These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16477717)
1. Lake v. Arnold. United States. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Wests Fed Rep; 2000; 232():360-76. PubMed ID: 16477717 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Poe v. Lynchburg Training School and Hospital. U.S. District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division Fed Suppl; 1981 Apr; 518():789-94. PubMed ID: 11648518 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Estate of C.W.: a pragmatic approach to the involuntary sterilization of the mentally disabled. Adler RR Nova Law J; 1996; 20(3):1323-68. PubMed ID: 12173631 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The right to parenthood. Wright PA Fam Law Rev; 1979; 2(3):173-85. PubMed ID: 11665242 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Involuntary sterilization of mentally retarded minors in Nebraska. Small MA Neb Law Rev; 1989; 68(1):410-29. PubMed ID: 16041875 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Motes v. Hall County. Georgia. Supreme Court Rep Cases Decided Supreme Court State Ga Ga Supreme Court; 1983 Sep; 251():373-5. PubMed ID: 12041501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Involuntary sterilization of mentally disabled women. Cepko R Berkeley Womens Law J; 1993; 8():122-65. PubMed ID: 11659702 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Class debates: reproductive, disability rights mix in KKK Act cases. Gibeaut J ABA J; 1997 Aug; 83():36-7. PubMed ID: 11660444 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. From involuntary sterilization to genetic enhancement: the unsettled legacy of Buck v. Bell. Berry RM Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy; 1999; 12(2):401-48. PubMed ID: 12755089 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Conservatorship of Valerie N. California. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4 Wests Calif Report; 1983 May; 191():283-90. PubMed ID: 11648539 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An examination of Saskatchewan law on the sterilization of persons with mental disabilities. Newman D Sask Law Rev; 1999; 62(1):329-46. PubMed ID: 12680362 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. In re Romero: sterilization and competency. Marcus J Denver Univ Law Rev; 1991; 68(1):105-18. PubMed ID: 16144140 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. In re Truesdell. North Carolina. Court of Appeals South East Report Second Ser; 1983 Jul; 304():793-813. PubMed ID: 12041322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Attorney-General (QLD) v. Parents, In re S. Australia. Family Court Fed Law Rep; 1989 Nov; 98():41-56. PubMed ID: 12041104 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Fed Report; 1991 Oct; 947():682-727. PubMed ID: 11648596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Act No. 89-01 of 17 January 1989 amending the Family Code. Senegal Annu Rev Popul Law; 1989; 16():59. PubMed ID: 12344477 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Youngberg v. Romeo. U.S. Supreme Court U S Rep U S Supreme Court; 1982 Jun; 457():307-31. PubMed ID: 12041273 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman. U.S. Supreme Court U S Rep U S Supreme Court; 1984 Jan; 465():89-167. PubMed ID: 12041274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Sterilization of the mentally disabled in Pennsylvania: three generations without legislative guidance are enough. Estacio RA Dickinson Law Rev; 1988; 92(2):409-36. PubMed ID: 11659036 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]