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.
104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11655391)
1. Fetal viability and individual autonomy: resolving medical and legal standards for abortion. Cohen LA UCLA Law Rev; 1980 Aug; 27(6):1340-64. PubMed ID: 11655391 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Whose right to life? Implications of Roe v. Wade. Cane MB Fam Law Q; 1973; 7(4):413-32. PubMed ID: 11663407 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Judicial decision making and biological fact: Roe v. Wade and the unresolved question of fetal viability. Blank RH West Polit Q; 1984 Dec; 37(4):584-602. PubMed ID: 11655744 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Roe! Doe! Where are you?: the effect of the Supreme Court's abortion decisions. Satris MJ Univ Calif Davis Law Rev; 1974; 7():432-56. PubMed ID: 11661108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. State regulation of late abortion and the physician's duty of care to the viable fetus. Wood MA; Hawkins LB Miss Law Rev; 1980; 45(3):394-422. PubMed ID: 11664113 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. The abortion cases: a study in law and social change. Rubin ER North Carol Centr Law J; 1974; 5(2):215-53. PubMed ID: 11663476 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Constitutional law--U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision clarifies concept of fetal viability and scope of physician's discretion in determining when viability is reached. Slandell H Temple Law Q; 1979; 52(4):1240-59. PubMed ID: 11664078 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The abortion decision and evolving limits on state intervention. MacDougal D; Nasser WP Haw Bar J; 1975; 11():51-72. PubMed ID: 11664576 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The viability of the trimester approach. Calder KA Univ Baltimore Law Rev; 1984; 13(2):322-45. PubMed ID: 11658808 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: constitutional principles and political turbulence. Bigel AI Univ Dayton Law Rev; 1993; 18(3):733-62. PubMed ID: 11659777 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Colautti v. Franklin: the Court questions the use of "viability" in abortion statutes. Bartleman A West State Univ Law Rev; 1979; 6(2):311-323. PubMed ID: 11662770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Abortion: 'settling' the issue. Will GF Washington Post; 1979 Jan; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11649082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Abortion and the Constitution: the need for a life-protective amendment. Destro RA Calif Law Rev; 1975 Sep; 63(5):1250-351. PubMed ID: 11663611 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. planned Parenthood v. Danforth: resolving the antinomy. Straus TR Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1977; 4(2):425-40. PubMed ID: 11664851 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]