The mission of Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) is to give innocent and helpless human beings of any age, particularly unborn children, a trained and committed defense against the threat of death, and to support their advocates in the nation's courtrooms. LLDF will accomplish its mission and purpose through the law and education.
Stem cell panel faces two suits
Groups challenge Prop. 71 legitimacy and state funding.By Laura Mecoy -- Bee Los Angeles Bureau
Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, February 23, 2005
LOS ANGELES - Taxpayers' organizations and Proposition 71 foes filed two legal challenges Tuesday, asking the California Supreme Court to halt the state's new stem cell research program from financing any scientific grants or spending more money.
One lawsuit filed on behalf of a newly created public interest group contends that Proposition 71, the initiative California voters approved in November to spend $3 billion on embryonic stem cell research, violates the single-subject rule for propositions by allowing funding for other types of research.
It also claims the initiative violates conflict-of-interest laws by requiring each member of its oversight committee to come from a university, research foundation, disease advocacy group or biotech firm that could have an interest in the research.
"The members of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee are all infected with conflicts of interest and have to be enjoined from taking any action," attorney David Llewellyn said.
He filed a complaint on behalf of Californians for Public Accountability and Ethical Science, a new nonprofit with at least one longtime foe of Proposition 71 on its board, Vincent Fortanasce. He is the president of the No on 71 campaign.
The other lawsuit claims Proposition 71 violates the California Constitution by giving an independent panel the power to spend state dollars without oversight from lawmakers or other elected officials.
"The Independent Citizens Oversight Committee is just what it says it is - independent of the state," said Dana Cody, a lawyer who filed the second lawsuit and the Life Legal Defense Foundation's executive director. "There is a constitutional provision that says it has to be under the management and control of the state, and it's not."
She said the foundation, a legal organization that opposes embryonic stem cell research, is financing the lawsuit. Abortion foes also provided much of the campaign financing for Proposition 71 opponents.
The plaintiffs named in the second lawsuit are two taxpayers' groups: People's Advocate and the National Tax Limitation Foundation.
"There is nothing wrong with doing the research," said Ted Costa of Citrus Heights, People's Advocate chief executive. "But we should have oversight, and the Legislature should have some say over it."
Cody and Lewellyn said they had consulted with each other and considered their lawsuits to be complementary.
Researchers contend embryonic stem cell research could lead to treatment and cures for some 70 diseases.
The state Supreme Court rarely hears a case before other courts, unless a quick resolution is needed. Both lawsuits claim their cases must be resolved quickly because the stem cell oversight committee is already spending money.
Julie Buckner, spokeswoman for the committee, said its lawyers hadn't seen either lawsuit but had seen a press release about the second case contending the stem cell panel is too independent of the state.
She said that complaint is "strikingly similar" to a lawsuit the tobacco industry filed and lost after the 1998 approval of Proposition 10. Proposition 10 authorized a 50-cent increase in the cigarette tax to pay for smoking prevention and early childhood education programs.
Cody said the complaint she filed is "not at all like" the one filed by the tobacco interests.
Buckner also pointed out that 59 percent of California voters approved Proposition 71 last year.
"It's critically important the work of the institute move forward to meet the mandate of California voters to find treatments and cures for disease," she said.
She said the voters believed Proposition 71 provided adequate safeguards. But Llewellyn said most voters never read the 20,000-word initiative.
Lawmakers, troubled by some of these same issues, have tried to assert more control over the stem cell panel by creating committees to oversee it.
But Proposition 71 prohibits the Legislature from making any changes during the first three years after its adoption. Even then, changes require approval by the governor and 70 percent of state lawmakers.
Both lawsuits contend the oversight board is not accountable to the public because of the way it was created. The governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, controller, Senate president pro tem and Assembly speaker appointed 22 of the panel's 29 members. But none of the elected officials can remove appointees.
University of California chancellors, who are also appointed, named five more members. Each member represents a university, research foundation, disease advocacy group or biotech interest.
These 27 appointees chose the chairman and vice chairman from nominees submitted by the statewide elected officials.
"The great majority, if not all, of the members are affiliated with entities that stand to benefit, directly and indirectly, from the grants and loans they award," Cody's lawsuit said. "Despite these relationships, prohibitions against conflicts of interest are almost non-existent."
While board members must recuse themselves from voting on matters in which they have an interest, Llewellyn said that isn't enough to ensure the public's interest is protected.
An exception is made for those representing disease advocacy groups. They may vote on funding for research into the diseases they're seeking to cure.
Proposition 71 creates working groups appointed by the oversight panel to recommend which grants to award. Cody's lawsuit contends this further removes the decision-making process from public accountability.
Costa said Proposition 71 was a "terrible misuse of the initiative process" because it was financed by venture capitalists and biotech executives who could gain financially.
"We can't let a few financiers put something like this together and leave the taxpayers with the bill," Costa said.
About the writer:
· The Bee's Laura Mecoy can be reached at (310) 546-5860 or lmecoy@sacbee.com.