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.
175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1142743)
21. Partial-birth abortion: the final frontier of abortion jurisprudence. Bopp J; Cook CR Issues Law Med; 1998; 14(1):3-57. PubMed ID: 9707939 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Consti-tortion: tort law as an end-run around abortion rights after Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Stone AJ Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2000; 8(2):471-515. PubMed ID: 16594110 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Abortion and birth control--right to abortion and regulation thereof: the United States Supreme Court invalidates a statute banning partial birth abortions: Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). Joersz M N D Law Rev; 2001; 77(2):345-73. PubMed ID: 12956123 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Stenberg v. Carhart: have the states lost their power to regulate abortion? Gauthier AM New Engl Law Rev; 2002; 36(3):625-68. PubMed ID: 15212038 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Abortion as a vice crime: a "what if" story. Kaplan J Law Contemp Probl; 1988; 51(1):151-79. PubMed ID: 11650281 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. The Supreme Court and abortion: 2. Sidestepping social realities. Mechanic D Hastings Cent Rep; 1980 Dec; 10(6):17-9. PubMed ID: 7007284 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Exporting misery. A U.S. abortion ruling affects women's health worldwide. Horgan J Sci Am; 1991 Aug; 265(2):16, 18. PubMed ID: 1862327 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. When does a fetus become a child in need of an advocate? Focusing on fetal pain. McDonald TB Child Leg Rights J; 1997; 17(2):12-9. PubMed ID: 12159907 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Rationalizing the abortion debate: legal rhetoric and the abortion controversy. Chemerinsky E Buffalo Law Rev; 1982; 31(1):107-64. PubMed ID: 11655711 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. So-called "partial birth abortion" bans: bad medicine? Maybe. Bad law? Definitely! Massie AM Univ Pittsbg Law Rev; 1998; 59(2):301-80. PubMed ID: 11902179 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Mediating the polar extremes: a guide to post-Webster abortion policy. Wilkins RG; Sherlock R; Clark S Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1991; 1991(1):403-87. PubMed ID: 11656173 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Is there life after Roe v. Wade? Mahowald MB Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(4):22-9. PubMed ID: 2663777 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. S.J. Res. 110: Human Life Federalism Amendment. Hatch OG Congr Rec (Dly Ed); 1981 Sep; 127(131):S10194-8. PubMed ID: 11658572 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. A world without Roe: how different would it be? Glendon MA Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(4):30-1. PubMed ID: 2745061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court. Introduction: did the amici effort make a difference? Kolbert K Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):153-68. PubMed ID: 2603857 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. The role of maternal deaths in the abortion debate. Clowes BW St Louis Univ Public Law Rev; 1993; 13(1):327-80. PubMed ID: 11656614 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court. Conclusion: the future of abortion as a "private choice". Grant ER Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):233-43. PubMed ID: 2603867 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Stenberg v. Carhart: women retain their right to choose. Berkowitz JF J Crim Law Criminol; 2001; 91(2):337-83. PubMed ID: 12774791 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Prenatal genetic screening: the enigma of selective abortion. Stoller D J Law Health; 1997-1998; 12(1):121-40. PubMed ID: 10182027 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]