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.
118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11650261)
1. Genetic testing and the right of self determination: the experience in the Federal Republic of Germany. Beier BR Hofstra Law Rev; 1988; 16(3):601-14. PubMed ID: 11650261 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Genetic testing in the workplace: employer dream, employee nightmare -- legislative regulation in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. Deyerle KA Comp Labor Law J; 1997; 18(4):547-99. PubMed ID: 11657448 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Genetic testing in the workplace. Rowinski L J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1988; 4():375-413. PubMed ID: 11645613 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Prohibiting payments to surrogate mothers: love's labor lost and the constitutional right to privacy. Bradley TS John Marshall Law Rev; 1987; 20(4):715-45. PubMed ID: 11650095 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Losing the negative right of privacy: building sexual and reproductive freedom. Copelon R Rev Law Soc Change; 1990-1991; 18(1):15-50. PubMed ID: 11656169 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Population policy making: reproductive freedom and the "compelling" state interest. Yates KA UMKC Law Rev; 1973; 42(2):201-17. PubMed ID: 11661099 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Where privacy fails: equal protection and the abortion rights of minors. Schmidt CG N Y Univ Law Rev; 1993 Jun; 68(3):597-638. PubMed ID: 11659822 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Assisted suicide and reproductive freedom: exploring some connections. Appleton SF Wash Univ Law Q; 1998; 76(1):15-36. PubMed ID: 11657576 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Restricting surrogacy to married couples: a constitutional problem? The married-parent requirement in the Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act. Massie AM Hastings Constit Law Q; 1991; 18(3):487-540. PubMed ID: 11651494 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The search for coherence in reproductive policy. Merz JF J Leg Med; 1996 Mar; 17(1):169-76. PubMed ID: 11644847 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Envisioning a future for reproductive liberty: strategies for making the rights real. Pine RN; Law SA Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1992; 27(2):407-63. PubMed ID: 11656200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Genetic discrimination, insurability and legislation: a closing of the legal loopholes. Bornstein RA J Law Policy; 1996; 4(2):551-610. PubMed ID: 11660776 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Providing protection for collaborative noncoital reproduction: surrogate motherhood and other new procreative technologies, and the right of intimate association. Ikemoto LC Rutgers Law Rev; 1988; 40(4):1273-309. PubMed ID: 11650138 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Mama vs. fetus. Hornick HL Med Trial Tech Q; 1993; 39(4):536-69. PubMed ID: 11659785 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The creation of fetal rights: conflicts with women's constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and equal protection. Johnsen DE Yale Law J; 1986 Jan; 95(3):599-625. PubMed ID: 11658701 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Genetic privacy in Washington state: policy considerations and a Model Genetic Privacy Act. Jensen KA Seattle Univ Law Rev; 1997; 21(2):357-86. PubMed ID: 11660670 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. "Keep your laws off my body": abortion regulation and the takings clause. Looper-Friedman SE New Engl Law Rev; 1995; 29(2):253-84. PubMed ID: 11656525 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Genetic discrimination in the workplace: an overview of existing protections. Kaufmann MB Loyola Univ Chic Law J; 1999; 30(3):393-438. PubMed ID: 11658078 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Family planning through human cloning: is there a fundamental right? Wu L Columbia Law Rev; 1998 Oct; 98(6):1461-515. PubMed ID: 11658070 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers: procreative choice guaranteed for all women. Erca A Gold Gate Univ Law Rev; 1982; 12(3):691-716. PubMed ID: 11655619 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]