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.
182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17225342)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. How does religious affiliation affect women's attitudes toward reproductive health policy? Implications for the Affordable Care Act. Patton EW; Hall KS; Dalton VK Contraception; 2015 Jun; 91(6):513-9. PubMed ID: 25727764 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can the government define religion? Hogan CN Natl Cathol Bioeth Q; 2001; 1(1):27-31. PubMed ID: 12862053 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. RUNNING MOM AND POP BUSINESSES BY THE GOOD BOOK: THE SCOPE OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF BUSINESS OWNERS. Selznick LF Albany Law Rev; 2015; 78(4):1353-92. PubMed ID: 27071216 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The constitutionality of court-imposed birth control as a condition of probation. Lipton JP; Campbell CF N Y Law School Hum Rights Annu; 1989; 6(2):271-98. PubMed ID: 11652002 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. St. Agnes Hospital of the City of Baltimore v. Riddick. U.S. District Court, D. Maryland Fed Suppl; 1990 Sep; 748():319-43. PubMed ID: 11648589 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]