Monday, January 17, 2011


Or, the Times doesn't think for three seconds before publishing.

Now Judge Lamberth has ruled that Dickey-Wicker prohibits funding of all research in which a human embryo is destroyed, even if the destruction occurs before the research begins. He claims that the Dickey-Wicker language “unambiguously” prohibits work on stem cells derived from embryos.

How can that be true if the federal government has interpreted it the other way for 11 years and Congress has not disputed that interpretation? If there is any ambiguity, the courts typically give deference to agency interpretations.

Abortion, sodomy, contraception, evolving standards, etc, etc. Complaining about the text of a law is so outdated, when judges flip-flop on a regular basis.

Labels: ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?