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.
144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11649085)
41. State policies on funding of abortions: a pooled time series analysis. Meier KJ; McFarlane DR Soc Sci Q; 1992 Sep; 73(3):690-8. PubMed ID: 11656318 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. Orr v. Nelson. U.S. District Court, D. Nebraska Fed Suppl; 1994 Nov; 902():1019-22. PubMed ID: 11648423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. 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]
45. Coerced sterilization under federally funded family planning programs. Diamond E New Engl Law Rev; 1976; 11(2):589-614. PubMed ID: 11664603 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. The invalidity of Canada's abortion law--section 251 of the Criminal Code. Picher PC Crim Rep Can New Ser; 1974; 24():1-31. PubMed ID: 11663529 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. Contraceptive sterilization: the need for state regulation. Motley CE Gold Gate Law Rev; 1975; 6(1):79-99. PubMed ID: 11661332 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. High court pondering fine points of abortion issue. Wood AP Ob Gyn News; 1982 Jan 15-31; 18(2):1, 36-37. PubMed ID: 11655557 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Rhode Island charter change would bar abortion support. N Y Times Web; 1986 Jul; ():33. PubMed ID: 11646164 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Can Congress create people? Buckley WF; Galebach SH; Bork R; Pilpel H Hum Life Rev; 1981; 7(3):87-108. PubMed ID: 11655601 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Preventing patient dumping: sharpening the COBRA's fangs. Treiger KI N Y Univ Law Rev; 1987 Dec; 61(6):1186-223. PubMed ID: 11659026 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Fetal research IV: the living fetus and the law--the state's role. Kindregan CP Hum Life Rev; 1975; 1(4):133-44. PubMed ID: 11663566 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Congress restricts Medicaid payment for abortion. Clgh Rev; 1976 Dec; 10(8):700-2. PubMed ID: 11663694 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Test tube babies: legal issues raised by in vitro fertilization. Flannery DM Georgetown Law J; 1979 Aug; 67(6):1295-345. PubMed ID: 11664058 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. 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]
56. The dispersion of genetic technologies and the law. Clayton EW Hastings Cent Rep; 1995; 25(3 Suppl):S13-5. PubMed ID: 11654184 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Privacy II: state attempts to regulate abortion. Prall S Annu Surv Am Law; 1988; 1(2):385-427. PubMed ID: 11652657 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban veto. Pilla A; Bernadin J; Bevilacqua A; Hickey J; Keeler W; Law B; Mahony R; Maida A; O'Connor J; Clinton WJ Origins; 1996 Apr; 25(44):753, 755-756. PubMed ID: 11654426 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. ERA: equal rights for abortion? Noonan JT Hum Life Rev; 1984; 10(2):29-44. PubMed ID: 11651741 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]