402 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16100818)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. The right to privacy and assisted reproductive technologies: a comparative study of the law of Germany and the U.S.
Voss AS
N Y Law Sch J Int Comp Law; 2002; 21(2):229-305. PubMed ID: 15212072
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Our unborn children: the disturbing new choices.
Jacoby S; Kagan J
McCalls; 1979 Mar; 106(6):127-31. PubMed ID: 11665207
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Cross-border surrogacy: the case of Baby Gammy highlights the need for global agreement on protections for all parties.
Schover LR
Fertil Steril; 2014 Nov; 102(5):1258-9. PubMed ID: 25241370
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Regulating a revolution: the extent of reproductive rights in Canada.
Washenfelder C
Health Law Rev; 2003; 12(2):44-52. PubMed ID: 15742499
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Disputes over frozen preembryos and the "right not to be a parent".
Pachman TS
Columbia J Gend Law; 2003; 12(1):128-53. PubMed ID: 16281330
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Reproductive technology comes of age.
Andrews LB
Whittier Law Rev; 1999; 21(2):375-89. PubMed ID: 12199233
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Matters of life and death: inheritance consequences of reproductive technologies.
Shapo HS
Hofstra Law Rev; 1997; 25(4):1091-220. PubMed ID: 11858286
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The legal aspects of parental rights in assisted reproductive technology.
Ciccarelli JK; Ciccarelli JC
J Soc Issues; 2005 Mar; 61(1):127-37. PubMed ID: 17073027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Choosing substantive justice: a discussion of "choice," "rights" and the new reproductive technologies.
Cherry AL
Wis Womens Law J; 1997; 11(3):431-41. PubMed ID: 16281338
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. What's so strange about human cloning?
Rao R
Hastings Law J; 2002 Jul; 53(5):1007-16. PubMed ID: 15508212
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Pregnancy for others: the strange French schizophrenia].
Nau JY
Rev Med Suisse; 2015 May; 11(476):1212-3. PubMed ID: 26182644
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
