Right of privacy--mandatory hospitalization for all second trimester abortions invalidated as not being reasonably related to maternal health--City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 103 S.Ct. 2481 (1983).
作者信息
Lim Diana G
出版信息
Santa Clara Law Rev. 1984 Summer;24(3):789-801.
PMID:11655804
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Right of privacy--mandatory hospitalization for all second trimester abortions invalidated as not being reasonably related to maternal health--City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 103 S.Ct. 2481 (1983).隐私权——孕期中期堕胎一律强制住院因与孕妇健康无合理关联而无效——阿克伦市诉阿克伦生殖健康中心案，美国最高法院判例汇编第103卷，第2481页（1983年）
Santa Clara Law Rev. 1984 Summer;24(3):789-801.
2
Constitutional law--abortion--a requirement that "all" second trimester abortions shall be performed in a hospital is unconstitutional--City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 51 U.S.L.W. 4767 (June 15, 1983).宪法——堕胎——要求“所有”妊娠中期堕胎均须在医院进行的规定违宪——阿克伦市诉阿克伦生殖健康中心案，《美国最高法院判例汇编》第51卷，第4767页（1983年6月15日）
Thurgood Marshall Law Rev. 1983;9(1-2):144-65.
3
4
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.: stare decisis prevails, but for how long?阿克伦市诉阿克伦生殖健康中心案：遵循先例原则占上风，但能持续多久？
Univ Miami Law Rev. 1984 Sep;38(5):921-38.
5
The viability of the trimester approach.
Univ Baltimore Law Rev. 1984 Winter;13(2):322-45.
6
The trimester approach: how long can the legal fiction last?
Mercer Law Rev. 1984 Summer;35(4):891-913.
7
Demise of the trimester standard? City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.
J Fam Law. 1984;23(2):267-86.
8
Abortion 1984: the controversy continues.1984年堕胎问题：争议仍在继续。
Conn Med. 1984 Apr;48(4):269.
9
Hospitalization requirements for second trimester abortions: for the purpose of health or hindrance?孕中期堕胎的住院要求：是出于健康目的还是造成阻碍？
Georgetown Law J. 1983 Feb;71(3):991-1021.
10
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: constitutional principles and political turbulence.宾夕法尼亚东南部计划生育组织诉凯西案：宪法原则与政治动荡
Univ Dayton Law Rev. 1993 Spring;18(3):733-62.
Zotero 插件