287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16450474)
1. The next abortion decision.
N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A34. PubMed ID: 16450474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Case reopens abortion issue for justices.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A19. PubMed ID: 16450459
[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. 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]
6. After Ayotte: the need to defend abortion rights with renewed "purpose.".
Harv Law Rev; 2006 Jun; 119(8):2552-73. PubMed ID: 16827220
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Mazurek v. Armstrong: should states be allowed to restrict the performance of abortions to licensed physicians only?
Bazzelle RY
Thurgood Marshall Law Rev; 1998; 24(1):149-82. PubMed ID: 16200693
[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. 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]
15. Family law I: abortion.
Koscs ME
Annu Surv Am Law; 1984; 2():929-60. PubMed ID: 16086473
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Court, in effect, rejects parent notification.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1996 Apr; ():A19. PubMed ID: 11647498
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Partial-birth abortion: should moral judgment prevail over medical judgment?
Walther KE
Loyola Univ Chic Law J; 2000; 31(4):693-736. PubMed ID: 11962531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A relational approach to moral decision-making: the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Sullivan PA; Goldzwig SR
Q J Speech; 1995 May; 81(2):167-90. PubMed ID: 11808622
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
