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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11655796)

  • 1. Constitutional law--abortion--a requirement that "all" second trimester abortions shall be performed in a hospital is unconstitutional--City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 51 U.S.L.W. 4767 (June 15, 1983).
    Colbert J
    Thurgood Marshall Law Rev; 1983 Fall-1984 Spring; 9(1-2):144-65. PubMed ID: 11655796
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Right of privacy--mandatory hospitalization for all second trimester abortions invalidated as not being reasonably related to maternal health--City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 103 S.Ct. 2481 (1983).
    Lim DG
    Santa Clara Law Rev; 1984; 24(3):789-801. PubMed ID: 11655804
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Constitutional law--right to privacy--municipal roadblock to abortion denounced--City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 103 S.Ct. 2481(1983).
    Crusius CJ
    Seton Hall Law Rev; 1984; 14(3):658-82. PubMed ID: 11658811
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.: stare decisis prevails, but for how long?
    Prieto P
    Univ Miami Law Rev; 1984 Sep; 38(5):921-38. PubMed ID: 11655794
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Demise of the trimester standard? City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.
    Curry RE
    J Fam Law; 1984-1985; 23(2):267-86. PubMed ID: 11651847
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The trimester approach: how long can the legal fiction last?
    Casurella JG; Schrock CT
    Mercer Law Rev; 1984; 35(4):891-913. PubMed ID: 11658750
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.
    U.S. Supreme Court
    U S Rep U S Supreme Court; 1983 Jun; 462():416-75. PubMed ID: 12041275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Abortion 1984: the controversy continues.
    Healey JM
    Conn Med; 1984 Apr; 48(4):269. PubMed ID: 11644128
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: a path to constitutional equalibrium.
    Chopko ME
    Campbell Law Rev; 1990; 12(2):181-220. PubMed ID: 11656527
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Hospitalization requirements for second trimester abortions: for the purpose of health or hindrance?
    Foley MC
    Georgetown Law J; 1983 Feb; 71(3):991-1021. PubMed ID: 11655620
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Supreme Court on abortion funding: the second time around.
    Horan DJ; Marzen TJ
    St Louis Univ Law J; 1981; 25(2):411-27. PubMed ID: 11655812
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Abortion: trouble ahead.
    Greenhouse L
    N Y Times Web; 1989 Jul; ():A1, A16. PubMed ID: 11647407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 18. Webster, privacy, and RU486.
    Haas EM
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1990; 6():277-96. PubMed ID: 11645679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Roe to Casey: a survey of abortion law.
    Pirner RK; Williams LB
    Washburn Law J; 1993; 32(2):166-89. PubMed ID: 11659798
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Akron decision: a pragmatic politician's parody of Solomon.
    Noonan JT
    Hum Life Rev; 1983; 9(3):5-18. PubMed ID: 11655719
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.