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.
178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12041159)
1. Doe v. Attorney General. Michigan. Court of Appeals Wests North West Rep; 1992 Jun; 487():484-90. PubMed ID: 12041159 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Can surrogate parenting be stopped? An inspection of the constitutional and pragmatic aspects of outlawing surrogate mother arrangements. Krimmel HT Valparaiso Univ Law Rev; 1992; 27(1):1-38. PubMed ID: 11652236 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Doe v. Attorney General. Michigan. Court of Appeals Mich Appeals Rep Mich Court Appeals; 1981 May; 106():169-74. PubMed ID: 12041107 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Status and contract in surrogate motherhood: an illumination of the surrogacy debate. Dolgin JL Buffalo Law Rev; 1990; 38(2):515-50. PubMed ID: 11650993 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The surrogate mother contract: in the best interests of society? Latourette AW Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1990; 25(1):53-92. PubMed ID: 11651389 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Gestational surrogacy: unsettling state parentage law and surrogacy policy. Hofheimer A Rev Law Soc Change; 1992; 19(3):571-616. PubMed ID: 11659977 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Hobbins v. Attorney General; People v. Kevorkian (Docket No. 171056); People v. Kevorkian (Docket No. 172399). Michigan. Court of Appeals Wests North West Rep; 1994 May; 518():487-502. PubMed ID: 12041165 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. R.R. v. M.H. Massachusetts. Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester North East Rep Second Ser; 1998 Jan; 689():790-7. PubMed ID: 12041242 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Surrogate law: the decision in a novel case in New Jersey could have wide-reaching implications for infertile couples and surrogate motherhood. Galen M Natl Law J; 1986 Sep; 9(3):1, 8, 10. PubMed ID: 11658784 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Surrogate motherhood contracts: should the British or Canadian model fill the U.S. legislative vacuum? Serratelli A George Washington J Int Law Econ; 1993; 26(3):633-74. PubMed ID: 11652952 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Doe v. Keane. U.S. District Court, W.D. Michigan, S.D Fed Suppl; 1987 Apr; 658():216-22. PubMed ID: 11648175 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Syrkowski v. Appleyard. Michigan. Supreme Court Wests North West Rep; 1985 Jan; 362():211-4. PubMed ID: 12041132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Baby-sitting consideration: surrogate mother's right to "rent her womb" for a fee. Sly KM Gonzaga Law Rev; 1982-1983; 18(3):539-65. PubMed ID: 11658877 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. In re Marriage of Moschetta. California. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3 Wests Calif Report; 1994 Jun; 30():893-903. PubMed ID: 11648284 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Developing a concept of the modern "family": a proposed Uniform Surrogate Parenthood Act. Mandler JJ Georgetown Law J; 1985 Jun; 73(5):1283-329. PubMed ID: 11651810 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Surrogate mother agreements: contemporary legal aspects of a biblical notion. Townsend MD Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1982; 16(2):467-83. PubMed ID: 11658708 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Surrogacy v. the Thirteenth Amendment. Means CC N Y Law School Hum Rights Annu; 1987; 4(Part 2):445-79. PubMed ID: 11650204 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]