justice Department today asked a federal judge in Washington to stay his ruling this month that blocks the government from funding research that involves human embryonic stem cells.”

E. Christian Brugger, Ph.D. writing at The Culture of Life Foundation: “The ideas of the young international movement known as ‘transhumanism’ are beginning to characterize the thinking of an increasing number of clinicians and bioethicists. I thought therefore that our readers might profit from a brief introduction to them . . . Technology is now making possible interventions that in addition to a therapeutic aim are intended to augment healthy human capacities.”

LifeSiteNews: “Members in both chambers of U.S. Congress are angling to alter federal law in order to undermine a district court judge’s temporary injunction that effectively puts a stop to the onset of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ-dEunfZMw

Las Vegas Sun (AP): “[T]he 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 H. Aden], the group’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.’”

The Tennessean: “A Tennessee-based Christian group believes it is saving lives by bringing the research to a grinding halt . . . Tennessee has become a key player in the arguments unfolding in court that could decide the fate of research involving human embryos. Even Tennessee’s two U.S. senators are divided on the issue . . . Seeing that more embryos could be destroyed and the government would spend more money on the research, the Christian Medical and Dental Association immediately filed the federal lawsuit along with the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of attorneys who defend religious freedoms, marriage and family.”

OneNewsNow: “Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has ruled against family members who wanted to end the life of a man with mental disabilities . . . Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center and an allied attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) tells OneNewsNow the court stood with 53-year-old David Hockenberry, who has had acute mental disabilities since birth.”

National Catholic Register: “The question remains as to whether the injunction applies to research using the lines approved by President Bush in a 2001 order. [Matt] Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund, one of three pro-life legal organizations that acted for the plaintiffs, told the Register, ‘The Bush regulation from 2001 doesn’t exist anymore because it was rescinded by the Obama administration, and it is not resurrected by the preliminary injunction because the order in this case only prohibits funding ESC research under the Obama guidelines from 2009.’”

The Christian Institute: “Women could be paid up to £800 for donating their eggs to fertility clinics under a controversial new proposal from the UK’s fertility regulator. The proposal is one of a number of options being considered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in an attempt to address a current shortage of egg and sperm donors.”

LifeNews: “Only 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayer money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say funding for the research, which has never helped any patients and requires the destruction of human life to facilitate, should be left to the private sector.” | Rasmussen

Ryan T. Anderson writing at The Public Discourse: “Bad ethics, bad science, bad politics, and bad law. Normally it takes only three strikes to be out. But not even this fourth will mark the death knell for this deadly science: while the ruling temporarily halts the federal funding of embryo-destructive stem-cell research, it does nothing to prevent the destruction of human embryos in privately funded research. There is no law forbidding embryo killing, and there never has been. And despite what some excitable commentators have said, there has never been a ban on embryonic stem-cell research. Yet this injunction is a step toward restoring taxpayer-supported scientific research to its morally upright place.”

Richard Land writing in The Christian Post: “I am delighted the court’s Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth made the decision to uphold the rule of law as passed by the Congress of the United States, the people’s elected representatives. In the case, two scientists, several other individuals, Nightlight Christian Adoptions and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations with the support of the Alliance Defense Fund sought to prevent the Obama administration’s Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research from taking effect.”

The Republican (Masslive.com) editorial: “We hope that the judge’s ruling blocking federal funds for experiments created with embryos left over from fertility treatments will be overturned . . . The ruling drew praise, however, from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian attorneys who helped with the lawsuit filed by two researchers against the expanded rules . . . We believe Obama is on the right side of the issue, and polls show that Americans are behind him.”

ABC News: “In his days as a student at the University of Utah, Chase Kimball was known as number 007, donating his sperm at $20 a pop to help infertile couples . . . He estimates that over a seven-year period during the 1970s and 1980s, he likely sired ‘hundreds of children’ . . . Most children are never told they are the product of sperm donation, according to Kimball, ‘so the vast majority of my children don’t even know I exist.’”

Russell Korobkin writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “In a [post yesterday], I described why I think Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision on Monday that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibits the federal government from funding human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research is wrong on the merits. Technically, however, the decision was not a ruling on the merits. Lamberth actually granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Because the issue is a pure question of statutory interpretation, and because the opinion in no way suggested that it was tentative in nature, it seems almost certain that Lamberth will eventually replace the preliminary injunction with a permanent one. But the government is entitled to another day in court before this can happen.”

OneNewsNow: “A spokeswoman for Americans United for Life says it’s obvious the Obama administration wants to circumvent the law and make federal funds available for research that requires the killing of unborn babies.”

ScienceMag.org / Science Insider: “More ongoing grants will come up for annual review in the coming months, so they will also be halted if the injunction stands. In addition, Steven Aden of the Alliance Defense Fund, a co-counsel in the plaintiff’s suit, says the plaintiffs haven’t ruled out a challenge to the Adminstration’s interpretation of the ruling.”

