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. Medical decision making during a surrogate pregnancy. Mayo TW Houst Law Rev; 1988 May; 25(3):599-644. PubMed ID: 11649257 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A man's right to be equal: the abortion issue. Shalev C Isr Law Rev; 1983; 18(3-4):381-430. PubMed ID: 11659119 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Embryo transplant, parental conflict, and reproductive freedom: a prospective analysis of issues and arguments created by forthcoming technology. Coleman MN Hofstra Law Rev; 1987; 15(3):609-30. PubMed ID: 11659072 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Model human reproduction technologies and surrogacy act. Abbas J Iowa Law Rev; 1987 May; 72(4):943-1013. PubMed ID: 11659499 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Using the courts to stop abortion by injunction: Mock v. Brandanburg. Martin SL Can J Women Law; 1989-1990; 3(2):569-83. PubMed ID: 11659311 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Sex as contract: abortion and expanded choice. Feaver PD; Kling R; Plofchan TK Stanford Law Pol Rev; 1992-1993 Winter; 4():211-20. PubMed ID: 11652652 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Paternal interests in the abortion decision: does the father have a say? Diggins M Univ Chic Leg Forum; 1989; 1989():377-97. PubMed ID: 11656041 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Posthumous reproduction. Robertson JA Indiana Law J; 1994; 69(4):1027-65. PubMed ID: 11653158 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Constitutional law--abortion--parental and spousal consent requirements violate right to privacy in abortion decision. Sanders JE Univ Kans Law Rev; 1976; 24(2):446-62. PubMed ID: 11664628 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The sound of silence breaking: Catholic women, abortion, and the law. Phelps TG Tenn Law Rev; 1992; 59(3):547-69. PubMed ID: 11652638 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 'Fathers'' foetuses and abortion decision-making: the reproduction of maternal ideology in Canadian judicial discourse. Fegan EV Soc Leg Stud; 1996 Mar; 5(1):75-93. PubMed ID: 11658110 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Response of Professor Field. Field MA Politics Life Sci; 1991 Feb; 9(2):262-8. PubMed ID: 11656634 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Abortion and the consideration of fundamental, irreconcilable interests. Jones CJ Syracuse Law Rev; 1982; 33(2):565-613. PubMed ID: 11658668 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Rumpelstiltskin revisited: the inalienable rights of surrogate mothers. Harv Law Rev; 1986 Jun; 99(8):1936-55. PubMed ID: 11655817 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Reading Casey: structuring the woman's decisionmaking process. Goldstein RD William Mary Bill Rights J; 1996; 4(3):787-880. PubMed ID: 11660789 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. New reproductive technologies in Canada and the United States: same problems, different discourses. Young AH Temple Int Comp Law J; 1998; 12(1):43-85. PubMed ID: 11660812 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. In the matter of Baby M: rejudged. Raymond JG Reprod Genet Eng; 1988; 1(2):175-81. PubMed ID: 11650375 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Abortion: the future cases--fathers' rights. Avansino F Univ San Francisco Law Rev; 1973; 8(2):472-92. PubMed ID: 11664407 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]