Search for: "Doctor v. Harrington" Results 1 - 20 of 24
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2011, 5:00 am by Bexis
Div. 2006) (“it is beyond dispute that an individual who has been previously sexually active may be unable to remain abstinent and the possibility that a woman may become pregnant following sexual relations are risks ‘already known’”); Harrington v. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 3:12 pm by emagraken
 245. [206]     The evidence with respect to the specific care required does not need to be provided by a medical doctor:  Jacobsen v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 4:49 am by Stephen Page
By virtue of Section 32DA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 :-(i) “In an Act, a reference to a de facto partner is a reference to either one of two persons who are living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis who are not married to each other or related by family;(v) For sub-section (1) – (a) the gender of the persons is not relevant….” [read post]
29 May 2015, 2:24 pm by John Elwood
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 14-997, is a challenge to a Mississippi law which requires that doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 7:32 am by John Elwood
Hittson asks, among other things, “[w]hether the Eleventh Circuit has correctly determined that this Court’s decision in Harrington v. [read post]