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.
244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12645550)
1. What about my right to privacy? Where the Court went wrong in Ferguson v. City of Charleston. Barton EF Brooklyn Law Rev; 2001; 67(1):261-92. PubMed ID: 12645550 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Punitive versus public health oriented responses to drug use by pregnant women. Schroedel JR; Fiber P Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics; 2001; 1():217-35. PubMed ID: 12669331 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A feminist Fourth Amendment?: Consent, care, privacy, and social meaning in Ferguson v. City of Charleston. Taslitz AE Duke J Gend Law Policy; 2002; 9():1-79. PubMed ID: 14986665 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Crack babies and the Constitution: ruminations about addicted pregnant women after Ferguson v. City of Charleston. Marrus E Villanova Law Rev; 2002; 47(2):299-340. PubMed ID: 12680368 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. High court bars some drug tests. Greenhouse L N Y Times Web; 2001 Mar; ():A1, A22. PubMed ID: 12159852 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Inside the womb: interpreting the Ferguson case. Weyrauch S Duke J Gend Law Policy; 2002; 9():81-90. PubMed ID: 14986666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Prosecution of illicit drug use during pregnancy: Crystal Ferguson v. City of Charleston. Frierson RL; Binkley MW J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2001; 29(4):469-73. PubMed ID: 11785622 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Testing poor pregnant women for cocaine--physicians as police investigators. Annas GJ N Engl J Med; 2001 May; 344(22):1729-32. PubMed ID: 11386286 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Mandatory HIV testing and treating of child-bearing women: an unnatural, illegal, and unsound approach. McGovern TM Columbia Human Rights Law Rev; 1997; 28(3):469-99. PubMed ID: 16437777 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Prenatal v. parental rights: what a difference an "a" makes. Gallagher A St Marys Law J; 1989; 21(2):301-24. PubMed ID: 16100799 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, S.C. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Wests Fed Rep; 1999; 186():469-89. PubMed ID: 11868568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Legal issues: drug testing of postpartum women and newborns as the basis for civil and criminal proceedings. Moss KL Clgh Rev; 1990 Mar; 23(11):1406-14. PubMed ID: 11659232 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Maternal duties during pregnancy: toward a conceptual framework. Sterns ML New Engl Law Rev; 1985-1986; 21(3):595-634. PubMed ID: 16998992 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Punitive policies: constitutional hazards of non-consensual testing of women for prenatal drug use. VanRaalte DB Health Matrix Clevel; 1995; 5(2):443-82. PubMed ID: 10152586 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. How far can a state go to protect a fetus? The Rebecca Corneau story and the case for requiring Massachusetts to follow the U.S. Constitution. Bower HR Gold Gate Univ Law Rev; 2001; 31(1):123-54. PubMed ID: 12666688 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The law and ACTG protocol 076: do the slings and arrows of mandatory HIV testing penetrate a woman's right to privacy. Goldring DS Linc Law Rev; 1999; 25/26():1-23. PubMed ID: 15929237 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Perinatal substance abuse and human subjects research: are privacy protections adequate? Marshall MF; Menikoff J; Paltrow LM Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev; 2003; 9(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 12587139 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mandatory HIV testing: an Orwellian proposition. Lagitch KE St Johns Law Rev; 1998; 72(1):103-39. PubMed ID: 16184658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The rights of pregnant women: the Supreme Court and drug testing. Gostin LO Hastings Cent Rep; 2001; 31(5):8-9. PubMed ID: 12974111 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Criminalization of pregnant substance abusers: a health care perspective. Popovits RM J Health Hosp Law; 1991 Jun; 24(6):169-81. PubMed ID: 10170728 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]