278 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663114)
1. The law of fertility regulation in the United States: a 1980 review.
Isaacs SL
J Fam Law; 1980-1981; 19(1):65-96. PubMed ID: 11663114
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Reproductive freedom issues in legal services practice.
Law S
Clgh Rev; 1978 Nov; 12(7):389-403. PubMed ID: 11665039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Roe to Casey: a survey of abortion law.
Pirner RK; Williams LB
Washburn Law J; 1993; 32(2):166-89. PubMed ID: 11659798
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Abortion, conscience and the Constitution: an examination of federal institutional conscience clauses.
Pilpel HF; Patton DE
Columbia Human Rights Law Rev; 1974 Fall-1975 Winter; 6(2):279-305. PubMed ID: 11663597
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Sterilization in Pennsylvania.
Beck PW; Soskis CW
Temple Law Q; 1981; 54(2):213-36. PubMed ID: 11652406
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Enforcement of state abortion statutes after Roe: a state-by-state analysis.
Linton PB
Univ Detroit Law Rev; 1990; 67(2):157-259. PubMed ID: 11659261
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Medical treatment for minor children: the roles of parents, the state, the child, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Crutchfield CF
Fam Relat; 1981 Apr; 30(2):165-77. PubMed ID: 11651710
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The viability of the trimester approach.
Calder KA
Univ Baltimore Law Rev; 1984; 13(2):322-45. PubMed ID: 11658808
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Abortion--an update.
Guthman HL
Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):175-91. PubMed ID: 11649201
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Does the state action doctrine compel nominally private hospitals to make abortion services available despite "conscience clauses".
Shuger NB
Md Law Forum; 1974; 4(3):113-24. PubMed ID: 11663479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The trimester approach: how long can the legal fiction last?
Casurella JG; Schrock CT
Mercer Law Rev; 1984; 35(4):891-913. PubMed ID: 11658750
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Reproduction and the law.
Erickson NS
Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):165-74. PubMed ID: 11649200
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Balancing the right of the mentally retarded to obtain a therapeutic sterilization against the potential for abuse.
Irvine AC
Law Psychol Rev; 1988; 12():95-122. PubMed ID: 11660733
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The evolution of the right to privacy after Roe v. Wade.
Barnard D
Am J Law Med; 1987; 13(2 3):365-525. PubMed ID: 11659051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
