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.
229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12666688)
41. Pregnant embodiment and women's autonomy rights in law: an analysis of the language and politics of Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. D.F.G. Randall M Sask Law Rev; 1999; 62(2):515-42. PubMed ID: 12769105 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. The Supreme Court and abortion rights. Annas GJ N Engl J Med; 2007 May; 356(21):2201-7. PubMed ID: 17476003 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. 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]
44. Restrictions on women's right to abortion: informed consent, spousal consent, and record keeping provisions. Karg B Womens Rights Law Report; 1978; 5(1):35-51. PubMed ID: 11665035 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. State v. Oakley: infringing on women's reproductive rights. Schehr AR Wis Womens Law J; 2003; 18(2):281-97. PubMed ID: 15568247 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. Constitutional law--substantive due process--abortion--reasonable statutory recordkeeping and reporting requirements upheld. Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1976; 1976(4):977-99. PubMed ID: 11664779 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. The rhetoric of disrespect: uncovering the faulty premises infecting reproductive rights. Reilly EA Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 1996; 5(1):147-205. PubMed ID: 16594108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. Conceivable sterilization: a constitutional analysis of a Norplant/Depo-Provera welfare condition. Smith KA Indiana Law J; 2002; 77(2):389-418. PubMed ID: 15174441 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. byrn and Roe: the threshold question and juridical review. Riga PJ Cathol Lawyer; 1978; 23(4):309-31. PubMed ID: 11664059 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Jon O. Newman and the abortion decisions: a remarkable first year. Hurwitz AD NY Law Sch Law Rev; 2002-2003; 46(1-2):231-47. PubMed ID: 16493839 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Compelling pregnancy at death's door. Taylor KA Columbia J Gend Law; 1997; 7(1):85-165. PubMed ID: 16184655 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Protection of the rights of pregnant women in prisons and detention facilities. McHugh GA New Engl J Prison Law; 1980; 6(2):231-63. PubMed ID: 11655730 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. The phoenix of abortional freedom: is a penumbral or Ninth-Amendment right about to arise from the nineteenth-century legislative ashes of a fourteenth-century common-law liberty? Means CC N Y Law Forum; 1971; 17(2):335-410. PubMed ID: 16602212 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. After Ayotte: the need to defend abortion rights with renewed "purpose.". Harv Law Rev; 2006 Jun; 119(8):2552-73. PubMed ID: 16827220 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Constitutional law--a new Constitutional right to an abortion. Watt RL North Carol Law Rev; 1973 Oct; 51(6):1573-84. PubMed ID: 11663419 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. What "choice" do they have?: protecting pregnant minors' reproductive rights using state constitutions. Weissmann R Annu Surv Am Law; 1999; 1999(1):129-67. PubMed ID: 11958234 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. State constitutional privacy rights post Webster--broader protection against abortion restrictions? Ezzard MM Denver Univ Law Rev; 1990; 67(3):401-19. PubMed ID: 15999439 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]