149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11648358)
1. Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare.
Pennsylvania. Supreme Court
Atl Report; 1985 Dec; 502():114-26. PubMed ID: 11648358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare.
Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court
Atl Report; 1984 Sep; 482():1148-62. PubMed ID: 11648341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare.
Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court
Atl Report; 1984 Mar; 482():1137-48. PubMed ID: 11648338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The impact of public abortion funding decisions on indigent women: a proposal to reform state statutory and constitutional abortion funding provisions.
Corns CA
Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1991; 24(2):371-403. PubMed ID: 11656224
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Hope v. Perales.
New York. Court of Appeals
North East Rep Second Ser; 1994 May; 634():183-8. PubMed ID: 12041237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Doe v. Director of Department of Social Services.
Michigan. Court of Appeals
Wests North West Rep; 1991 Feb; 468():862-83. PubMed ID: 12041153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fischer v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Public Welfare.
Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court
Atl Report; 1982 Apr; 444():774-83. PubMed ID: 11648335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Right to Choose v. Byrne.
New Jersey. Supreme Court
Atl Report; 1982 Aug; 450():925-51. PubMed ID: 11648363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Doe v. Maher.
Connecticut. Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven
Atl Report; 1986 Apr; 515():134-62. PubMed ID: 11648371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Women's Health Services v. Maher.
U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut
Fed Suppl; 1981 May; 514():265-76. PubMed ID: 11648347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers: abortion funding restrictions as an unconstitutional condition.
Sherman CW
Calif Law Rev; 1982 Jul; 70(4):978-1013. PubMed ID: 11655731
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Hope v. Perales: expanding medically necessary abortion rights of pregnant indigent women under New York and Nebraska state constitutional due process clauses.
Brown M
Neb Law Rev; 1993; 72(2):586-607. PubMed ID: 11656347
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Doe v. Department of Social Services.
Michigan. Supreme Court
Wests North West Rep; 1992 Jun; 487():166-94. PubMed ID: 12041154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The Supreme Court on abortion funding: the second time around.
Horan DJ; Marzen TJ
St Louis Univ Law J; 1981; 25(2):411-27. PubMed ID: 11655812
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Women of the State of Minnesota v. Gomez.
Minnesota. Supreme Court
North West Rep Second Ser; 1995 Dec; 542():17-42. PubMed ID: 12041173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Doe v. Mathews.
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
Fed Suppl; 1976 Oct; 422():141-7. PubMed ID: 11648360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Abortion and the indigent.
Altman A
J Soc Philos; 1980 Jan; 11(1):5-9. PubMed ID: 11655611
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Doe v. Beal: abortion, Medicaid, and equal protection.
Wilcox JK
Va Law Rev; 1976 May; 62(4):811-37. PubMed ID: 11663695
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Doe v. Percy.
U.S. District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
Fed Suppl; 1979 Sep; 476():324-34. PubMed ID: 11648353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers: Medi-Cal funding of abortion.
Hendrickson E
Gold Gate Univ Law Rev; 1978; 9(2):361-419. PubMed ID: 11664072
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
