516 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11658756)
1. Unemancipated minors' rights of access to contraceptives without parental consent or notice--the squeal rule and beyond.
Best M
Oklahoma City Univ Law Rev; 1983; 8(2):219-50. PubMed ID: 11658756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Parents' rights vs. minors' rights regarding the provision of contraceptives to teenagers.
Wardle LD
Neb Law Rev; 1989; 68(1-2):216-60. PubMed ID: 11659270
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Minors' rights to confidential contraceptive services: the limits of state power.
Paul EW; Klassel D
Womens Rights Law Report; 1987; 10(1):45-63. PubMed ID: 11658948
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. H.L. v. Matheson and the right of minors to seek abortions.
Wolff MH; Hawn RH
Calif West Law Rev; 1982; 19(1):74-106. PubMed ID: 11658632
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Easing restrictions on minors' abortion rights.
O'Keeffe J; Jones JM
Issues Sci Technol; 1990; 7(4):74-80. PubMed ID: 11659333
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Teens left with many options despite 'squeal rule'.
Ob Gyn News; 1983 Jul 1-14; 18(13):36. PubMed ID: 11658369
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Massachusetts parental/judicial consent law for minors' abortions: perspectives on the past, present, and future.
Joseph MA
New Engl Law Rev; 1992; 26(3):1051-99. PubMed ID: 11659665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Constitution and the anomaly of the pregnant teenager.
Buchanan E
Ariz Law Rev; 1982; 24(3):553-610. PubMed ID: 11658425
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Utah and publicly funded contraceptive services: the struggle to prevent minors from sponging off the government.
Chitwood M
J Contemp Law; 1987; 13(2):277-300. PubMed ID: 11658998
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Reagan administration decides not to appeal "squeal rule" defeat.
Ob Gyn News; 1984 Feb 1-14; 19(3):3, 36. PubMed ID: 11653544
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Parental notification and abortion: a review and recommendation to West Virginia's legislature.
Frame DW
West VA Law Rev; 1983; 85(5):943-68. PubMed ID: 11658585
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A decade of cementing the mosaic of Roe v. Wade: is the composite a message to leave abortion alone?
Kudner KE
Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1984; 15(2):681-753. PubMed ID: 11649780
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Parental notification rule rejected again.
Kamen A
Washington Post; 1983 Jul; ():A1, A8. PubMed ID: 11646365
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Beyond the Roe debate: judicial experience with the 1980's "reasonableness" test.
Farber DA; Nowak JE
Va Law Rev; 1990 Apr; 76(3):519-38. PubMed ID: 11659370
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Parental notification requirements applicable to projects for family planning services; final rule.
U.S. Public Health Service
Fed Regist; 1983 Jan; 48(18):3600-14. PubMed ID: 11645488
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Abortion rights of young women: the Supreme Court attacks the most vulnerable.
Heller S
Washburn Law J; 1990; 30(1):15-28. PubMed ID: 11659579
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Abortions for minors after Bellotti II: an analysis of state law and a proposal.
Lozano GD
St Marys Law J; 1980; 11(4):946-97. PubMed ID: 11658462
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Understanding the United States Supreme Court's position on parental consent requirements: in defense of Danforth and Bellotti--a response to Crutchfield.
Rodman H
Fam Relat; 1981 Apr; 30(2):182-4. PubMed ID: 11651712
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Judge bars birth control notification.
Hilts PJ
Washington Post; 1983 Feb; ():A1, A6. PubMed ID: 11646363
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Abortion rights under state constitutions: fighting the abortion war in the state courts.
Chaput KA
Oregon Law Rev; 1991; 70(3):593-628. PubMed ID: 11659531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
