975 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16047452)
21. 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]
22. Parental involvement in adolescent abortion decisions: a legal and psychological critique.
Embree MG; Dobson TA
Law Inequal; 1991 Dec; 10(1):53-79. PubMed ID: 11659634
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. HIPAA, Privacy, and Reproductive Rights in a Post-Roe Era.
Shachar C
JAMA; 2022 Aug; 328(5):417-418. PubMed ID: 35838680
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Haunting shadows from the rubble of Roe's right of privacy.
Haley JN
Suffolk Univ Law Rev; 1974; 9(1):145-84. PubMed ID: 11664401
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Abortion: the father's rights.
Gilbert RA
Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1973; 42(3):441-67. PubMed ID: 11664234
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Right to abortion limited: the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of parental notification statutes.
Byrne TJ
Loyola Law Rev; 1982; 28(1):281-96. PubMed ID: 11658437
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. The trimester approach: how long can the legal fiction last?
Casurella JG; Schrock CT
Mercer Law Rev; 1984; 35(4):891-913. PubMed ID: 11658750
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The new pro-life legislation: patterns and recommendations.
Witherspoon JP
St Marys Law J; 1976; 7(4):637-97. PubMed ID: 11664635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. The landmark abortion decisions: justifiable termination or miscarriage of justice?--proposals for legislative response.
Scotland AG
Pac Law J; 1973 Jul; 4(2):821-60. PubMed ID: 11663368
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Beyond personhood and autonomy: moral theory and the premises of privacy.
Rappaport AJ
Utah Law Rev; 2001; 2001(2):441-507. PubMed ID: 16538746
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Air Force women's access to abortion services and the erosion of 10 U.S.C., section 1093.
Wilde ML
William Mary J Women Law; 2003; 9(3):351-412. PubMed ID: 15977327
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. State v. Oakley: infringing on women's reproductive rights.
Schehr AR
Wis Womens Law J; 2003; 18(2):281-97. PubMed ID: 15568247
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. New York v. Sullivan: shhh ... don't say the "a" word! Another outcome-oriented abortion decision.
Kendall CC
John Marshall Law Rev; 1990; 23(4):753-70. PubMed ID: 16622962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Abortion in the courts: a laywoman's historical guide to the new disaster area.
Glen KB
Fem Stud; 1978 Feb; 4(1):1-26. PubMed ID: 11665010
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Constitutional law--right to privacy--municipal roadblock to abortion denounced--City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 103 S.Ct. 2481(1983).
Crusius CJ
Seton Hall Law Rev; 1984; 14(3):658-82. PubMed ID: 11658811
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. A Troubling Court Decision for Reproductive Rights: Legal Recognition of Fetal Standing to Sue.
Fox D; Adashi EY; Cohen IG
JAMA; 2019 Jul; 322(1):23-24. PubMed ID: 31116380
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Misconceived laws: the irrationality of parental involvement requirements for contraception.
Arons JR
William Mary Law Rev; 2000 Mar; 41(3):1093-131. PubMed ID: 16329212
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Banning partial-birth abortion: drafting a constitutionally acceptable statute.
Gough AD
Univ Dayton Law Rev; 1998; 24(1):187-214. PubMed ID: 12774818
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