Regent Law Family Restoration: “The case of Sherley v. Sebelius was brought by Dr. James L. Sherley, Dr. Theresa Deisher, Nightlight Christian Adoptions, and the Christian Medical Association, who are represented by Advocates International (AI), the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), and the firm Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, LLC . . . When human life is destroyed, respect for family strength and stability is also dramatically weakened. How we treat our children, and particularly our unborn offspring, whether embryonic or fetal, will determine our level of honor and respect toward families.”

PressTV: “‘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] said.”

Chicago Sun-Times: “22 projects that were due to get yearly checks in September, $54 million worth, ‘will be stopped in their tracks,’ said NIH Director Francis Collins . . . ‘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.”

Associated Content: “‘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,’ senior legal counsel of the group, [Steven H. Aden], said.”

LifeNews: “Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, is responding to a judge’s decision issuing a temporary injunction against the funding President Barack Obama mandated through his executive order . . . Before the ruling, DeGette had filed legislation intended to codify Obama’s executive order and overturn the Dickey-Wicker law preventing taxpayer funding involving the destruction of human embryos the judge used to stop Obama’s order . . . Thomas G. Hungar, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, which includes the Alliance Defense Fund and the Christian Medical Association, said [that the statute] ‘bans public funding for any research that leads to the destruction of human embryos.’”

Marybeth Hicks writing at Townhall: “Next year’s Academy Awards program ought to have a new category: Best Portrayal of a Sperm Donor. At least, that’s the role that’s being cast with increasing — and alarming — frequency.”

The Washington Post: “Lamberth, 67, is no stranger to controversy. Tall, garrulous and proudly Texan, Lamberth commands his court with the presence and wit of a Sydney Greenstreet character cast as a heroic defender of the Alamo . . . Larry Klayman, former chairman of Judicial Watch, a conservative activist and a Clinton antagonist who accused his administration of improperly accessing FBI files in a case that Lamberth finally dismissed after more than a decade, has called the judge ‘an iconoclast who has a healthy skepticism of government power, and . . . is sensitive to the needs of the common man, a trait sometimes lacking in conservatives.’”

Reuters: “Dr. James Sherley, whose lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health has threatened to stall human embryonic stem cell research, has challenged authority before but has also been honored by the NIH itself for his work.”

New York Times: “The two researchers whose claims of injury led to a judge’s decision Monday banning all research using human embryonic stem cells have a history of disputes with colleagues as well as ethical objections to embryonic stem cell research.”

New York Times: “A few years ago, two groups of researchers . . . discovered that all they had to do was add four genes and a cell would reprogram itself back to its original state when it was a stem cell in an embryo. Like an embryonic stem cell, that reprogrammed cell seemed to be able to then turn into the many kinds of specialized cells in the body, an ability called pluripotent. What has happened since that discovery, scientists say, is that stem cell biology turned out to be more complicated than they anticipated. Besides the stem cells from embryos, there are so-called adult stem cells found in all tissues but with limited potential because they can only turn into cells from their tissue of origin. And there are these newer cells made by reprogramming mature cells. Now researchers are trying to figure out whether stem cells made by this reprogramming process really are the same as ones taken from embryos.”

Newsweek: “Embryonic-stem-cell research has provoked more controversy—political, religious, and ethical—than almost any other area of scientific inquiry . . . As yet another new chapter begins, we look back at the evolution of the field.”

BusinessWeek: “Shares of several stem-cell developers fell Tuesday following a judge’s ruling to temporarily block government rules expanding stem cell research.”

Nature News: “US stem-cell researchers are reeling from a court order handed down yesterday that puts a temporary hold on the current policy for federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research. Now, many are calling for legislation that would make such research unambiguously legal once and for all.”

BioWorld: “Had Congress intended to limit Dickey-Wicker to only discrete acts that result in the destruction of an embryo, like the derivation of hESCs, or to research on the embryo itself, lawmakers could have written the statute that way, but they didn’t, the judge wrote in his ruling, stating that the court was ‘bound to apply the law as it is written.’ If one step or piece of research of an hESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, ‘the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment,’ the judge said.”

Adam Keiper & Yuval Levin writing at National Review Online: “Whichever way the matter is finally resolved in the courts, it is certainly a great improvement to be asking this question — does the research being funded involve the destruction of human embryos? — and presuming that if the answer is yes, then the research should not be funded, rather than debating whether the destruction of developing human lives is of any consequence, and whether it should be supported by taxpayer funds. Putting the question this way, and presuming the incalculable moral significance of human life, was certainly the intent of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, and should be the aim of any decent society.”

David Prentice, senior fellow for the Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council, writing at Aol.: “The U.S. District Court injunction that stops federal taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research should make patients happy . . . The good news is that this ruling should free up more funding for adult stem cell research — which is legal, uncontroversial and already helping treat thousands of patients.”

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

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).”