These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
2. U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear fetal protection employment policy. Michel SE Occup Health Saf; 1990 Jul; 59(7):40-1. PubMed ID: 2388739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Excluding women from certain jobs because of reproductive or fetal hazard must be justified by objective, scientific evidence. Sculnick MW Employ Relat Today; 1989; 16(1):75-9. PubMed ID: 10295775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Fetal exclusion policies and gendered constructions of suitable work. Draper E Soc Probl; 1993 Feb; 40(1):90-107. PubMed ID: 11652221 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Fetal protection policies: a method of safeguarding fetuses or a way of limiting women in the workplace? Hoffman H J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Jul; 23(7):193-207, 213, 224. PubMed ID: 10105492 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Firing the woman to protect the fetus: the reconciliation of fetal protection with employment opportunity goals under Title VII. Williams WW Georgetown Law J; 1981 Feb; 69(3):641-704. PubMed ID: 11649426 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Implications of the Federal Abortion Ban for Women's Health in the United States. Weitz TA; Yanow S Reprod Health Matters; 2008 May; 16(31 Suppl):99-107. PubMed ID: 18772090 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [The fragility of the US Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade]. Merchant J Med Sci (Paris); 2006; 22(8-9):773-5. PubMed ID: 16962056 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Health, equity, and reproductive risks in the workplace. Daniels CR; Paul M; Rosofsky R J Public Health Policy; 1990; 11(4):449-62. PubMed ID: 2289955 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Back to Victoriana by way of the Supreme Court. Kelly LS Nurs Outlook; 1991; 39(4):149. PubMed ID: 2067945 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The argument that never ends. Simon R US News World Rep; 2003 Jan; 134(2):24. PubMed ID: 12561696 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Prenatal v. parental rights: what a difference an "a" makes. Gallagher A St Marys Law J; 1989; 21(2):301-24. PubMed ID: 16100799 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The rhetoric of disrespect: uncovering the faulty premises infecting reproductive rights. Reilly EA Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 1996; 5(1):147-205. PubMed ID: 16594108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The right to privacy: Roe v. Wade revisited. Smith PA Jurist; 1983; 43(2):289-317. PubMed ID: 16086474 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Fetal Protection Policies and Corporate Liability of the US Vinyl Chloride Industry, 1974-1991. Bergen S Am J Public Health; 2022 Feb; 112(2):271-276. PubMed ID: 35080929 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. State abortion statutes on the eve of the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Terwilliger LM J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jun; 25(6):161-74. PubMed ID: 10123589 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Protecting women out of their jobs. Lancet; 1990 Nov; 336(8726):1289-90. PubMed ID: 1978118 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The goal: safety and equality. Bertin JE; Ashford NA; Bellinger D; Landrigan PJ; Legator MS; Mattison DR; McBeath WH; Rosen JF; Stellman JM Am J Ind Med; 1992; 21(4):463-5. PubMed ID: 1580251 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Women's rights versus the protection of fetuses. Warren MA Midwest Med Ethics; 1991; 7(1):1, 3-7. PubMed ID: 16145788 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]