327 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11655926)
1. The Title X family planning gag rule: can the government buy up constitutional rights?
Chervin CI
Stanford Law Rev; 1989 Jan; 41(2):401-34. PubMed ID: 11655926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Government funding in Title X projects: circumscribing the constitutional rights of the indigent: Rust v. Sullivan.
Maher L
Calif West Law Rev; 1992; 29(1):143-82. PubMed ID: 11656260
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Latest administration tactic makes abortion fight a free speech issue.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1988 Feb; ():E7. PubMed ID: 11647385
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Five justices uphold U.S. rule curbing abortion advice Some clinics to still advise but forgo aid.
Greenhouse L; Brozan N
N Y Times Web; 1991 May; ():A1, A18. PubMed ID: 11647436
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. U.S. suspends plan to cut off funds for abortion ties.
Pear R
N Y Times Web; 1988 Mar; ():A1, B8. PubMed ID: 11646665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Rust v. Sullivan.
U.S. Supreme Court
Wests Supreme Court Report; 1991 May; 111():1759-89. PubMed ID: 12041295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Rust v. Sullivan: triumph of the right over reason.
Call EC
J Fam Law; 1992-1993 Winter; 31(1):123-42. PubMed ID: 11656449
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Title X family planning subsidies: the government's role in moral issues.
Reitler EG
Harvard J Legis; 1990; 27(2):453-95. PubMed ID: 11656070
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Massachusetts v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Fed Report; 1990 Mar; 899():53-79. PubMed ID: 11648391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Official tells of U.S. plan to discourage abortions.
Hilts PJ
N Y Times Web; 1991 Mar; ():A22. PubMed ID: 11647434
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. U.S. issues limits on abortion aid by family clinics.
Pear R
N Y Times Web; 1987 Aug; ():1, 26. PubMed ID: 11647377
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Souter questions a curb on doctors: Justices skeptical of federal bar to advice on abortion.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1990 Oct; ():A1, A22. PubMed ID: 11647430
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The discourse ethics alternative to Rust v. Sullivan.
Leedes GC
Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1991; 26(1):87-143. PubMed ID: 11659547
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Family-planning clinics face dilemma over their mission.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1991 Jun; ():A1, A16. PubMed ID: 11647443
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. New York v. Sullivan.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Fed Report; 1989 Nov; 889():401-18. PubMed ID: 11648392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The "gag rule" revisited: physicians as abortion gatekeepers.
Bloche MG
Law Med Health Care; 1992; 20(4):392-402. PubMed ID: 11651561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The impact of public abortion funding decisions on indigent women: a proposal to reform state statutory and constitutional abortion funding provisions.
Corns CA
Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1991; 24(2):371-403. PubMed ID: 11656224
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. U.S. abortion rule is upheld by judge.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1988 Jul; ():46. PubMed ID: 11647389
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Toward a First Amendment theory of doctor-patient discourse and the right to receive unbiased medical advice.
Berg P
Boston Univ Law Rev; 1994 Mar; 74(2):201-66. PubMed ID: 11659979
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Abortion compromise -- inevitable and impossible.
Law SA
Univ Ill Law Rev; 1992; 25(4):921-41. PubMed ID: 11656296
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
