Chicago Sun-Times: "22 projects that were due to get yearly checks in September, $54 million worth, 'will be stopped in their tracks,' said NIH Director Francis Collins . . . 'The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments -- prohibited by federal law -- that destroy human life,' said [Steven H. Aden], the group's senior legal counsel."

Associated Content: "'The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life. The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos,' senior legal counsel of the group, [Steven H. Aden], said."

Law.com: "The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on a technicality a lower court that upheld the state's Code of Judicial Conduct, which bars judges and candidates in judicial elections from making statements that are 'inconsistent with the impartial performance of judicial office.' The court dismissed the case, brought by Indiana Right to Life Inc., as unripe. The defendants were the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and the Indiana Disciplinary Commission." Bauer v. Shephard, No. 09-2963 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2010)

Washington Post editorial: "But do the women of the commonwealth need additional protection? Has the state experienced a spike in abortion-related complications, including those that, as Mr. Marshall suggests, imperil future pregnancies? No, and no. State medical and health boards already provide oversight of abortion facilities and the medical personnel who perform roughly 25,000 abortions each year." | Cuccinelli's opinion is here: PDF / Google Viewer (Va. AG Opinion #10-067)

LifeNews: "The Republican Party is predominantly pro-life and one of just a handful of pro-abortion Republicans in the U.S. Senate may have lost her bid party's nomination for her re-election campaign. Sen Lisa Murkowski is currently losing to pro-life candidate Joe Miller, after Tuesday night's primary."

LifeNews: "Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, is responding to a judge's decision issuing a temporary injunction against the funding President Barack Obama mandated through his executive order . . . Before the ruling, DeGette had filed legislation intended to codify Obama's executive order and overturn the Dickey-Wicker law preventing taxpayer funding involving the destruction of human embryos the judge used to stop Obama's order . . . Thomas G. Hungar, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, which includes the Alliance Defense Fund and the Christian Medical Association, said [that the statute] 'bans public funding for any research that leads to the destruction of human embryos.'"

Marybeth Hicks writing at Townhall: "Next year’s Academy Awards program ought to have a new category: Best Portrayal of a Sperm Donor. At least, that’s the role that’s being cast with increasing — and alarming — frequency."

LifeNews: "The new poll has Perry earning 49% support, while Democrat Bill White, a former mayor of Houston, receives 41% of the vote."

Boston Herald: "A study by two Children’s Hospital doctors has found that Google searches on 'abortion' rise in areas with more conservative abortion policies or where the procedure is less available."

The Washington Post: "Lamberth, 67, is no stranger to controversy. Tall, garrulous and proudly Texan, Lamberth commands his court with the presence and wit of a Sydney Greenstreet character cast as a heroic defender of the Alamo . . . Larry Klayman, former chairman of Judicial Watch, a conservative activist and a Clinton antagonist who accused his administration of improperly accessing FBI files in a case that Lamberth finally dismissed after more than a decade, has called the judge 'an iconoclast who has a healthy skepticism of government power, and . . . is sensitive to the needs of the common man, a trait sometimes lacking in conservatives.'"

Reuters: "Dr. James Sherley, whose lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health has threatened to stall human embryonic stem cell research, has challenged authority before but has also been honored by the NIH itself for his work."

New York Times: "The two researchers whose claims of injury led to a judge’s decision Monday banning all research using human embryonic stem cells have a history of disputes with colleagues as well as ethical objections to embryonic stem cell research."

New York Times: "A few years ago, two groups of researchers . . . discovered that all they had to do was add four genes and a cell would reprogram itself back to its original state when it was a stem cell in an embryo. Like an embryonic stem cell, that reprogrammed cell seemed to be able to then turn into the many kinds of specialized cells in the body, an ability called pluripotent. What has happened since that discovery, scientists say, is that stem cell biology turned out to be more complicated than they anticipated. Besides the stem cells from embryos, there are so-called adult stem cells found in all tissues but with limited potential because they can only turn into cells from their tissue of origin. And there are these newer cells made by reprogramming mature cells. Now researchers are trying to figure out whether stem cells made by this reprogramming process really are the same as ones taken from embryos."

Newsweek: "Embryonic-stem-cell research has provoked more controversy—political, religious, and ethical—than almost any other area of scientific inquiry . . . As yet another new chapter begins, we look back at the evolution of the field."

BusinessWeek: "Shares of several stem-cell developers fell Tuesday following a judge's ruling to temporarily block government rules expanding stem cell research."

Nature News: "US stem-cell researchers are reeling from a court order handed down yesterday that puts a temporary hold on the current policy for federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research. Now, many are calling for legislation that would make such research unambiguously legal once and for all."

BioWorld: "Had Congress intended to limit Dickey-Wicker to only discrete acts that result in the destruction of an embryo, like the derivation of hESCs, or to research on the embryo itself, lawmakers could have written the statute that way, but they didn't, the judge wrote in his ruling, stating that the court was 'bound to apply the law as it is written.' If one step or piece of research of an hESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, 'the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment,' the judge said."

Adam Keiper & Yuval Levin writing at National Review Online: "Whichever way the matter is finally resolved in the courts, it is certainly a great improvement to be asking this question — does the research being funded involve the destruction of human embryos? — and presuming that if the answer is yes, then the research should not be funded, rather than debating whether the destruction of developing human lives is of any consequence, and whether it should be supported by taxpayer funds. Putting the question this way, and presuming the incalculable moral significance of human life, was certainly the intent of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, and should be the aim of any decent society."

David Prentice, senior fellow for the Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council, writing at Aol.: "The U.S. District Court injunction that stops federal taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research should make patients happy . . . The good news is that this ruling should free up more funding for adult stem cell research -- which is legal, uncontroversial and already helping treat thousands of patients."

Mass Device: "'The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,' senior legal counsel [Steven Aden] told The Associated Press. 'The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos.'"