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.
232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11649953)
1. State constitutions: the new battlefield for abortion rights. Steinschneider J Harv Womens Law J; 1987; 10():284-94. PubMed ID: 11649953 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Abortion laws, religious beliefs and the first amendment. Skahn SL Valparaiso Univ Law Rev; 1980; 14(3):487-526. PubMed ID: 11664174 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The Human Life Federalism Amendment: an assessment. Caron WR Cathol Lawyer; 1982; 27(2):87-111. PubMed ID: 11655614 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
7. Oh my God, I'm pregnant. Minter CV Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1973; 1(1):119-29. PubMed ID: 11663469 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. To be or not to be: protecting the unborn's potentiality of life. Parness JA; Pritchard SK Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1982; 51(2):257-98. PubMed ID: 11658559 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The fetus under Section 1983: still struggling for recognition. Czepiga PT Syracuse Law Rev; 1983; 34(4):1029-65. PubMed ID: 11655745 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The Supreme Court 1972 term. Foreward: toward a model of roles in the due process of life and law. Tribe LH Harv Law Rev; 1973 Nov; 87(1):1-53. PubMed ID: 11663596 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The new pro-life legislation: patterns and recommendations. Witherspoon JP St Marys Law J; 1976; 7(4):637-97. PubMed ID: 11664635 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. State constitutions as a source of individual liberties: expanding protection for abortion funding under Medicaid. Vuernick R J Contemp Law; 1993; 19(1):185-216. PubMed ID: 11652310 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A decision-theoretic reconstruction of Roe v. Wade. Lockhart T Public Aff Q; 1991 Jul; 5(3):243-58. PubMed ID: 11656064 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The limits of judicial intervention in abortion politics. Tatalovich R; Daynes BW Christ Century; 1982 Jan 6-13; 99(1):16-20. PubMed ID: 11655445 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The right to Medicaid payment for abortion. Butler PA Hastings Law J; 1977 Mar; 28(4):931-77. PubMed ID: 11663756 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The unborn and the born again. New Repub; 1977 Jul; 177(27):5-6+. PubMed ID: 11663777 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The constitutional validity of abortion legislation: a comparative note. Glenn HP McGill Law J; 1975; 21(4):673-84. PubMed ID: 11663622 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Technological advances and Roe v. Wade: the need to rethink abortion law. Martyn K UCLA Law Rev; 1982; 29(5-6):1194-215. PubMed ID: 11655743 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]