217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16450459)
1. Case reopens abortion issue for justices.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A19. PubMed ID: 16450459
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The next abortion decision.
N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A34. PubMed ID: 16450474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Court to tackle abortion again after 5 years; parent notification case; in considering technical issues, justices rejoin a fractious debate.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2005 May; ():A1, A17. PubMed ID: 15948341
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Justices reaffirm abortion access for emergencies.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2006 Jan; ():A1, A18. PubMed ID: 16429624
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Abortion: Supreme Court avoids disturbing abortion precedents by ruling on grounds of Remedy-Ayotte v. planned parenthood of Northern New England.
Law N
J Law Med Ethics; 2006; 34(2):469-71. PubMed ID: 16789971
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Family law I: abortion.
Koscs ME
Annu Surv Am Law; 1984; 2():929-60. PubMed ID: 16086473
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Preserving the right to choose: a minor's right to confidential reproductive health care.
Bertuglia J
Womens Rights Law Report; 2001; 23(1):63-77. PubMed ID: 12774775
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Justices deadlocked on state laws restricting minors' access to abortion.
Taylor S
N Y Times Web; 1987 Dec; ():B16. PubMed ID: 11646635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Abortion in America.
Shostak AB
Futurist; 1991; 25(4):20-4. PubMed ID: 16145782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Court, in effect, rejects parent notification.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1996 Apr; ():A19. PubMed ID: 11647498
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Parental notification of abortion and minors' rights under the Montana constitution.
Hayhurst MB
Mont Law Rev; 1997; 58(2):565-98. PubMed ID: 16180294
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Justices to review federal ban on disputed abortion method; case may hinge on Alito, Court's newest member.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2006 Feb; ():A1, A14. PubMed ID: 16514736
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Parental consent to abortion: how enforcement can vary.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1992 May; ():A1, B8. PubMed ID: 11647920
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. N.H. approves abortion consent bill.
Ferdinand P
Washington Post; 2003 May; ():A5. PubMed ID: 14610776
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
