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.
3. Firing the woman to protect the fetus: the reconciliation of fetal protection with employment opportunity goals under Title VII. Williams WW Georgetown Law J; 1981 Feb; 69(3):641-704. PubMed ID: 11649426 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Fetal protection policies: a method of safeguarding fetuses or a way of limiting women in the workplace? Hoffman H J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Jul; 23(7):193-207, 213, 224. PubMed ID: 10105492 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Prenatal v. parental rights: what a difference an "a" makes. Gallagher A St Marys Law J; 1989; 21(2):301-24. PubMed ID: 16100799 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The toxic workplace: Title VII protection for the potentially pregnant person. Andrade VM Harv Womens Law J; 1981; 4(1):71-105. PubMed ID: 11649449 [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. The right to privacy: Roe v. Wade revisited. Smith PA Jurist; 1983; 43(2):289-317. PubMed ID: 16086474 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Fetal exclusion policies and gendered constructions of suitable work. Draper E Soc Probl; 1993 Feb; 40(1):90-107. PubMed ID: 11652221 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Getting beyond discrimination: a regulatory solution to the problem of fetal hazards in the workplace. Buss E Yale Law J; 1986 Jan; 95(3):577-98. PubMed ID: 11658700 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Pro-choice: a new militancy. Davis SE Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(6):32-3. PubMed ID: 2606658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Can employers exclude women to protect children? Becker ME JAMA; 1990 Oct 24-31; 264(16):2113-7. PubMed ID: 2214080 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A Troubling Court Decision for Reproductive Rights: Legal Recognition of Fetal Standing to Sue. Fox D; Adashi EY; Cohen IG JAMA; 2019 Jul; 322(1):23-24. PubMed ID: 31116380 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Compelling pregnancy at death's door. Taylor KA Columbia J Gend Law; 1997; 7(1):85-165. PubMed ID: 16184655 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Abortion and the Pied Piper of compromise. Clark AE N Y Univ Law Rev; 1993 May; 68(2):265-329. PubMed ID: 11656365 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Funding of medically-necessary abortions: a reexamination of U.S. law and a call for EC federalism. Nishi J Univ Chic Leg Forum; 1992; [1992]():517-38. PubMed ID: 11652961 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Privacy, abortion, and judicial review: haunted by the ghost of Lochner. Garfield H Wash Law Rev; 1986 Apr; 61(2):293-365. PubMed ID: 11652501 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]