How else can you read this?
A U.S. Appeals court on Thursday temporarily lifted a judge’s ban on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research until it rules on the merits of the Obama administration’s argument against the ban.
What kind of absurd legal reasoning could lead to that? Wouldn’t the prudent thing be to continue status quo until you’ve sorted the whole thing out? This ruling, on the other hand, is like removing the ban on drunk driving until you can see if people are really being killed (i.e., until you can count the corpses). And that’s not even taking into account the fact that the total number of possible cures, including each and every-lead-that-might-possibly-lead-to-an-eventual-cure-down-the-road-sometime-in-the-distant-(read: imaginary)-future has now reached a grand total of (count ’em) zero. That is correct. Of course, to know that, you’d have to ignore the fevered imaginings of desperately diseased people who really, really want embryos to save them. (You can’t blame them for wanting it, but you can blame them for killing other people to get it.) Put not your trust in princes, neither in embryos.
On the other hand, all sorts of other stem cells are being used to treat disease, and with success, too.
But who would expect reason or fact to have anything to do with legal proceedings such as this?