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.
521 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11651778)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. The legal status of the unborn after Webster. Parness JA Dickinson Law Rev; 1990; 95(1):1-22. PubMed ID: 11659394 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Prenatal caretaking: limits of state intervention with and without Roe. Rush SE Univ Fla Law Rev; 1987; 39(1):55-112. PubMed ID: 11658954 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. On the legal status of the proposition that "life begins at conception. Rubenfeld J Stanford Law Rev; 1991 Feb; 43(3):599-635. PubMed ID: 11645689 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The born alive doctrine: a legal anachronism. Westerfield L South Univ Law Rev; 1976; 2(2):149-73. PubMed ID: 12083087 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Reexamining Roe: nineteenth-century abortion statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment. Witherspoon JS St Marys Law J; 1985; 17(1):29-71. PubMed ID: 11655872 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Floyd v. Anders. 4 Nov 1977. U.S. District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division Fed Suppl; 1977; 440():535-40. PubMed ID: 11646007 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Death of an unborn child: jurisprudential inconsistencies in wrongful death, criminal homicide, and abortion cases. Klasing MS Pepperdine Law Rev; 1995; 22(3):933-79. PubMed ID: 11660413 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]