Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro?choice movement.

People who are pro-choice believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion and, equally, that women should be protected from forced abortions. Some see abortion as a last resort, and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child. Some pro-choice moderates, who would otherwise be willing to accept certain restrictions on abortion, feel that political pragmatism compels them to oppose any such restrictions, as they could be used to form a slippery slope against all abortions.

Pro-choice supporters frequently oppose legislative measures that would require abortion providers to make certain statements (some of which are factually disputed) to patients, because they argue that these measures are intended to make obtaining abortions more difficult. These measures fall under the rubric of abortion-specific "informed consent" or "right to know" laws.

On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-life view considers human fetuses and embryos to have the full legal rights of a human being; thus, the right to life of a developing fetus or embryo trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies-both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. Among countries around the world, almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada have abolished capital punishment. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries, however, like Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and Zambia) retain it.

In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy (the formal renunciation of one's religion). In many retentionist countries (countries that use the death penalty), drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny.

Capital punishment is a very contentious issue in some cultures. Supporters of capital punishment argue that it deters crime, prevents recidivism, and is an appropriate form of punishment for the crime of murder. Opponents of capital punishment argue that it does not deter criminals more than life imprisonment, violates human rights, leads to executions of some who are wrongfully convicted, and discriminates against minorities and the poor.

The latest country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes was Rwanda in mid 2007, until the government of Gabon announced on September 14, 2007 that it, too, will no longer apply capital punishment.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly known as NCLB (IPA: /?n?k?lbi?/), is a United States federal law that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The act was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001 and signed into law on January 8, 2002.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students. The act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

The act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out.

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers "to teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that sheds light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.

Up for possible reauthorization in 2007, a new Congress is considering major revisions, as one group of 50 Republican senators and representatives introduced legislation in March 2007 to provide states much greater freedom from NCLB's controls and punishments.

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4-5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50-150 cells.

ES cells are pluripotent. This means they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. These include each of the more than 220 cell types in the adult body. Pluripotency distinguishes ES cells from multipotent progenitor cells found in the adult; these only form a limited number of cell types. When given no stimuli for differentiation, (i.e. when grown in vitro), ES cells maintain pluripotency through multiple cell divisions. The presence of pluripotent adult stem cells remains a subject of scientific debate, however, research has demonstrated that pluripotent stem cells can be directly generated from adult fibroblast cultures.

Because of their plasticity and potentially unlimited capacity for self-renewal, ES cell therapies have been proposed for regenerative medicine and tissue replacement after injury or disease. However, to date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Adult stem cells and cord blood stems cells have thus far been the only stem cells used to successfully treat any diseases. Diseases treated by these non-embryonic stem cells include a number of blood and immune-system related genetic diseases, cancers, and disorders; juvenile diabetes; Parkinson's; blindness and spinal cord injuries. Besides the ethical problems of stem cell therapy (see stem cell controversy), there is a technical problem of graft-versus-host disease associated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation. However, these problems associated with histocompatibility may be solved using autologous donor adult stem cells or via therapeutic cloning.

The question of whether or not to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been a political football for every sitting American president since Jimmy Carter. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is just east of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's "North Slope," which is North America's largest oil field. Currently, the Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production. In 1988 and again in 1998 studies released by the U.S. Geological Survey have estimated significant deposits of crude oil exist within the land designated as the "1002 area" of ANWR, as well.

Oil interest in the region goes back to the late 1960s. Since the 1979 energy crisis, the question of whether or not to drill for oil has become a hot-button issue for various groups. Traditionally, Alaskan residents, trade unions, and business interests have supported drilling in the refuge, while environmental groups and many within the Democratic Party have traditionally opposed it. Among native Alaskan tribes, support is mixed.

In the 1990s and 2000s, votes about the status of the refuge occurred repeatedly in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, but as of 2007 efforts to allow drilling have always been ultimately thwarted by filibusters, amendments, or vetoes.

The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the international Framework Convention on Climate Change with the objective of reducing Greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

It was agreed on 11 December 1997 at the 3rd Conference of the Parties to the treaty when they met in Kyoto, and entered into force on 16 February 2005.

As stated in the treaty itself, The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

As of June 2007, 172 parties have ratified the protocol. Of these, 36 countries (plus the EU as a party in its own right) are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the levels specified for each of them in the treaty (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries) , with three more countries intending to participate. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. One hundred thirty seven (137) countries have ratified the protocol, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions.

Among various experts, scientists and critics there is some debate about the usefulness of the protocol, and there have been cost-benefit studies performed on its usefulness.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.

