Search
Filter by Topic
- (-) Remove Legal filter Legal
- Reproduction (39) Apply Reproduction filter
- Ethics (18) Apply Ethics filter
- Disorders (6) Apply Disorders filter
- Outreach (6) Apply Outreach filter
- Organizations (5) Apply Organizations filter
- Publications (5) Apply Publications filter
- Reproductive Health Arizona (5) Apply Reproductive Health Arizona filter
- Technologies (4) Apply Technologies filter
- People (3) Apply People filter
- RHAZ (3) Apply RHAZ filter
- Organisms (1) Apply Organisms filter
- Religion (1) Apply Religion filter
- Theories (1) Apply Theories filter
Filter by Format
Commonwealth v. Luceba Parker [Brief] (1845)
The Court settled the question left open from the case of Commonwealth v. Bangs that it must be proved a woman was "quick with child" in order for abortion prohibitions to have any effect in Massachusetts.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal, Reproduction
The Comstock Law (1873)
The Comstock Law was a controversial law because it limited the reproductive rights of women and violated every person's right to privacy. This federal law was the beginning of a long fight over the reproductive rights of women which is still being waged. Reproductive rights are important to embryology because they lead to the discussions regarding the morality of abortion, contraceptives, and ultimately the moral status of the embryo.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal, Reproduction
NuvaRing
The NuvaRing is a self-administered hormonal contraceptive device in the form of a flexible plastic ring that is inserted into the vagina. It releases the hormones etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol, which are synthetic forms of the female reproductive hormones progesterone and estrogen, respectively. The pharmaceutical company Organon first made NuvaRing in the Netherlands in 1980s. The Netherlands first approved it for use in February of 2001, and the United States did the same in October of that year.
Format: Articles
Subject: Technologies, Reproduction, Legal
Woman’s Right to Know Act in North Carolina (2011)
The North Carolina state legislature passed The Woman’s Right to Know Act in 2011, which places several restrictions on abortion care in the state. The Woman’s Right to Know Act, or the Act, imposes informed consent requirements that physicians must fulfill before performing an abortion as well as a twenty-four hour waiting period between counseling and the procedure for people seeking abortion, with exceptions for cases of medical emergency.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal, Reproduction
Physician Labeling Rule (2006)
In 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, published the “Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products,” also called the Physician Labeling Rule, to improve the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs and drug products. Within the Physician Labeling Rule, the FDA includes a section titled “Use in Specific Populations” or Section 8, which refers to drugs used by pregnant women, lactating women, and people of reproductive capacity.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal
Turpin v. Sortini (1982)
The Supreme Court of California reversed the Superior Court of Fresno County's decision to dismiss the Turpins' claims in the case Turpin v. Sortini on 3 May 1982. The case was based upon a wrongful life claim, in which a disabled child sues physicians for neglecting to inform its parents of potential genetic defects, resulting in harm to the child when it is born. The Turpin case determined tha a physician could be liable for failing to inform parents of potential birth defects in the fetus.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal, Reproduction
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)
In the 2016 case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the US Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Texas requirements that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals and that abortion facilities meet ambulatory surgical center standards. Whole Woman’s Health represented abortion care providers in Texas and brought the case against the commissioner for the Texas Department of State Health Services, John Hellerstedt.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal, Reproduction
Bellotti v. Baird (1979)
On 2 July 1979, the United States Supreme Court decided Bellotti v. Baird, ruling that a Massachusetts law that prohibited minors from obtaining abortions without parental consent was unconstitutional. That law prohibited minors from receiving abortions without permission from both of their parents or a superior court judge. Under that law, if one or both of the minor’s parents denied consent, the minor could petition a superior court judge who would determine whether the minor was competent enough to make the decision to abort on her own.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980)
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories was a 1980 California case that established the doctrine of market share liability for personal injury cases. For such liability, when a drug causes personal injury and the manufacturer of the drug cannot be identified, each producer is responsible for paying the settlement in proportion to the percentage of the market they supplied. Judith Sindell and Maureen Rogers brought the case against the producers of diethylstilbestrol (DES), which their mothers had taken during pregnancy to prevent miscarriage and other complications.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal
Doe v. Bolton (1973)
In the 1973 court case Doe v. Bolton, the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that a Georgia law regulating abortion was unconstitutional. The Georgia abortion law required women seeking abortions to get approval for the procedure from their personal physician, two consulting physicians, and from a committee at the admitting hospital. Furthermore, under the statutes, only women who had been raped, whose lives were in danger from the pregnancy, or who were carrying fetuses likely to be seriously, permanently malformed were permitted to receive abortions.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal, Reproduction
Beal v. Doe (1977)
In the case of Beal v. Doe, tried in 1977, the US Supreme Court ruled that states could constitutionally restrict money from Medicaid from funding elective abortions. After the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, in which the US Supreme Court had ruled women have the rights to terminate pregnancies within the first trimester, the state of Pennsylvania passed legislation that restricted the use of Medicaid funds for abortion procedures. In 1977, several Medicaid eligible women who were unable to receive coverage for a non-therapeutic abortion brought a case against Frank S.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal
Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson (1973)
The 1973 case Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson established the legality of abortion in Arizona. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the Arizona Revised Statutes 13-211, 13-212, and 13-213, collectively called the Arizona abortion statutes, were unconstitutional. The statutes had made illegal receiving, providing, or advertising abortions. After the Arizona Appeals Court heard the case, it decided that the Arizona abortion statutes were constitutional. However, two weeks later the US Supreme Court decided in Roe v.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal
Woman’s Right to Know Act in Texas (2003)
In 2003, the Texas state legislature passed the Woman’s Right to Know Act, hereafter the Act, as Chapter 171 of the state’s Health and Safety Code. The Act sets requirements that physicians must follow during the informed consent process for abortion, or a medical procedure to terminate pregnancy, in Texas. Lawmakers amended the Act and added several additional regulations that restrict access to abortion in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017.
Format: Articles
Subject: Legal