D.C. Circuit Panel Rules on Stem-Cell Funding Injunction

Today, in Sherley v. Sebelius, a three-judge panel reversed the preliminary injunction, issued by federal district Judge Royce Lamberth last August, against the enforcement of the Obama administration’s new NIH guidelines permitting the expenditure of federal funds on human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.  (The injunction was stayed almost immediately after its issuance.)  Judge Douglas Ginsburg, joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, held that the scientists bringing suit against the guidelines (who compete for funds for their adult ESC research) were not likely to prevail on the merits.  Although today’s ruling is only on the injunction, it bodes ill, for the judges bought the administration’s line that the 1996 federal law (known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment) barring federal funding of embryo destruction somehow is not implicated by the funding of research that is altogether dependent upon, and continuous with, embryo destruction.  Judge Karen LeCraft, dissenting, has the goods on this “linguistic jujitsu,” as she calls it.  “[T]he plain meaning of the Amendment is easily grasped,” she writes, and the NIH guidelines so manifestly introduce “ambiguity” that is not present in the law that the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction should prevail.

Dickey-Wicker bans funding for “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.”  Much of the debate centers on the tense of the verb and the question whether “research” is somehow continuous from the derivation of stem cells (and necessary destruction of the embryo to achieve it) to the lab, later in time and perhaps in another location, where the stem-cell projects are carried out.  Henderson cuts through much of Ginsburg’s fog thus:

While the Amendment prohibits federal financing of the “creation of a human embryo . . . for research purposes,” it does not use parallel language in addressing the destruction of embryos.  It bans federal funding of “research” rather than the “destruction of human embryos for research purposes.”  Research, then, is the express target of the ban Congress imposed with respect to the destruction of a human embryo.  This makes perfect sense because in 1996, according to the record, hESC research had barely begun. . . . The Congress, recognizing its scant knowledge about the feasibility/scope of hESC research, chose broad language with the plain intent to make the ban as complete as possible. [My emphasis.]

Here’s an analogy that might clarify things.  Suppose there were a law forbidding the expenditure of NIH funds on “preparing any meal in which cattle are destroyed.”  The NIH cafeteria then served its employees a free meal of porterhouse steaks, on the theory that the slaughterhouse is in Kansas City, and they had nothing to do with destroying the cattle when grilling steaks in Bethesda.  Who would doubt that funding the meal of porterhouse steaks was forbidden by the statute?  You don’t even have to have a theory of the continuity implied in the term “preparing any meal.”  All you need is a sine qua non

Just so with the federal ban on funding embryo-destructive research.  Too bad two of the D.C. circuit’s best judges couldn’t see that.

Matthew J. Franck — Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More