These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10294508)
1. High Court adds confusion, constraint to abortion issue. Wagner L Mod Healthc; 1989 Aug; 19(34):32-4, 36. PubMed ID: 10294508 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Abortion 1982: the Supreme Court once again. Healey JM Conn Med; 1982 Nov; 46(11):681. PubMed ID: 7172671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Will Webster redefine Roe v. Wade? The Supreme Court could use a Missouri case to begin limiting abortion rights. Chopko ME Health Prog; 1989 Jun; 70(5):58-64. PubMed ID: 10293331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The Court edges away from Roe v. Wade. Fam Plann Perspect; 1989; 21(4):184-7. PubMed ID: 2792338 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Court affirms physician's choice of abortion procedure. Stiller JA Hosp Med Staff; 1979 Oct; 8(10):10-2. PubMed ID: 10244309 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The Hyde Amendment and the future. Rosoff JI Fam Plann Perspect; 1980; 12(4):172. PubMed ID: 7002585 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Right to abortion: the courts versus the legislatures. Bernstein AH Hospitals; 1980 Jan; 54(1):30-4. PubMed ID: 6985600 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Abortion in the United States, 1978-1979. Henshaw S; Forrest JD; Sullivan E; Tietze C Fam Plann Perspect; 1981; 13(1):6-7, 10-8. PubMed ID: 7011839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. States rebel against Federal abortion orders. Kent C; Tokarski C J Am Health Policy; 1994; 4(2):6-7. PubMed ID: 10132602 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Court lifts ban on enforcing Miss. anti-abortion law. Denniston L Sun; 1992 Aug; ():3A. PubMed ID: 12286287 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Webster case: implications for Georgia physicians. Harris AL J Med Assoc Ga; 1989 Sep; 78(9):633-6. PubMed ID: 2778409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Abortion: rights or technicalities? A comparison of Roe v. Wade with the abortion decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Brown HO Hum Life Rev; 1975; 1(3):60-74. PubMed ID: 11662181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Abortion services in the United States, 1979 and 1980. Henshaw SK; Forrest JD; Sullivan E; Tietze C Fam Plann Perspect; 1982; 14(1):5-8, 10-5. PubMed ID: 7037447 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The restoration of abortion services at Cook County Hospital. Donovan P Fam Plann Perspect; 1993; 25(5):227-31. PubMed ID: 8262173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice. Sayeed SA Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Abortion legislation after Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: model statutes and commentaries. Smolin DM Cumberland Law Rev; 1989-1990; 20(1):71-163. PubMed ID: 15999438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Grant recipients' rights in question. Willson PD Plan Parent Rev; 1984; 4(1):13-4. PubMed ID: 12266274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]