199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16086512)
1. Controlling the reproductive rights of impoverished women: is this the way to "reform" welfare?
Broomfield MG
Boston Coll Third World Law J; 1996; 16(2):217-44. PubMed ID: 16086512
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The social meaning of the Norplant condition: constitutional considerations of race, class, and gender.
Albiston C
Berkeley Womens Law J; 1994; 9():9-57. PubMed ID: 16767841
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The rights and wrongs of Norplant offers.
Berman DA
South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 1993; 3(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 11652937
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The children of ART (assisted reproductive technology): should the law protect them from harm?
Rosato JL
Utah Law Rev; 2004; 2004(1):57-110. PubMed ID: 16755703
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. X marks the spot while Casey strikes out: two controversial abortion decisions.
Zenkich S
Gold Gate Univ Law Rev; 1993; 23(3):1001-40. PubMed ID: 16437786
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Involuntary sterilization: an unconstitutional menace to minorities and the poor.
Spriggs EJ
Rev Law Soc Change; 1974; 4(2):127-51. PubMed ID: 11664642
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Sterilization regulation: government efforts to guarantee informed consent.
Prendergast MH
Santa Clara Law Rev; 1978; 18(4):971-96. PubMed ID: 11665024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Coercion and long-term contraceptives.
Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1995; 25(1):S19-22. PubMed ID: 7730038
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Cloning human beings and the consumer of the future: a worthwhile endeavor or a nightmare come true?
Frankel A
Loyola Consum Law Rev; 2001; 13(2):149-87. PubMed ID: 15977332
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Puppy love: bioterrorism, civil rights, and public health.
Annas GJ
Fla Law Rev; 2003 Dec; 55(5):1171-90. PubMed ID: 15478248
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Contraception or incarceration: what's wrong with this picture?
Callahan J
Stanford Law Pol Rev; 1995-1996 Winter; 7(1):67-82. PubMed ID: 16086509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Sterilization abuse: a proposed regulatory scheme.
De Paul Law Rev; 1979; 28(3):731-68. PubMed ID: 11661937
[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. I teach you the superman: why Congress cannot constitutionally prohibit genetic modification.
Glahn JC
Whittier Law Rev; 2003; 25(2):409-39. PubMed ID: 15568274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Assisted reproductive technologies and the Constitution.
Coleman CH
Fordham Urban Law J; 2002 Nov; 30(1):57-70. PubMed ID: 15868662
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Eugenics and ideas about the races in Mexico, 1930-50].
Urias Horcasitas B
Hist Graf; 2001; (17):171-205. PubMed ID: 19663057
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. When welfare reforms promote abortion: "personal responsibility," "family values," and the right to choose.
Appleton SF
Georgetown Law J; 1996 Nov; 85(1):155-90. PubMed ID: 10169715
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
