880 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11651561)
1. The "gag rule" revisited: physicians as abortion gatekeepers.
Bloche MG
Law Med Health Care; 1992; 20(4):392-402. PubMed ID: 11651561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The Title X family planning gag rule: can the government buy up constitutional rights?
Chervin CI
Stanford Law Rev; 1989 Jan; 41(2):401-34. PubMed ID: 11655926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The Title X family planning subsidies: the government's role in moral issues.
Reitler EG
Harvard J Legis; 1990; 27(2):453-95. PubMed ID: 11656070
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The future of abortion.
McDaniel A
Newsweek; 1989 Jul; 114(3):14-21, 24-27. PubMed ID: 11655929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Five justices uphold U.S. rule curbing abortion advice Some clinics to still advise but forgo aid.
Greenhouse L; Brozan N
N Y Times Web; 1991 May; ():A1, A18. PubMed ID: 11647436
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. How not to promote serious deliberation about abortion.
McConnell MW
Univ Chic Law Rev; 1991; 58(3):1181-202. PubMed ID: 11656153
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Toward a First Amendment theory of doctor-patient discourse and the right to receive unbiased medical advice.
Berg P
Boston Univ Law Rev; 1994 Mar; 74(2):201-66. PubMed ID: 11659979
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Doctors, patients and the Constitution: a theoretical analysis of the physician's role in "private" reproductive decisions.
Appleton SF
Wash Univ Law Q; 1985; 63(2):183-236. PubMed ID: 11656658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Abortion as a vice crime: a "what if" story.
Kaplan J
Law Contemp Probl; 1988; 51(1):151-79. PubMed ID: 11650281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.
Sayeed SA
Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Informed consent to abortion: a refinement.
Jipping TL
Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1987-1988 Winter; 38(3):329-86. PubMed ID: 11659038
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. More thoughts on the physician's constitutional role in abortion and related choices.
Appleton SF
Wash Univ Law Q; 1988; 66(3):499-522. PubMed ID: 11659171
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Future uncertain as Congressional drive to block Title X gag rule fails.
Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst; 1991 Nov; (18):1-2, 4. PubMed ID: 12317314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reasoning from the body: a historical perspective on abortion regulation and questions of equal protection.
Siegel R
Stanford Law Rev; 1992 Jan; 44(2):261-381. PubMed ID: 11656213
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Abortion -- impact on public health.
Malkasian GD
State Health Legis Rep; 1989 Dec; 17(4):1-8. PubMed ID: 11655953
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Latest administration tactic makes abortion fight a free speech issue.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1988 Feb; ():E7. PubMed ID: 11647385
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinton and appeals court signal death knell for Title X gag rule.
Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst; 1992 Nov; (17):1-2. PubMed ID: 12344619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. What the Court giveth: abortion and Bill C-43.
Noonan SM
Queens Law J; 1991; 16():321-45. PubMed ID: 11656415
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Opposition to new Title X family planning regulations and affirmation of support for informed consent.
American Public Health Association
Am J Public Health; 1989 Mar; 79(3):353-4. PubMed ID: 11644367
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
