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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16493277)

  • 1. Privacy issues for girls are in the news and in BJN.
    Foss TD
    Br J Nurs; 2006 Jan 26-Feb 8; 15(2):65. PubMed ID: 16493277
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Misconceived laws: the irrationality of parental involvement requirements for contraception.
    Arons JR
    William Mary Law Rev; 2000 Mar; 41(3):1093-131. PubMed ID: 16329212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Whither the family and family privacy?
    Jones TR; Peterman L
    Tex Rev Law Polit; 1999; 4(1):193-236. PubMed ID: 15706723
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Abortion 1990s: contemporary issues and the activist court.
    Bertz RC
    West State Univ Law Rev; 1992; 19(2):393-429. PubMed ID: 16047452
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Bad girls or big brother?
    Fallon D
    Paediatr Nurs; 2006 Feb; 18(1):3. PubMed ID: 16518944
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The next abortion decision.
    N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A34. PubMed ID: 16450474
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. State constitutional privacy rights post Webster--broader protection against abortion restrictions?
    Ezzard MM
    Denver Univ Law Rev; 1990; 67(3):401-19. PubMed ID: 15999439
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Recent Supreme Court decisions.
    Schulte DJ
    Mich Med; 2006; 105(2):6. PubMed ID: 16669465
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Case reopens abortion issue for justices.
    Greenhouse L
    N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A19. PubMed ID: 16450459
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The undue burden: parental notification requirements for publicly funded contraception.
    Bornstein S
    Berkeley Womens Law J; 2000; 15():40-75. PubMed ID: 16518901
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.