SAN FRANCISCO — Legal challenges to the state's $3-billion stem cell initiative were rejected Friday by an Alameda County Superior Court judge in a strongly worded ruling.
The lawsuits by taxpayer and religious groups have blocked the state's ability to issue the bonds that will allow it to hand out an estimated $300 million a year over a decade for stem cell research.
Challengers vowed to appeal to the California Supreme Court -- a move certain to extend the legal battle until at least next year.
"We are disappointed but not surprised with the judge's ruling," Dana Cody, executive director of Life Legal Defense Fund, which represented two taxpayer groups, said in a statement. Cody added that Judge Bonnie Sabraw "failed to engage our arguments and case law."
But backers of Proposition 71 -- approved by voters in November 2004 -- said Sabraw's 43-page decision raised the prospect that the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in San Francisco could soon move forward with its core mandate.
Robert Klein, the initiative's main proponent and now the chairman of the institute's independent oversight committee, called the ruling a victory for stem cell research.
"Given the strength of this court decision," he said, "the opponents to Proposition 71 should demonstrate their respect for the voters of California who overwhelming approved this initiative and patient families who suffer every day with the advance of chronic disease by dropping their intent to appeal."
Stem cells hold promise for treatment of a number of diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes. But the Bush administration has limited the use of embryonic stem cells in research because of moral objections to the use of discarded embryos. Several plaintiffs in the California lawsuits hold similar views.
Sabraw forcefully rejected the challengers' key contention: that the Stem Cell Research and Cures Act violated the state Constitution by creating a publicly funded entity that was not "under the exclusive management and control" of the state.
"Plaintiffs did not present any evidence that the state is appropriating funds for any purpose or benefit other than a public purpose -- the public purpose declared in Proposition 71 of fighting disease and promoting the general economy of the state," she wrote.
She also concluded that the institute and its oversight board "are operating in the same fashion as other state agencies," with adequate state oversight.
