118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16617538)
1. A practical analysis of the constitutional and legal infirmities of Norplant as a condition of probation.
Ballard MJ
Wis Womens Law J; 1992-1993; 7-8():85-106. PubMed ID: 16617538
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The social meaning of the Norplant condition: constitutional considerations of race, class, and gender.
Albiston C
Berkeley Womens Law J; 1994; 9():9-57. PubMed ID: 16767841
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The constitutionality of the use of the Norplant contraceptive device as a condition of probation.
Burke M
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1992; 20(1):207-46. PubMed ID: 11652186
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The Norplant prescription: birth control, women control, or crime control?
Arthur SL
UCLA Law Rev; 1992 Oct; 40(1):1-101. PubMed ID: 11652185
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Whose choice is it, anyway?
MacKenzie JP
N Y Times Web; 1991 Jan; ():A22. PubMed ID: 11646807
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Conceivable sterilization: a constitutional analysis of a Norplant/Depo-Provera welfare condition.
Smith KA
Indiana Law J; 2002; 77(2):389-418. PubMed ID: 15174441
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The constitutionality of court imposed contraception as a condition of probation.
Mubaraki M
Crim Justice J; 1992; 14(2):385-405. PubMed ID: 16700114
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Implanted birth control device renews debate over forced contraception.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1991 Jan; ():A20. PubMed ID: 11646801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Coercion and long-term contraceptives.
Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1995; 25(1):S19-22. PubMed ID: 7730038
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Long-term contraceptives in the criminal justice system.
Dresser R
Hastings Cent Rep; 1995; 25(1):S15-8. PubMed ID: 7730037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Contraception or incarceration: what's wrong with this picture?
Callahan J
Stanford Law Pol Rev; 1995-1996 Winter; 7(1):67-82. PubMed ID: 16086509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Requirements or incentives by government for the use of long-acting contraceptives. Board of Trustees, American Medical Association.
JAMA; 1992 Apr; 267(13):1818-21. PubMed ID: 1545467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Womb for rent: Norplant and the undoing of poor women.
Vance JL
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1994; 21(3):827-55. PubMed ID: 11863029
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Five-year contraceptive implant seems headed for wide use.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1991 Nov; ():A1, A26. PubMed ID: 11646884
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Feminism, social policy, and long-acting contraception.
Nelson HL; Nelson JL
Hastings Cent Rep; 1995; 25(1):S30-2. PubMed ID: 7730041
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Topics for our times: Norplant coercion--an overstated threat.
Davidson AR; Kalmuss D
Am J Public Health; 1997 Apr; 87(4):550-1. PubMed ID: 9146429
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Fetal interests vs. maternal rights: is the state going too far?
Trindel RM
Akron Law Rev; 1991; 24(3-4):743-62. PubMed ID: 16273672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Norplant coercion.
Brady M
Am J Public Health; 1998 Jan; 88(1):136-7. PubMed ID: 9584026
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Advisory for Norplant contraceptive kits.
FDA Consum; 2002; 36(5):6. PubMed ID: 12412539
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. A maternal duty to protect fetal health?
Weinberg SR
Indiana Law J; 1983; 58(3):531-46. PubMed ID: 16211746
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
