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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18441613)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Constitutional law--abortion rights--fourth circuit declares Virginia partial birth infanticide statute unconstitutional per se.--Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Hicks, 409 F.3d 619 (4th Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 422 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2005).
    Harv Law Rev; 2005 Dec; 119(2):685-92. PubMed ID: 16489721
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. An employer's exclusion of coverage for contraceptive drugs is not per se sex discrimination.
    Lidge EF
    Temple Law Rev; 2003; 76(3):533-77. PubMed ID: 16514770
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How federal discrimination laws affect health/welfare and pension benefit plans.
    Weiss FK
    Empl Benefits J; 1981 Mar; 6(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 10249983
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Pregnancy and employment leave: legal precedents and future policy.
    Gardin SK; Richwald GA
    J Public Health Policy; 1986; 7(4):458-69. PubMed ID: 3805267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Law may force slash in pregnancy benefits.
    Geisel J
    Mod Healthc; 1979 Dec; 9(12):28. PubMed ID: 503019
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The pregnant worker: who bears the burden?
    Bunch PL; McFarlane DR; Dowben C
    Women Health; 1979; 4(4):333-44. PubMed ID: 532181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. What the Pregnancy Discrimination Act means for hospitals.
    Stickler KB
    Trustee; 1979 Nov; 32(11):15-9. PubMed ID: 10244446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The pregnancy disability amendment: what the law provides, part II.
    Trotter R; Zacur SR; Greenwood W
    Pers Adm; 1982 Mar; 27(3):55-6, 58. PubMed ID: 10254625
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The pregnancy disability amendment: what the law provides: part I.
    Trotter R; Zacur SR; Gatewood W
    Pers Adm; 1982 Feb; 27(2):47-8, 50-4. PubMed ID: 10254624
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dependents' pregnancy-related medical benefits and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
    Frankel GW
    Duke Law J; 1983 Feb; (1):134-52. PubMed ID: 10259899
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. AIDS caps, contraceptive coverage, and the law: an analysis of the federal anti-discrimination statutes' applicability to health insurance.
    Hoffman S
    Cardozo Law Rev; 2002 Mar; 23(4):1315-62. PubMed ID: 16506334
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Update: new rights for pregnant employees.
    Lines PM
    Pers J; 1979 Jan; 58(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 10239889
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.