US Supreme Court leaves stem cell research alone (Update)

The US Supreme Court building is pictured on June 27, 2012, in Washington, DC. It declined Monday to take up an appeal concerning stem cell research, thus allowing the federal government to continue funding it.

The US Supreme Court declined Monday to enter the emotionally-charged debate over stem cell research, refusing to hear an appeal centered on the issue of federal government funding.

The top US court did not give a reason for its decision, which ends the long judicial saga over President Barack Obama's 2009 executive order lifting restrictions on financing imposed by his predecessor George W. Bush.

The appeal had come from two researchers working with adult cells rather than embryonic stem cells.

They had asked the Supreme Court to halt financing for stem cell research on the grounds that federal law banned the creation and destruction of embryos for scientific study.

Stem cell research is said to be promising for finding new treatments for a variety of diseases.

A federal judge banned the financing in 2010, but an appeals court in Washington reversed the ruling in 2012. The court said the federal ban does not apply to previously existing embryos that resulted from in vitro fertilization procedures.

Government financing through the National Institutes of Health was authorized for cells from frozen embryos that were left over from fertility treatments.

The NIH, which allowed researchers to use stem cells derived from donated frozen embryos no longer needed for fertility treatments, hailed the ruling.

"This decision allows the ruling to stand, and enables NIH to continue conducting and funding stem cell research, following the strict ethical guidelines put in place in 2009," NIH Director Francis Collins said in a statement.

"Patients and their families who look forward to new therapies to replace cells lost by disease or injury, or who may benefit from new drugs identified by screening using stem cells, should be reassured that NIH will continue supporting this promising research."

Related Stories

Court: Gov't can fund embryonic stem cell research

date Aug 24, 2012

(AP)—A U.S. appeals court on Friday refused to order the Obama administration to stop funding embryonic stem cell research, despite complaints the work relies on destroyed human embryos.

Suit against federal stem cell research dismissed

date Jul 27, 2011

(AP) -- A lawsuit that had threatened to end the Obama administration's funding of embryonic stem cell research was thrown out Wednesday, allowing the U.S. to continue supporting a search for cures to deadly diseases over ...

Judge won't let stem cell money keep flowing (Update)

date Sep 07, 2010

(AP) -- A federal judge on Tuesday refused to lift his order blocking federal funding for some stem cell research, saying that a "parade of horribles" predicted by federal officials would not happen.

Court asked to keep stem cell money flowing

date Sep 08, 2010

(AP) -- The Obama administration is asking a federal appeals court to lift an order blocking federal funding for some stem cell research, a day after being turned down by the judge who issued the order.

Recommended for you

Drug and device firms paid $6.5B to care providers

date Jun 30, 2015

From research dollars to free lunches and junkets, drug and medical device companies paid doctors and leading hospitals nearly $6.5 billion last year, according to government data posted Tuesday.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jan 07, 2013
Obama breaking or not inforcing the laws. Nothing new here folks.

Anyone who believes in the law, that government should follow the law and voted for Obama, you are either a hypocite or ignorant.
Jan 07, 2013
Thank god Obama sent that stupidity of a bush league law packing. Government should not be the impediment to research or study, but should instead encourage such pursuits.

Anyone ignorant enough to believe that one president's executive order canceling another presidents' order is "breaking the law" certainly proves John Stuart Mill's observation about what constitutes a "conservative".
Jan 08, 2013
Killing a human for the betterment of society has failed every time. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, etc.

But again what do progressives care about human rights? Not much.
Jan 13, 2013
Killing a human for the betterment of society has failed every time. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, etc.

But again what do progressives care about human rights? Not much.

You share a country with a whole lot of people who disagree with your view. Get used to it.

History should teach you, if you care, that it's real hard to enforce unpopular laws (even non-laws, as this was not a law) in this country.

BTW, at the risk of an ad-hominem, I'm amused at your choice of moniker, as I am with "fair and balanced".

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.