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.
117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26327735)
1. Respecting Religious Freedoms and Protecting the Public's Health. Hodge JG Public Health Rep; 2015; 130(5):546-9. PubMed ID: 26327735 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Hobby Lobby, corporate law, and the theory of the firm: why for-profit corporations are RFRA persons. Meese AJ; Oman NB Harv Law Rev; 2014 May; 127(7):273-301. PubMed ID: 25330559 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Religious employers and exceptions to mandated coverage of contraceptives. Flicker LS Virtual Mentor; 2013 Mar; 15(3):220-5. PubMed ID: 23472812 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Contraceptive Coverage and the Balance Between Conscience and Access. Stahl RY; Lynch HF JAMA; 2017 Dec; 318(22):2179-2180. PubMed ID: 29049513 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Contraception at risk. The Editors N Engl J Med; 2014 Jan; 370(1):77-8. PubMed ID: 24328442 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Back to the '90s--the Supreme Court immunizes managed care. Bloche MG N Engl J Med; 2004 Sep; 351(13):1277-9. PubMed ID: 15385651 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby Case: conscience, complicity, and contraception. Charo RA JAMA Intern Med; 2014 Oct; 174(10):1537-8. PubMed ID: 25024087 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Supreme Court strikes down state regulation of health plan coverage decisions. Meadors GM J Med Pract Manage; 2004; 20(3):154-5. PubMed ID: 15672906 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Hobby Lobby's blow to employer-based health insurance. Goozner M Mod Healthc; 2014 Jul; 44(27):24. PubMed ID: 25134218 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. U.S. Supreme Court wades into ERISA one more time. Roeder KH; Rees JS GHA Today; 2004 Aug; 48(7):3, 9. PubMed ID: 15500273 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The Supreme Court's limitation of managed-care liability. Mariner WK N Engl J Med; 2004 Sep; 351(13):1347-52. PubMed ID: 15385665 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Hobby Lobby ruling may spur shift away from employer coverage. Carlson J Mod Healthc; 2014 Jul; 44(27):8. PubMed ID: 25134210 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Coverage of certain preventive services under the Affordable Care Act. Interim final rules. ; ; Fed Regist; 2014 Aug; 79(166):51092-101. PubMed ID: 25167594 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]