339 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15988862)
1. Assessing the viability of a substantive due process right to in vitro fertilization.
Harv Law Rev; 2005 Jun; 118(8):2792-813. PubMed ID: 15988862
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. What Lawrence v. Texas says about the history and future of reproductive rights.
Dailard C
Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar; 31(3):717-23. PubMed ID: 16700117
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Freedom at home: state constitutions and Medicaid funding for abortions.
Vanzi LM
N M Law Rev; 1996; 26(3):433-54. PubMed ID: 16100794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. The constitutional implications of human cloning.
Foley EP
Ariz Law Rev; 2000; 42(3):647-730. PubMed ID: 15747441
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The right to privacy: Roe v. Wade revisited.
Smith PA
Jurist; 1983; 43(2):289-317. PubMed ID: 16086474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Privacy and the regulation of the new reproductive technologies: a decision-making approach.
Sedillo Lopez A
Fam Law Q; 1988; 22(2):173-97. PubMed ID: 16100818
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. A woman decides: Justice O'Connor and due process rights of choice.
Davis PC; Gilligan C
McGeorge Law Rev; 2001; 32(3):895-914. PubMed ID: 16493803
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Does the Thirteenth Amendment provide a jurisdictional basis for a federal ban on cloning?
Vinck SC
J Legis; 2003; 30(1):183-91. PubMed ID: 17256218
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Title X, the abortion debate, and the First Amendment.
Shapiro AA
Columbia Law Rev; 1990 Oct; 90(6):1737-78. PubMed ID: 15739274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The use of in vitro fertilization: is there a right to bear or beget a child by any available medical means?
Eccles MR
Pepperdine Law Rev; 1985; 12(4):1033-57. PubMed ID: 11655769
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. What happens if Roe is overruled? Extraterritorial regulation of abortion by the states.
Bradford CS
Ariz Law Rev; 1993; 35(1):87-171. PubMed ID: 12645556
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. "The sexual freedom cases"? Contraception, abortion, abstinence, and the Constitution.
Cruz DB
Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 2000; 35(2):299-383. PubMed ID: 12452156
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Substantive due process after Gonzales v. Carhart.
Calabresi SG
Mich Law Rev; 2008 Jun; 106(8):1517-42. PubMed ID: 18595213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
