509 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]
2. Abortion's shrinking majority.
Murphy J
Time; 1986 Jun; 127(25):30-1. PubMed ID: 11645638
[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]
