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.
504 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11652872)
1. Killing "the handicapped" -- before and after birth. Field MA Harv Womens Law J; 1993; 16():79-138. PubMed ID: 11652872 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Born to live or born to die: the handicapped newborn in New Jersey. Sarno JJ Seton Hall Legis J; 1987; 11(1):201-22. PubMed ID: 11651899 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Delivery room resuscitation of the high-risk infant: a conflict of rights. Cooper R Cathol Lawyer; 1990; 33(4):325-60. PubMed ID: 11659422 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Abortion is affirmed, but in a lower voice. Taylor S N Y Times Web; 1986 Jun; ():E1. PubMed ID: 11647366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe. Drinan RF America (NY); 1986 Mar; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Baby Doe's new guardians: federal policy brings nontreatment decisions out of hiding. Born MA KY Law J; 1986-1987; 75(3):659-75. PubMed ID: 11651897 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Enforcement of state abortion statutes after Roe: a state-by-state analysis. Linton PB Univ Detroit Law Rev; 1990; 67(2):157-259. PubMed ID: 11659261 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn. Horan DJ; Balch BJ Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Trimesters and technology: revamping Roe v. Wade. Rhoden NK Yale Law J; 1986 Mar; 95(4):639-97. PubMed ID: 11655828 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. "New" rights for handicapped newborns: Baby Doe and beyond. Phillips CA Calif West Law Rev; 1985; 22(1):127-58. PubMed ID: 11658804 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. What ever happened to Baby Jane...Doe? Jolly CM West State Univ Law Rev; 1987; 14(2):543-9. PubMed ID: 11651891 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Child abuse by whom? -- Parental rights and judicial competency determinations: the Baby K and Baby Terry cases. Bopp J; Coleson RE Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1994; 20(4):821-46. PubMed ID: 11652997 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The future of abortion. McDaniel A Newsweek; 1989 Jul; 114(3):14-21, 24-27. PubMed ID: 11655929 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The Pennsylvania abortion case. Benshoof J Touro Law Rev; 1993; 9(2):217-49. PubMed ID: 11656382 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Casey in the mirror: abortion, abuse and the right to protection in the United States and Germany. Neuman GL Am J Comp Law; 1995; 43(2):273-314. PubMed ID: 11656594 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The legacy of Infant Doe. Cosby MG Bayl Law Rev; 1982; 34(4):699-715. PubMed ID: 11651747 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]