Reply #30: The claim is that there is a law that prevents [View All]

[Igel]

federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.

I don't know that this is true. Let's assume it for the time being--if it's not, this injuction won't last until Friday.

Two questions:

1. Do the Obama regulations make the necessary distinctions so that no funding or federally funded equipment is used in the destruction of human embryos? If not, there go the regs. And his staffers can get around the problem by rewriting the regulations to actually conform with the law. Arguing that it's activism to require that the president abide by the explicit wording of the law is to argue that the judge properly has no interest in actually observing the Constitution and the president has no need to observe the Constitution when he has a higher purpose in mind: In other words, that executive-branch regulations trump the Congress and the law. Let's all praise the Philospher King and the Beneficient Tyrant! (/sarcasm off)

2. Is it reasonable to interpret the law as denying funding to research that uses the fruits of research that it would be illegal to fund? On that I have no reasonable or reasoned opinion. I've seen arguments about other laws that seem to say this is a reasonable interpretation; I've seen other arguments about other laws that would seem to say otherwise. I tend to think that the origins of the material used is irrelevant. A lot of people make moral arguments to the contrary--if you own something that is traceable to "blood diamonds" the pieces of carbon are forever morally tainted; you cannot use drawings or data that derived from Nazi experiments; you cannot keep political donations from somebody who was deemed an upstanding citizen 5 years ago but is now under indictment. I think that kind of argument is also irrelevant.

(1), however, is sufficient for this current injunction. However, (1) is not sufficient for overturning a regulation that excludes actual production or supporting production of new HESC lines (assuming, as I did, that the law as summarized is correct).