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.
3. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Fed Report; 1991 Oct; 947():682-727. PubMed ID: 11648596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Zbaraz v. Hartigan. U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Fed Report; 1985 May; 763():1532-60. PubMed ID: 11648355 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic v. Miller. U.S. District Court, D. South Dakota, W.D Fed Suppl; 1994 Aug; 860():1409-21. PubMed ID: 11648420 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Abortion choice and the law in Vermont: a recent study. Olmstead FH Vt Law Rev; 1982; 7(2):281-313. PubMed ID: 11655820 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. A decade of cementing the mosaic of Roe v. Wade: is the composite a message to leave abortion alone? Kudner KE Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1984; 15(2):681-753. PubMed ID: 11649780 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti. U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit Fed Report; 1989 Feb; 868():459-73. PubMed ID: 11648577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Abortion and the consideration of fundamental, irreconcilable interests. Jones CJ Syracuse Law Rev; 1982; 33(2):565-613. PubMed ID: 11658668 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Zbaraz v. Hartigan. U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D Fed Suppl; 1984 May; 584():1452-71. PubMed ID: 11648389 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. American College of Obstetricians v. Thornburgh. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Fed Report; 1984 May; 737():283-319. PubMed ID: 11648491 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Missouri loses latest round in battle over permissible abortion regulations. Baldwin ML UMKC Law Rev; 1982; 50(3):320-39. PubMed ID: 11658633 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Womens Services v. Thone. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit Fed Report; 1982 Oct; 690():667-9. PubMed ID: 11648362 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The aftermath of Casey: is a sonogram requirement unduly burdensome? Trense CF Law Psychol Rev; 1993; 17():225-41. PubMed ID: 11659925 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Barnes v. Mississippi. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Fed Report; 1993 May; 992():1335-47. PubMed ID: 11648616 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Glick v. McKay. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Fed Report; 1991 Jun; 937():434-43. PubMed ID: 11648595 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. U.S. Supreme Court Wests Supreme Court Report; 1992 Jun; 112():2791-885. PubMed ID: 12041291 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Women's Medical Center of Providence v. Roberts. U.S. District Court, D. Rhode Island Fed Suppl; 1981 Apr; 512():316-25. PubMed ID: 11648519 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]