163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10125736)
1. States struggle with new ethical questions over the beginning, end of life.
Moskowitz DB
J Am Health Policy; 1993; 3(3):46-9. PubMed ID: 10125736
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Compelling pregnancy at death's door.
Taylor KA
Columbia J Gend Law; 1997; 7(1):85-165. PubMed ID: 16184655
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A woman's right to choose: wrongful death statutes and abortion rights--consistent at last.
Siano JR
Womens Rights Law Report; 1998; 19(3):279-92. PubMed ID: 15871153
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The Casey undue burden standard: problems predicted and encountered, and the split over the Salerno test.
Burdick R
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1996; 23():825-76. PubMed ID: 16086482
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Abortion and its viability standard: the woman's diminishing right to choose.
Swyers MH
Geoge Mason Univ Civ Rights Law J; 1997; 8(1-2):87-109. PubMed ID: 14628785
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Umbilical cords: the new drug connection.
Phillips M
Buffalo Law Rev; 1992; 40(2):525-66. PubMed ID: 11651461
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Winter count: taking stock of abortion rights after Casey and Carhart.
Borgmann CE
Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar; 31(3):675-716. PubMed ID: 16700116
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Perspectives. Abortion after Webster.
Olson EG
Mcgraw Hills Med Health; 1989 Jul; 43(28):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10294036
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The validity of legislative restrictions on abortion under the Oregon constitution.
Tweedt DE
Temple Law Rev; 1992; 65(4):1349-71. PubMed ID: 16047444
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. When being ill is illegal. Women and the criminalization of HIV.
Cooper EB
Health PAC Bull; 1992; 22(4):10-4. PubMed ID: 10124934
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Are pregnant women autonomous decision makers?
Murphy EK
Nurs Outlook; 1991; 39(3):144. PubMed ID: 2027801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. New York v. Sullivan: shhh ... don't say the "a" word! Another outcome-oriented abortion decision.
Kendall CC
John Marshall Law Rev; 1990; 23(4):753-70. PubMed ID: 16622962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Prenatal v. parental rights: what a difference an "a" makes.
Gallagher A
St Marys Law J; 1989; 21(2):301-24. PubMed ID: 16100799
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Reproductive self-determination in the Third Circuit: the statutory proscription of wrongful birth and wrongful life claims as an unconstitutional violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden standard.
Intromasso C
Womens Rights Law Report; 2003; 24(2):101-20. PubMed ID: 15568248
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Fetal protection policies: a method of safeguarding fetuses or a way of limiting women in the workplace?
Hoffman H
J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Jul; 23(7):193-207, 213, 224. PubMed ID: 10105492
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. RU 486: the politics of choice.
Stulac F
Health Matrix Clevel; 1991; 1(1):77-99. PubMed ID: 10121881
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Constitutionalizing Roe, Casey and Carhart: a legislative due-process anti-discrimination principle that gives constitutional content to the "undue burden" standard of review applied to abortion control legislation.
Van Detta JA
South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 2001; 10(2):211-92. PubMed ID: 16485363
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Inverting the viability test for abortion law.
Ching B
Womens Rights Law Report; 2000; 22(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 16281341
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Sex discrimination and insurance for contraception.
Law SA
Wash Law Rev; 1998 Apr; 73(2):363-402. PubMed ID: 12465638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. On the scene: ANA's legislative voice. Legislation on women's issues.
Dittmar C
Nurs Adm Q; 1984; 8(4):36-46. PubMed ID: 6565192
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
