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.
139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12828018)
1. Pregnancy, drug testing, and the fourth amendment: legal and behavioral implications. Bornstein BH J Fam Psychol; 2003 Jun; 17(2):220-8. PubMed ID: 12828018 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The laws that affect abortion in the United States and their impact on women's health. Harrison LK; Naylor KL Nurse Pract; 1991 Dec; 16(12):53-9. PubMed ID: 1798604 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Reproductive health and blurred professional boundaries. Chavkin W; Breitbart V Womens Health Issues; 1996; 6(2):89-96. PubMed ID: 8932462 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The concept of wrongful life in the law. Kasper AS Women Health; 1983; 8(1):81-7. PubMed ID: 6868627 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. High court bars some drug tests. Greenhouse L N Y Times Web; 2001 Mar; ():A1, A22. PubMed ID: 12159852 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Legislating to preserve women's autonomy during pregnancy. Feitshans IL Med Law; 1995; 14(5-6):397-412. PubMed ID: 8868499 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of the Human Genome Initiative on women's rights and reproductive decisions. Charo RA Fetal Diagn Ther; 1993 Apr; 8(Suppl. 1):148-59. PubMed ID: 11653014 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Is the foetal alcohol syndrome child protected by South African law? Lupton ML Med Law; 1994; 13(1-2):79-94. PubMed ID: 8065252 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Beyond Roe, after Casey: the present and future of a "fundamental" right. Benshoof J Womens Health Issues; 1993; 3(3):162-70. PubMed ID: 8274872 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada. Martin SL Can J Women Law; 1987-1988; 2(2):422-31. PubMed ID: 17076040 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Speech, privacy, and the power of the purse: lessons from the abortion "gag rule" case. Wing KR J Health Polit Policy Law; 1992; 17(1):163-75. PubMed ID: 1619248 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]