Sanctity of Life

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

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."

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."