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.
114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11649093)
1. In high court, state and doctors argue over abortion. Mintz M Washington Post; 1978 Oct; ():A11. PubMed ID: 11649093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Medical responsibility for fetal survival under Roe and Doe. Sendor BB Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1975; 10(2):444-71. PubMed ID: 11663614 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. State regulation of late abortion and the physician's duty of care to the viable fetus. Wood MA; Hawkins LB Miss Law Rev; 1980; 45(3):394-422. PubMed ID: 11664113 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Current technology affecting Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. Buckley M NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1982; 27(4):1221-60. PubMed ID: 11651778 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Colautti v. Franklin. 9 Jan 1979. U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court Rep; 1979; 439():379-409. PubMed ID: 11646023 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Criminal liability of physicians: an encroachment on the abortion right? Barber RA Am Crim Law Rev; 1981; 18(4):591-615. PubMed ID: 11655468 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Constitutional law--U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision clarifies concept of fetal viability and scope of physician's discretion in determining when viability is reached. Slandell H Temple Law Q; 1979; 52(4):1240-59. PubMed ID: 11664078 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Court voids state curb on abortion. Mintz M Washington Post; 1979 Jan; ():A1+. PubMed ID: 11649080 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Missouri's unusual deterrent to abortion fails to get a hearing at the Supreme Court. Mintz M Washington Post; 1979 Mar; ():A2. PubMed ID: 11648985 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. planned Parenthood v. Danforth: resolving the antinomy. Straus TR Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1977; 4(2):425-40. PubMed ID: 11664851 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. State protection of the viable unborn child after Roe v. Wade: how little, how late? Rees G LA Law Rev; 1976; 37(1):270-82. PubMed ID: 11663713 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The new neonatal dilemma: live births from late abortions. Rhoden NK Georgetown Law J; 1984 Jun; 72(5):1451-509. PubMed ID: 11658578 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Roe v. Wade and the traditional legal standards concerning pregnancy. Hopkin WR Temple Law Q; 1974; 47(4):715-38. PubMed ID: 11664349 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Constitutional law: further guidelines for abortion legislation. Oklahoma Law Rev; 1976; 29(3):785-8. PubMed ID: 11664737 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The abortion cases. Rust ME ABA J; 1986 Feb; 72():50-3. PubMed ID: 11655726 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Abortion: 'settling' the issue. Will GF Washington Post; 1979 Jan; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11649082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]