128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11656037)
1. Webster and the future of substantive due process.
Bopp J; Coleson RE
Duquesne Law Rev; 1990; 28(2):271-94. PubMed ID: 11656037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Webster, privacy, and RU486.
Haas EM
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1990; 6():277-96. PubMed ID: 11645679
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. The center holds!
Dworkin R
New York Rev Books; 1992 Aug; 39(14):29-33. PubMed ID: 11656267
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Judicial supremacy, right-to-life and the abortion decision.
Lindholm LM
Public Aff Q; 1988 Apr; 2(2):1-20. PubMed ID: 11651912
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court -- amici for appellants.
Blaustein AP
Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):204-33. PubMed ID: 11644397
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The legal status of the unborn after Webster.
Parness JA
Dickinson Law Rev; 1990; 95(1):1-22. PubMed ID: 11659394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Constitutional law--substantive due process--abortion--reasonable statutory recordkeeping and reporting requirements upheld.
Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1976; 1976(4):977-99. PubMed ID: 11664779
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The fetus under Section 1983: still struggling for recognition.
Czepiga PT
Syracuse Law Rev; 1983; 34(4):1029-65. PubMed ID: 11655745
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Abortion, absolutism, and compromise.
Carter SL
Yale Law J; 1991 Jun; 100(8):2747-66. PubMed ID: 11656152
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. From arguments to Supreme Court opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Kassop N
PS (Wash DC); 1993 Mar; 26(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 12085874
[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. Unraveling compromise.
Olsen F
Harv Law Rev; 1989 Nov; 103(1):105-35. PubMed ID: 11655993
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. The Human Life Federalism Amendment: an assessment.
Caron WR
Cathol Lawyer; 1982; 27(2):87-111. PubMed ID: 11655614
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Abortion rights under state constitutions: fighting the abortion war in the state courts.
Chaput KA
Oregon Law Rev; 1991; 70(3):593-628. PubMed ID: 11659531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: distinguishing abortion regulation from attempted intimidation.
Erato LD
Loyola Law Rev; 1987; 33(2):498-516. PubMed ID: 11655874
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The establishment clause argument for choice.
Dow DR
Gold Gate Univ Law Rev; 1990; 20(3):479-500. PubMed ID: 11656140
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
