Judge Agrees with Embryonic Plaintiffs: Federal Law Prohibits Embryo Destruction -- Obama Stem Cell Ruling Violates Law

Judge Lambert cited the reason for his ruling against the plaintiffs, originally, was due to their "not having standing." But an appeals court has said the plaintiffs do have standing, so they can bring their lawsuit; therefore, Judge Lambert had to reverse his previous decision against the plantiffs.

District Judge Reverses Ruling Against Stem Cell Plaintiffs

When Judge Lambert said the plaintiffs who took issue with the Obama administrations new ruling didn't have standing, he was essentially suggesting that they did not have cause--or could not claim damage--due to the stem cell ruling.

In essence, that means the ruling would not cause them harm. But the plaintiff's had argued that destroying embryos that could produce children for potential adoptive parents was a harm, as these plaintiffs provide such a service.

The plaintiffs sought to be heard before an appeals court on the matter and the appeals court ruled in their favor, effectively resulting in the reversal of Judge Lambert's original position judicially. The appeals court said the plaintiff's do have standing to bring forth their lawsuit on the stem cell ruling issue.

Stem Cell Ruling by Obama Administration: Increased abortion for Science?

The lawsuit involved the plaintiff's rejection of the Obama administration's right to attempt to increase federal funding for more embryonic research.

The scientists currently utilizing human embryos for research purposes use both embryonic and adult ones, but the adult cell research is not the one slated for the Obama administrations increase in funding. That is limited to the research currently being done on embryos by private entities.

The embryonic cells could produce babies, if placed back into a womb, and are the main issue at hand. The adult embryonic cells are not at issue to the plaintiffs, as they come from an existing live adult, not a growing baby.

But if tax dollars are limited--and in the current economic climate that is the case--supporters of adult cell research feel the increase in funding for embyronic cell research (which is the least successful) might result in a reduction of funding for adult cell research, which shows the most promise to date.

Years of Embryonic Research Equals No Medical Cures To Date

Currently there are 21 stem cell research lines being funded total. Some are funded by the government (for adult cells only) and others by private money (the embryonic research). Both research is supposed to be motivated in exploring potential life-saving treatments or cures, medically, for such conditions as diabetes and Parkinsons.

These existing 21 lines of stem cell research have yet to produce any cures for any of the conditions prompting their use in research labs, though, and these lines include both the embryonic and adult cell usage.

However, some success has been enjoyed with research from adult stem cells. It is the adult stem cell research that has generated the most promising results thus far, and the only cells previously funded by the federal government, as well as the ones generating the least amount of controversy.

However, it is just the opposite cells (the ones least promising) that the Obama administration desires to increase federal funding for: the embryonic cells.

Stem Cell Ruling Expansion Lawsuit

With 21 research lines already in existence, and no cures to date for diabetes, Parkinsons or any of the other medical conditions that prompted the cell research in the first place, the Obama administration attempted to see that more federal dollars would be spent on embryonic cell research anyway.

Specifically, the current administration in the White House sought to spend tax payer monies on embryonic cell reseach--in spite of the fact that federal law prohibits that from taking place.

The administration also sought to increase the total number of research lines from 21 to 75, in spite of the lack of cures that have resulted from past embryonic stem cell research over the years.

Embryonic vs. Adult Human Stem Cell Research

Two opposing philosophies exist and drive the stem cell research debate: the anti-abortion one and the find-a-cure-at-any-cost one. Neither is against adult human stem cell research and both federal and private funding dollars have been used towards that end, with success being realized in some instances, but no cures.

The embryonic stem cell research is the hotly debated research topic since British scientist Robert Edwards first introduced in vitro fertilization in the '70's.

Embryos cannot be separated from their stem cells without the total desruction of the human embryo altogether. Therein lies the issue: embryos produce human life when inside the womb of a woman. Attempting to remove portions for scientific purposes will destroy that life. That is esentially an abortion for the sake of science.

The plantiff's feel asking tax payers to fund abortion for science, when it is already apparent that such research has been unsuccessful in providing cures for any of the major health conditions is morally, ethically and even logically wrong.

In addition, plaintiff's feel that harm is being done to women who desire a child, even if it is through adoption, since these embryos slated for destruction could legitimately meet that legitimate need.

But other growing concerns are that the Obama administration is attempting to violate federal law in new rulings put forth on issues of their choosing, therefore ignoring the judicial ground already in existence and without proper legislative and citizen support.

Federal law prohibits embryonic destruction by federally funded research programs as it currently stands--and in years past. President Obama's efforts to change that with a ruling that didn't take into consideration existing law, or public support, is more reminiscent of a dictatorship than a democracy. And Judge Lambert's reversal of decision in the lawsuit regarding Obama's stem cell ruling is just the latest in a long line of controversy about whether it is right to take a life in order to save a life.

*******

Sources: Chicago Sun Times and Fox News, August 24, 2010