This just in (h/t Jill Stanek):

President Barack Obama’s administration can fund embryonic stem-cell research while it appeals a decision banning government support for any activity using cells taken from human embryos, an appeals court said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today put on hold a ruling by District Judge Royce Lamberth during its review of the ban. The Justice Department argued that the judge’s decision would cause irreparable harm to researchers, taxpayers and scientific progress.

Lifting the ban allows the government to temporarily continue funneling tens of millions of dollars to scientists seeking cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, and genetic conditions. Embryonic stem cells can grow into any kind of tissue and may have the potential to accelerate a range of research.

“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 decision

The above appeal was prompted by a denial by District Court Judge Royce Lamberth on Tuesday of the Obama Administration’s request for a stay on his preliminary injunction.

Judge Lamberth is one smart cookie and I, for one, am impressed with how he has handled this case. Some of his remarks are just priceless. My favorite (from his ruling Tues.):

Defendants are incorrect about much of their “parade of horribles” that will supposedly result from this Court’s preliminary injunction.

No doubt he is referring to the Administration’s assertion that the Court’s injunction

is an injury to NIH’s mission, the larger biomedical community, the public at large, and, most critically, the millions of people who are hoping to benefit from life-saving therapies made possible by hESC research.

The last part, about people hoping to benefit from life-saving therapies, especially has no basis in reality, since there is absolutely no evidence to support that hESCR will provide life-saving therapies for the sick and disabled.

Unlike other judges who use their authority to legislate from the bench, Lambeth is merely doing what judges are supposed to do, that is, uphold the law as it is written, period. From his Tuesday ruling:

In this Court’s view, a stay would flout the will of Congress, as this Court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so.

Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos. It is well-established that “[i]t is in the public interest for courts to carry out the will of Congress and for an agency to implement properly the statute it administers.” Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Shalala, 81 F. Supp. 2d 30, 45 (D.D.C. 2000).

Really, if the Administration has such a problem with this ruling, they should direct their concerns to Congress, not the Court. And some members of Congress know it. The Politico has a report on Rep. Dianna DeGette’s strengthened resolve to try get her ESCR funding bill passed through the House and notes that Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, has scheduled a Sept. 16h hearing to review the ruling.

I don’t doubt that DeGette has a lot of support in Congress for her bill, which would also redefine cloning and effectively allow the government to fund the creation and use of cloned human embryos for scientific research. But I think she’s a bit presumptuous in saying that

“This is a positive wedge issue. Supporters can use it in an election because there is strong public support and its opponents look extreme.”

While there may be wide-spread public support for ESCR (depending on how you ask the question), Rasmussen recently found that 57% of voters do not support their taxes being used to fund such research. So, it’s not exactly a given that her bill’s supporters will be going out of their way to pass something so controversial so close to an election – not that poll numbers and public outcry has really stopped them from passing/pushing for unpopular legislation this year. It’s definitely something worth keeping an eye on, anyway.

————-
P.S. Sorry if this post is a little confusing. I had already written a post about judge Lamberth’s Tuesday ruling and then, just as I was about to post it, news came that that appeals court made it’s ruling today. So I decided to just change the title and add that news on top of what I had already written, with a few minor adjustments.