380 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16767841)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Norplant: the new scarlet letter?
Flannery MT
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1992; 8():201-26. PubMed ID: 11645739
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Controlling the reproductive rights of impoverished women: is this the way to "reform" welfare?
Broomfield MG
Boston Coll Third World Law J; 1996; 16(2):217-44. PubMed ID: 16086512
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Norplant: nursing's responsibility in procreative rights.
Moseley CA; Beard MT
Nurs Health Care; 1994 Jun; 15(6):294-7. PubMed ID: 8065627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. State v. Oakley: infringing on women's reproductive rights.
Schehr AR
Wis Womens Law J; 2003; 18(2):281-97. PubMed ID: 15568247
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The right to privacy: Roe v. Wade revisited.
Smith PA
Jurist; 1983; 43(2):289-317. PubMed ID: 16086474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Norplant bonuses and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
Coale DS
Tex Law Rev; 1992 Nov; 71(1):189-215. PubMed ID: 11656313
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The validity of legislative restrictions on abortion under the Oregon constitution.
Tweedt DE
Temple Law Rev; 1992; 65(4):1349-71. PubMed ID: 16047444
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Reproductive technologies and the law: Norplant and the bad mother.
Young ME
Marriage Fam Rev; 1995; 21(3-4):259-81. PubMed ID: 11654845
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Women's rights versus the protection of fetuses.
Warren MA
Midwest Med Ethics; 1991; 7(1):1, 3-7. PubMed ID: 16145788
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The rights and wrongs of Norplant offers.
Berman DA
South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 1993; 3(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 11652937
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Gender, race + geography = jeopardy: marginalized women, human rights and HIV in the United States.
Fried ST; Kelly B
Womens Health Issues; 2011 Nov; 21(6 Suppl):S243-9. PubMed ID: 22055674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Norplant use in conjunction with the welfare system.
Funk AM
South Calif Interdiscip Law J; 1993; 2(1):147-63. PubMed ID: 11652714
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The Norplant debate: birth control or woman control?
Spitz SS
Columbia Human Rights Law Rev; 1993; 25(1):131-69. PubMed ID: 11652335
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
