205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11645739)
1. Norplant: the new scarlet letter?
Flannery MT
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1992; 8():201-26. PubMed ID: 11645739
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The constitutionality of the use of the Norplant contraceptive device as a condition of probation.
Burke M
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1992; 20(1):207-46. PubMed ID: 11652186
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The Norplant prescription: birth control, women control, or crime control?
Arthur SL
UCLA Law Rev; 1992 Oct; 40(1):1-101. PubMed ID: 11652185
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Norplant meets the new eugenicists: the impermissibility of coerced contraception.
Mertus J; Heller S
St Louis Univ Public Law Rev; 1992; 11(2):359-83. PubMed ID: 11652703
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The Norplant debate: birth control or woman control?
Spitz SS
Columbia Human Rights Law Rev; 1993; 25(1):131-69. PubMed ID: 11652335
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The rights and wrongs of Norplant offers.
Berman DA
South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 1993; 3(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 11652937
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Reproductive technologies and the law: Norplant and the bad mother.
Young ME
Marriage Fam Rev; 1995; 21(3-4):259-81. PubMed ID: 11654845
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Implanted birth control device renews debate over forced contraception.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1991 Jan; ():A20. PubMed ID: 11646801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The Norplant condition: protecting the unborn or violating fundamental rights?
Persels J
J Leg Med; 1992 Jun; 13(2):237-62. PubMed ID: 11643010
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The Norplant debate.
Kantrowitz B; Wingert P
Newsweek; 1993 Feb; 121(7):37, 40-41. PubMed ID: 11654022
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The creation and perpetuation of the mother/body myth: judicial and legislative enlistment of Norplant.
Henley M
Buffalo Law Rev; 1993; 41(2):703-77. PubMed ID: 11659736
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Crime, race, and reproduction.
Roberts DE
Tulane Law Rev; 1993 Jun; 67(6):1945-77. PubMed ID: 11652259
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Control of childbearing by HIV-positive women: some responses to emerging legal policies.
Sangree S
Buffalo Law Rev; 1993; 41(2):309-449. PubMed ID: 11659735
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Norplant use in conjunction with the welfare system.
Funk AM
South Calif Interdiscip Law J; 1993; 2(1):147-63. PubMed ID: 11652714
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The Norplant condition: one step forward or two steps back?
Ballard T
Harv Womens Law J; 1993; 16():139-87. PubMed ID: 11652871
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. AIDS and civil rights: the new agenda.
Hunter ND; Rubenstein WB
AIDS Public Policy J; 1992; 7(4):204-8. PubMed ID: 11654024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Womb for rent: Norplant and the undoing of poor women.
Vance JL
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1994; 21(3):827-55. PubMed ID: 11863029
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Involuntary sexual sterilization of incompetents in Alabama: past, present, and future.
Larson EJ; Nelson LJ
Ala Law Rev; 1992; 43(2):399-444. PubMed ID: 11659705
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Whose choice is it, anyway?
MacKenzie JP
N Y Times Web; 1991 Jan; ():A22. PubMed ID: 11646807
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Women and fetus: the social construction of conflict.
Chavkin W
Women Crim Justice; 1992; 3(2):71-80. PubMed ID: 11656335
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