The Brady Bill Act initially required purchasers to wait up to five days for a background checkto occur before being allowed to purchase a handgun. If the background check was returned before the five days had elapsed, then the transfer could occur at that time, and if the check had not been completed in five days, then the transfer was allowed to occur. In some states, proof of a previous background check could be used to bypass the wait; for example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually included a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act and could be used in place of the Act's check. Many states passed shall issue concealed carry laws in the wake of the Act's passing. The Act applied only to transfers from a dealer licensed to sell guns by the Treasury Dept to a private individual. Sales between private parties could not be covered under the Act because the federal government had no jurisdiction to restrict intrastate commerce. The provision in the Act that mandated local law enforcement officials to carry out background checks was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 because, the court ruled, it violated the Federalism provisions of the Constitution (see below). In many jurisdictions, no attempt was made to process the background checks, and the Act became a simple five day waiting period.

The waiting period provision of the Act expired in 1998 when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) came online. NICS is managed by the FBI. The system runs database checks on criminal records. A handgun purchaser may still have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his or her application to purchase a firearm; if the denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time. State alternatives to the background check, such as state-issued handgun permits or mandatory state or local checks, may still bypass the NICS check.

The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. Its full name is an acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56). Most people simply call it the Patriot Act.

The Act was passed 45 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. It substantially expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism," thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act's expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a cooperative military prison and detention camp under the leadership of Joint Task Force Guantanamo since 2002. The prison, established at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, holds people accused by the United States government of being terrorist operatives, as well as those no longer considered suspects who are being held pending relocation elsewhere. The detainment areas consist of three camps in the base: Camp Delta (which includes Camp Echo), Camp Iguana, and the now-closed Camp X-Ray. The facility is often referred to as Guantanamo, or Gitmo (derived from the abbreviation "GTMO"). The detainees held by the United States were classified as "enemy combatants" - a term often criticized for being used in place of "Prisoners of War" after President Bush signed a memorandum stating that no Taliban or al-Qaeda detainee will qualify as a prisoner of war and that Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions will not apply to them either. Common Article 3 demands fair trial standards and prohibits torture, cruelty, and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

Since the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 of which have been released. As of August 09, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and discouraged by article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.

International legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral. A further moral definition of torture proposes that the act of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain. These international conventions and philosophical propositions not withstanding, organizations such as Amnesty International that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.

Telephone tapping (or wire tapping/wiretapping in the US) is the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The telephone tap or wire tap received its names because historically, the monitoring connection was applied to the wires of the telephone line of the person who was being monitored and drew off or tapped a small amount of the electrical signal carrying the conversation. Legalized wiretapping by police or other recognized governmental authority is otherwise known as lawful interception.

Passive wiretapping attempts only to observe the flow and gain knowledge of the information it contains. Active wiretapping attempts to alter the data or otherwise affect the flow of data.

A fundamental controversy in the debate stems from lack of consensus on what challenges or problems illegal immigration actually poses to the United States, and on what a successful immigration policy would look like--for example, whether this policy would treat immigration primarily as a humanitarian issue, a law-enforcement issue, or an economic issue. Many critics on the left argue that the debate as it is presently conducted has failed to achieve progress primarily because it defines the problem in a short-sighted and counterproductive way, criminalizing the "illegal immigrant" and overemphasizing domestic policy such as border security. As Paul Rubin has written for the Washington Post,

? "Economists have... long argued that the economics of immigration-immigrants coming here to exchange their labor for money that they then exchange for the products of other people's labor-is positive sum. Yet our evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S. economy,native-born workers must lose. This zero-sum thinking leads us to see trade and immigration as conflict ("trade wars," "immigrant invaders") when trade and immigration actually produce cooperation and mutual benefit, the exact opposite of conflict.

The United States-Mexico barrier is actually several separation barriers designed to prevent free and illegal movement across the U.S.-Mexico border. The barriers were built as part of three larger "Operations" to taper transportation of illegal drugs manufactured in Latin America and illegal immigration: Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Operation Safeguard in Arizona. The barriers are strategically placed to mitigate the flow of illegal border crossings along the United States-Mexico international border into the geographically vulnerable Southwestern United States. Pro-Mexican immigration groups criticize the barriers as an ineffective deterrant that inappropriately jeopardize the health and safety of those seeking illegal entry into the United States.

Network neutrality (equivalently "net neutrality", "Internet neutrality" or "NN") refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached and the modes of communication allowed, and where communication was not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams would be considered neutral by most observers.

The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate in various forums. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality rules have warned of the danger that broadband providers will use their power over the "last mile" to block applications they oppose, and also to discriminate between content providers (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors. Neutrality proponents also claim that telecom companies seek to impose the tiered service model more for the purpose of profiting from their control of the pipeline rather than for any demand for their content or services. Others have stated that they believe "net neutrality" to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. As co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Vint Cerf has stated, "The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive"

The Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007, introduced by Representative Mark Kirk,Republican-Illinois, and Representative Rob Andrews, Democrat-New Jersey, would threaten sanctions against any company or individual that provides Iran with refined petroleum products or engages in an activity that could contribute to the enhancement of Iran's ability to import refined products after December 31. The bill could potentially lead to sanctions against gasoline brokers, tankers and insurers. US companies are prohibited from trade with Iran under unilateral sanctions, but most foreign companies are free to trade with Tehran.

