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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16479701)

  • 1. Catholic Charities v. Superior Court.
    California. Court of Appeal, Third District
    Wests Calif Report; 2001; 109():176-206. PubMed ID: 16479701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Catholic Charities of Sacramento County v. Superior Court of Sacramento County.
    California. Supreme Court
    Wests Pac Report; 2004; 85():67-108. PubMed ID: 17225342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In good conscience: the legal trend to include prescription contraceptives in employer insurance plans and Catholic charities' "conscience clause" objection.
    Spota K
    Cathol Univers Law Rev; 2003; 52(4):1081-113. PubMed ID: 15732206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prescription contraceptives: benefit whose time has come?
    Friedman MJ
    Manag Care; 2001 Oct; 10(10):62-3. PubMed ID: 11688113
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The EPICC quest for prescription contraceptive insurance coverage.
    Vargas C
    Am J Law Med; 2002; 28(4):455-71. PubMed ID: 12516176
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On the need for a federal conscience clause.
    Myers RS
    Natl Cathol Bioeth Q; 2001; 1(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 12862052
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A battle over birth "control": legal and legislative employer prescription contraception benefit mandates.
    Loomis CK
    William Mary Bill Rights J; 2002 Dec; 11(1):463-94. PubMed ID: 16389684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. California Department of Managed Health, petitioners brief on the merits.
    Natl Cathol Bioeth Q; 2004; 4(1):133-49. PubMed ID: 15192855
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Insurance: New York rejects religious challenge to law requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives--Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio.
    Gobeille B
    J Law Med Ethics; 2007; 35(3):503-6. PubMed ID: 17918669
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Contraceptive coverage laws: eliminating gender discrimination or infringing on religious liberties?
    Chettiar IM
    Univ Chic Law Rev; 2002; 69(4):1867-99. PubMed ID: 15164744
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Can the government define religion?
    Hogan CN
    Natl Cathol Bioeth Q; 2001; 1(1):27-31. PubMed ID: 12862053
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Lack of insurance coverage for prescription contraception by an otherwise comprehensive plan as a violation of Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act--stretching the statute too far.
    Backmeyer ER
    Indiana Law Rev; 2004; 37(2):437-66. PubMed ID: 16211763
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden.
    United States. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    Wests Fed Rep; 2004; 379():531-57. PubMed ID: 16477726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Recent developments in health insurance, life insurance, and disability insurance case law.
    Hasman JJ; Chittenden WA; Doolin EG; Wall JF
    Tort Trial Insur Pract Law J; 2008; 43(3):473-517. PubMed ID: 18828249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Religious freedom and women's health--the litigation on contraception.
    Jost TS
    N Engl J Med; 2013 Jan; 368(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 23252500
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sex discrimination or a hard pill for employers to swallow: examining the denial of contraceptive benefits in the wake of Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co.
    Korland L
    Case West Reserve Law Rev; 2002; 53(2):531-67. PubMed ID: 16506335
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Insurance: exclusion of contraception found discriminatory by EEOC.
    Netter W
    J Law Med Ethics; 2001; 29(1):104-6. PubMed ID: 11521259
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Drafting a "sensible" conscience clause: a proposal for meaningful conscience protections for religious employers objecting to the mandated coverage of prescription contraceptives.
    Rudary DJ
    Health Matrix Clevel; 2013; 23(1):353-94. PubMed ID: 23808105
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Employment law--Title VII--Eighth Circuit holds that benefits plans excluding all contraceptives do not discriminate based on sex.--In re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, No. 06-1706 (8th Cir. May 23, 2007).
    Harv Law Rev; 2008 Mar; 121(5):1447-54. PubMed ID: 18441613
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: employer health insurance plans must cover prescription contraceptives.
    Kurtz JM; Mehoves C
    Empl Benefits J; 2001 Sep; 26(3):29-31. PubMed ID: 11534218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.