Linda  Thanks for your advocacy and updates.  Bob
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:28 PM
Subject: Fw: Stem Cell Update


> Subject: Stem Cell Update
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:31:00 -0400
>
> Parkinson&rsquo;s community,
>
> The stem cell litigation continues to wind its way through the US court 
> system.  As you may recall, the lawsuit is currently in both the District 
> Court, before Judge Lamberth, and in the Court of Appeals, before a 
> three-judge panel.  The District Court is receiving arguments &ldquo;on 
> the merits&rdquo; whereas the Court of Appeals is technically ruling on 
> whether Judge Lamberth was legally correct when he issued a preliminary 
> injunction on August 23.  However, it remains our hope that the Court of 
> Appeals, in hearing arguments on the preliminary injunction, will issue an 
> order that resolves the whole case.
>
> Three significant briefs have been filed in the Court of Appeals in the 
> last few days.  On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed its 
> brief.  Once again, they did an excellent job representing the National 
> Institutes of Health.  Their brief is particularly strong on why the 
> legislative history for Dickey Wicker supports the government&rsquo;s 
> interpretation and on supporting the need for human embryonic stem cell 
> research to be conducted along with adult and induced pluripotent 
> research.  I am hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find DoJ&rsquo;s 
> arguments compelling.
>
> Two amicus briefs were also filed this week in support of the DoJ brief. 
> An amicus brief is a brief filed by an outside party in a lawsuit that 
> wants to offer additional information for the court to consider.  The 
> Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), in conjunction 
> with the State of Wisconsin and the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), filed 
> an amicus brief on Monday and yesterday the University of California (UC) 
> filed its own amicus.  The Court of Appeals requires that amicius filers 
> attempt to coordinate, so we are pleased that both Wisconsin and GPI 
> agreed to join with CAMR&rsquo;s brief.  Both the CAMR brief and the UC 
> brief do an excellent job supporting the government&rsquo;s position, 
> although they are quite different from each other.  The CAMR brief focuses 
> on the process of stem cell line derivation (which is not done with 
> federal funds) and the legislative history.  The UC brief goes back to the 
> earlier decision of the Court of Appeals that grants standing to the two 
> plaintiffs.  In my opinion, the UC brief makes an excellent case for why 
> the Court of Appeals should reverse its earlier decision and dismiss this 
> whole case on the grounds that the plaintiffs do not have standing.
>
> The DoJ brief and both amicus briefs can be found on the CAMR website at 
> http://camradvocacy.org/resources.cfm.
>
> The next significant dates in the Court of Appeals are October 28, when 
> the plaintiffs&rsquo; brief is due, and then November 4 when DoJ&rsquo;s 
> final reply will be filed.  We expect oral argument to occur shortly 
> thereafter although oral argument is not yet scheduled.  The briefing 
> schedule for the District Court mirrors the Appeals court schedule so it 
> is our expectation that Judge Lamberth will wait for the Court of Appeals 
> ruling before he rules.
>
> On the legislative front, we are still urging you to reach out to your 
> Members of Congress to urge a legislative fix to this problem.  We are 
> fearful that, in this complicated legislative year, Congress will not take 
> up this urgent issue.  Without a legislative fix and until we have a court 
> ruling, we cannot guarantee that federal funding for this important 
> research will continue.  Please contact your Members. 
> http://capwiz.com/pan/issues/alert/?alertid=16440761
>
> Thank you for all of your support for PAN and the issues that are so 
> important to the Parkinson&rsquo;s community.
>
>
> Sincerely,Amy Comstock Rick
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: 
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn