Since 2001, stem cell science in the United States has been explicitly constrained by federal prohibitions. Under an executive order announced by President George W. Bush on August 9 of that year, U.S. researchers can only receive federal funding for work done on the limited number of embryonic stem cell lines (an estimated sixty to sevent-eight) created prior to the executive order. Continued research on embryonic stem cells (ESCs) is not expressly prohibited. But, under the Bush administration's executive order, no federal funds can be used to develop new embryonic stem cells lines, or even to work on new lines developed after August 2001.

The problems with these restrictions, according to their critics, are threefold. First, they sharply limit the funds available to a high-cost, early-stage endeavor, limiting the pace of scientific discovery in the process. Second, they force stem cell researchers to maintain an administratively absurd line between research conducted in federally-funded laboratories (which include most university facilities) and that conducted in spaces free of federal funds.

What mother or father does not want to give his or her child the best chance of leading a happy and successful life? Infertile couples today enlist assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to handpick from among available gamete donors or embryo arrays to implant for gestation. As advances in genetic science permit increasing prenatal control over offspring traits, even fertile couples may choose to relocate procreation from the bedroom into the laboratory.

The development of safe genetic therapies capable of curing debilitating conditions in embryos or fetuses would be unequivocal cause for celebration. Less straightforwardly worthy of embrace would be techniques that make it possible to choose offspring genes for non-health related characteristics, such as strength, intelligence, and memory. At present, neither state nor federal law regulates ARTs.

“Sex” is a complex thing. The word conjures up many images according to how it is used. When narrowed to the context of the law, however, a person’s sex can be broken down into three primary categories: biological sex, common law sex, and legal sex.

Biological sex has traditionally been determined according to the presence or absence of genitals and gonads (phenotype), and the configuration of the sex chromosomes (karyotype).

Amidst a lavish ceremony in Boston’s Faneuil Hall on April 12, 2006, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. At that time, Chapter 58 represented the most comprehensive state health reform ever passed in the country, and the first with the potential to provide near universal health coverage. Since Romney signed Chapter 58, it has been the focus of a great deal of national media attention. Other states are evaluating whether Chapter 58’s complicated bipartisan formula could be effective within their borders, and Romney plans on basing his presidential campaign to a large extent on Chapter 58’s potential as a model for national health reform. However, Chapter 58 faces a potential legal challenge under the preemption clause of the federal 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In part, ERISA acts to limit the burden on employee benefit plans established by multi-state employers from state regulation.

The problem of the uninsured in this country continues to grow. Over the past five years, proportion of uninsured Americans has risen from 14.6% to 15.9% of the population. The statistics show disparities in insurance coverage among the various races, between native-born and non native-born citizens, and between other groups. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities partially links this change to the continuous decline in employer sponsored health insurance plans. This is a problem that needs to be addressed and addressed quickly.

Further exacerbating this problem is the cost of the uninsured and the government-insured to the taxpayers of the country. It is estimated that Medicare and Medicaid, the two largest government financed health care programs, will cost $301.5 and $176 billion respectively. These costs are projected to increase at a rate above GDP.

Since states are partially responsible for Medicaid costs and have a responsibility for the health of their citizenry, many states have taken it upon themselves to try to correct these problems.