The United States, which is leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear plans, has said Iran's gasoline imports are a point of "leverage." Washington accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

According to Mark Kirk, Americans were studying around this plan over the last five years.

Organized opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States (US) is known to have started during 2005-2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists and academics such as Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Joseph Cirincione and Jorge E. Hirsch began publishing claims that United States' concerns over the alleged threat posed by the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapons program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to advocate against potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several individuals, grassroots organisations and international governmental organisations, including the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, Nobel Prize winners including Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams, Harold Pinter and Jody Williams, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Code Pink, the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 states, and the Arab League, have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran.

The Iraq War, also known as the Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq.

The main rationale for the Iraq Invasion and Occupation offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar and their domestic and foreign supporters, was the allegation that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction capability (WMD) in violation of their 1991 agreement to unconditionally give them up. Leaders and diplomats from countries on the U.N. Security Council that opposed the war made statements that contested this view. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion; although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, US Government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US "went to war". Their report also stated that Saddam intended to resume illicit programs if and when sanctions were lifted. Some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No evidence of any operational or collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found.

The invasion and occupation began on March 20, 2003 when a multinational force, made up largely by the United States and United Kingdom but supported by small contingents from Australia and Poland, invaded Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government, however, it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between many Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. Coalition nations have begun to withdraw troops from Iraq as public opinion favoring troop withdrawal increases and as Iraqi forces begin to take responsibility for security. The war remains controversial around the world.

The "troop surge" is a phrase commonly used to describe U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to increase the number of American troops deployed to the Iraq War to provide security to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province. The two operations in which these troops are participating are called Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (otherwise known as the Baghdad Security Plan) and Operation Phantom Thunder.

On January 10, 2007, President Bush announced changes in the administration's political and military strategy in the Iraq War during a national television speech broadcast. The speech and underlying strategy had been crafted under the working title "The New Way Forward." In the address Bush stated America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. Bush committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad

The substance of the strategy change was widely debated even prior to Bush's speech. Following the speech, the press continued to report efforts by the Bush administration to promote the strategy, and several prominent political and military leaders made public statements decrying or supporting the plan for various reasons.

The plan resulted in an Iraqi-led initiative to secure Baghdad starting in February 2007.

The withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq has been a contentious issue within the United States since the beginning of the Iraq War. As the war has progressed from its initial invasion phase to the more than four-year occupation, U.S. public opinion has turned in favor of troop withdrawal. As of May 2007, 55 percent of American believe that the Iraq war was a mistake, and 51 percent of registered voters favor troop withdrawal. In late April 2007, the U.S. Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal, but President Bush vetoed this bill soon afterwards. In the wake of the veto, proponents of withdrawal appear to be shifting towards establishing benchmarks that the Iraqi government will need to meet, a plan that may be more palatable to President Bush and his advisers.Journalist Pepe Escobar points to the destiny of the Iraq oil law as the crucial point determining the will of the American administrations to withdraw.

The federal minimum wage in the United States has been $5.85 per hour since July 24, 2007.Many states and municipalities have minimum wages higher than this (see List of U.S. state minimum wages), but some U.S. territories (such as American Samoa) are exempt. Some types of labor are also exempt, and tipped labor must be paid a minimum of $2.13 per hour, as long as the hourly wage plus tipped income result in a minimum of $5.85 per hour.

The last increase on July 24, 2007 was the first of three steps of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. It was signed into law on May 25, 2007 as a rider to the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The act will raise the federal minimum wage twice more: to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008, and to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. The bill also contains almost $5 billion in tax cuts for small businesses.

Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s.

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. ? 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and New Hampshire (from 1 January 2008) have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon (from 1 January 2008) and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage. In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec and New Zealand, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.

Most civil-union countries recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in Civil Partnership Act Schedule 20.

Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid"). Others are critical because they say civil unions allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing some form of same-sex marriage or union.

HMOs & MANAGED CARE
# Comprehensive national health care reform died in Congress in 1994 (after a report by a commission run by Hillary Clinton).
# 16% of Americans (42 million people) have no health insurance (and hence must pay for health services in full, or receive hospital charity).
# 14% of Americans receive some form of public health care or health insurance (70% have private health insurance).
# 20% of Americans are members of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). NATIONAL HEALTHCARE# Opponents (usually conservatives or libertarians) say that "HillaryCare" and other national healthcare initiatives are a government takeover of one of the largest industries in the economy.
# Proponents (usually liberals) say that every industrialized country has more government-provided healthcare than the United States, and we are unnecessarily creating an economic burden by not having more national coverage.
# Some proponents (usually liberals or populists) advocate "single-payer" as the best means to provide national healthcare. The single-payer would be the government, hence simplifying the system by removing health insurers and HMOs (or restricting them, under some plans). Examples are the Canadian system and Medicare.
# Very Important issues in this election cycle are "portability", which means how (or whether) employees leaving a job can keep their health coverage between jobs. Some proponents want to separate health insurance from employment altogether.