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.
2. The inapplicability of parental involvement laws to the distribution of mifepristone (RU-486) to minors. Scuder AC Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2002; 10(3):711-41. PubMed ID: 16594112 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Family law I: abortion. Koscs ME Annu Surv Am Law; 1984; 2():929-60. PubMed ID: 16086473 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Journey through the courts: minors, abortion and the quest for reproductive fairness. Ehrlich JS Yale J Law Fem; 1998; 10(1):1-27. PubMed ID: 16596765 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Grounded in the reality of their lives: listening to teens who make the abortion decision without involving their parents. Ehrlich JS Berkeley Womens Law J; 2003; 18():61-180. PubMed ID: 15156878 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Splitting the baby: when can a pregnant minor obtain an abortion without parental consent? The Ex parte Anonymous cases (Alabama 2001). Rosenberg SP Conn Law Rev; 2002; 34(3):1109-41. PubMed ID: 15212029 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Parental notification and a minor's right to an abortion after Hodgson and Akron II. Graziano SG Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1991; 17(3):581-97. PubMed ID: 16145809 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Winter count: taking stock of abortion rights after Casey and Carhart. Borgmann CE Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar; 31(3):675-716. PubMed ID: 16700116 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Change of venue: abortion regulation in the states. Rogers EH Tex J Women Law; 1994; 3(1):123-33. PubMed ID: 12645607 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Abortion in America. Shostak AB Futurist; 1991; 25(4):20-4. PubMed ID: 16145782 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 30 years after abortion ruling, new trends but the old debate. Zernike K N Y Times Web; 2003 Jan; ():A1, A16. PubMed ID: 12647755 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Contemporary Australian abortion law: the description of a crime and the negation of a woman's right to abortion. Rankin MJ Monash Univ Law Rev; 2001; 27(2):229-52. PubMed ID: 16493805 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Abortion laws in the states. Oliver L NCSL Legisbrief; 2004 Oct; 12(38):1-2. PubMed ID: 15499709 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Mazurek v. Armstrong: should states be allowed to restrict the performance of abortions to licensed physicians only? Bazzelle RY Thurgood Marshall Law Rev; 1998; 24(1):149-82. PubMed ID: 16200693 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. French study sparks debate on informed consent laws. Butler D Nature; 1993 Jan; 361(6408):102. PubMed ID: 8421505 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Institutional review boards, research on children, and informed consent of parents: walking the tightrope between encouraging vital experimentation and protecting subjects' rights. Katerberg RJ J Coll Univ Law; 1998; 24(3):545-79. PubMed ID: 16331880 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. In strictest confidence. French K Nurs Manag (Harrow); 2005 Dec; 12(8):26-9. PubMed ID: 16381226 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Constitutionalizing Roe, Casey and Carhart: a legislative due-process anti-discrimination principle that gives constitutional content to the "undue burden" standard of review applied to abortion control legislation. Van Detta JA South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 2001; 10(2):211-92. PubMed ID: 16485363 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Parents, judges, and a minor's abortion decisions: third party participation and the evolution of a judicial alternative. Green W Akron Law Rev; 1983; 17(1):87-110. PubMed ID: 16086471 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]