The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby Case: conscience, complicity, and contraception
Charo, R.Alta.
JAMA Internal Medicine 174(10): 1537-1538
2014
ISSN/ISBN: 2168-6106 PMID: 25024087 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4200Document Number: 622784
Document emailed within 0-6 h
Related Documents
Duffy, J. 1986: Supreme Court upholds District Court's Gramm-Rudman decision Health Law Vigil 9(14): 1-3Grosskopf, A.; Mondak, J.J. 1998: Do Attitudes Toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? the Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court Political Research Quarterly 51(3): 633-654
Flood, C.M.; Lewis, S. 2005: Courting trouble: the Supreme Court's embrace of private health insurance: use and misuse of social science evidence by the Supreme Court--how should Canadian governments respond? Healthcare Policy 1(1): 26-35
1986: Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the Supreme Court decision Provider 12(9): 39-40
Parmer-Larochelle, C. 1989: Supreme Court decision affects Medicare payment policies Healthcare Financial Management: Journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association 43(2): 61-62
Meadors, G.M. 2008: Major U.S. Supreme Court decision on participant remedies under ERISA Journal of Medical Practice Management: Mpm 24(1): 39-40
Soutoul, J.H.; Pierre, F. 1986: Technical autonomy with medicolegal risk for the midwife. Reflections on a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, 13 December 1983 Revue Francaise de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique 81(3): 167-169
Carlson, J. 2014: Hobby Lobby ruling may spur shift away from employer coverage Modern Healthcare 44(27): 8
Phillipson, D. 1974: Supreme court considers Morgentaler abortion case Canadian Medical Association Journal 111(8): 872-873
Beckett, H.; Radford, J. 2016: 'Montgomery consent': decision of the UK Supreme Court. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [20151. [2015] UKSC 11; [2015] WLR 768 practising midwife 19(6): 27-29
Reddy, V. 1999: A blow to gender equality. Supreme Court judgement on Manushi's case on women's land rights Manushi 113: 24-25
Dagan, N. 2020: The Janus face of imprisonment: Contrasting judicial conceptions of imprisonment purposes in the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States Criminology-Criminal Justice 21(5): 633-649
1997: Supreme Court finds no 'right to die' Minnesota Medicine 80(8): 39
Zimmer, K.J. 2012: The Supreme Court has ruled...now what? South Dakota Medicine: the Journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association 65(8): 318-319
Jones, R.M. 2012: Do the Supreme Court elections really matter? Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association 53(9): 302-304
Burda, D. 1990: Two Rockford hospitals appeal to Supreme Court Modern Healthcare 20(27): 3
Vaccaro, P.L.; Bryant, M.R. 1999: Supreme Court rulings favor employers Provider 25(8): 55; 57
Schulte, D.J. 2010: New Michigan Supreme Court disqualification rule Michigan Medicine 109(3): 5
Forsythe, C.D.; Kehr, B.N. 2019: A road map through the supreme court's back alley Issues in law & medicine 33(2): 175-205
Dyer, C. 2014: Supreme Court says law on assisted dying may change in the future Bmj 348: G4290