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.
151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15174441)
1. 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]
2. Norplant bonuses and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Coale DS Tex Law Rev; 1992 Nov; 71(1):189-215. PubMed ID: 11656313 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Abortion 1990s: contemporary issues and the activist court. Bertz RC West State Univ Law Rev; 1992; 19(2):393-429. PubMed ID: 16047452 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Parental notification of abortion and minors' rights under the Montana constitution. Hayhurst MB Mont Law Rev; 1997; 58(2):565-98. PubMed ID: 16180294 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Abortion rights after South Dakota. McDonagh E Free Inq; 2006; 26(4):34-8. PubMed ID: 16830439 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The right to privacy: Roe v. Wade revisited. Smith PA Jurist; 1983; 43(2):289-317. PubMed ID: 16086474 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. A matter of life and death: pregnancy clauses in living will statutes. Dyke MC Boston Univ Law Rev; 1990 Nov; 70(5):867-87. PubMed ID: 12186075 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Developments--the family. V. Procreative rights. Harv Law Rev; 1980 Apr; 93(6):1296-308. PubMed ID: 11665179 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Constitutional analysis of the Baby M decision. Stark B Harv Womens Law J; 1988; 11():19-52. PubMed ID: 16100827 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The worst of both worlds?: parental involvement requirements and the privacy rights of mature minors. O'Shaughnessy M Ohio State Law J; 1996; 57(5):1731-65. PubMed ID: 16086519 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. From arguments to Supreme Court opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Kassop N PS (Wash DC); 1993 Mar; 26(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 12085874 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The validity of legislative restrictions on abortion under the Oregon constitution. Tweedt DE Temple Law Rev; 1992; 65(4):1349-71. PubMed ID: 16047444 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Womb for rent: Norplant and the undoing of poor women. Vance JL Hastings Constit Law Q; 1994; 21(3):827-55. PubMed ID: 11863029 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Sexual privacy: access of a minor to contraceptives, abortion, and sterilization without parental consent. Henenberg K Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1977; 12(1):221-44. PubMed ID: 11664910 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Sterilization: who says no? George HE Mercer Law Rev; 1978; 29(3):821-39. PubMed ID: 11664923 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]