Do you think the NIH is making the proposed amendment because it wants to be nice to ACTC? They foresaw the issues with Dickey-Wicker and have put forth an amendment "unambiguously" outside the scope of it.
I point your attention to the decision of the Judge..
Specifically, see page 12. If you do not see how this is good for us, your obviously cant read.
Thank you judge for creating an even stronger monopoly for ACTC going forward.
I was perusing the NIH website and noted that the next meeting of the ACD (Advisory Committee to the Director) meets again on Dec.9-10, 2010. Maybe they will approve the NED lines as well as the MA09 for eligibility.
The amendment will be passed by NIH. NIH will then appeal the preliminary injunction, for which they will be successful because there is no embryo destruction.
The proposed change was initiated in Feb 2010, at the same time the case was re-filed. The NIH had relatively weak arguments, so in anticipation of a negative decision, they proposed the amendment.
If they were successful, they may not even pass the Amendment; however if they were subject to preliminary injunction the rule would need to be re-written and then appealed. They did the leg work before hand, now it will be a simple appeal. Using the judges own logic, no destruction, no problems.
Follow the logic people....its all there in the decision if you take the time to read it and match up all the timelines.