185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12974111)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Drug screening and criminal prosecution of pregnant women.
Foley EM
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 2002; 31(2):133-7. PubMed ID: 11926395
[TBL] [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. 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]
8. 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]
9. Is obtaining an arrestee's DNA a valid special needs search under the fourth amendment? What should (and will) the Supreme Court do?
Maclin T
J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(1):102-24. PubMed ID: 15938073
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Inverting the viability test for abortion law.
Ching B
Womens Rights Law Report; 2000; 22(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 16281341
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Legal issues, rights, and ethics for mental health in juvenile justice.
Zerby SA; Thomas CR
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am; 2006 Apr; 15(2):373-90, viii. PubMed ID: 16527661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. High court bars some drug tests.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2001 Mar; ():A1, A22. PubMed ID: 12159852
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The women of Roe v. Wade.
Glendon MA
Hum Life Rev; 2003; 29(3):31-8. PubMed ID: 14964200
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Supreme Court takes on issue of school drug testing.
School Nurse News; 2002 Nov; 19(5):11. PubMed ID: 12440323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The exception that swallowed the rule? Women's Medical Professional Corporation v. Voinovich and the mental health exception to post-viability abortion bans.
Wassom BD
Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1999; 49(4):799-867. PubMed ID: 12173630
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The Casey undue burden standard: problems predicted and encountered, and the split over the Salerno test.
Burdick R
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1996; 23():825-76. PubMed ID: 16086482
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The Supreme Court joins the multispecialty group practice of the Congress and the President.
Darney PD; Rosenfield A
Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Aug; 110(2 Pt 1):226-7. PubMed ID: 17666593
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
