CIRM

California Family Bioethics Council, LLC v. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Good Law
147 Cal. App. 4th 1319·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 272
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2007A114195, A114282California22,293 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pollak, J.

Before us is an appeal from two consolidated actions challenging the validity of Proposition 71, the stem cell research initiative approved by a substantial majority of the voters at the General Election on November 2, 2004. Relying in significant part on the reasoning of California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 ] (CART), the trial court rejected the diverse challenges that appellants have directed to Proposition 71 and to the method of its enactment. We agree with the conclusions reached in the comprehensive opinion of the trial court and shall affirm its judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

A. Summary of Proposition 71

Although section 1 of the proposition states that the entire measure shall be known as the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act, Proposition 71 in fact adds an amendment to the California Constitution, two separate acts to the Health and Safety Code, and expands the Government Code definition of “state service.”

Section 4 of the proposition adds to the Constitution article XXXV, establishing the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM or the institute). The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.