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 *

625 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11656169)

  • 1. Losing the negative right of privacy: building sexual and reproductive freedom.
    Copelon R
    Rev Law Soc Change; 1990-1991; 18(1):15-50. PubMed ID: 11656169
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Envisioning a future for reproductive liberty: strategies for making the rights real.
    Pine RN; Law SA
    Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1992; 27(2):407-63. PubMed ID: 11656200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Abortion and the consideration of fundamental, irreconcilable interests.
    Jones CJ
    Syracuse Law Rev; 1982; 33(2):565-613. PubMed ID: 11658668
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Abortion rights in America.
    Bullock JR
    Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1994; 1994(1):63-94. PubMed ID: 11656488
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Where privacy fails: equal protection and the abortion rights of minors.
    Schmidt CG
    N Y Univ Law Rev; 1993 Jun; 68(3):597-638. PubMed ID: 11659822
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Feminist litigation: an oxymoron? -- a study of the briefs filed in William L. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
    Colker R
    Harv Womens Law J; 1990; 13():137-88. PubMed ID: 11656053
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: devaluing the right to choose.
    Binion G
    Women Polit; 1991; 11(2):41-60. PubMed ID: 11656100
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The evolution of the right to privacy after Roe v. Wade.
    Barnard D
    Am J Law Med; 1987; 13(2 3):365-525. PubMed ID: 11659051
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. "Keep your laws off my body": abortion regulation and the takings clause.
    Looper-Friedman SE
    New Engl Law Rev; 1995; 29(2):253-84. PubMed ID: 11656525
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court -- amici for appellees.
    Annas GJ
    Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):169-203. PubMed ID: 11644396
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers: procreative choice guaranteed for all women.
    Erca A
    Gold Gate Univ Law Rev; 1982; 12(3):691-716. PubMed ID: 11655619
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Emancipation as freedom in Roe v. Wade.
    Bezanson RP
    Dickinson Law Rev; 1993; 97(3):485-512. PubMed ID: 11656343
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A thorn in the side of privacy: the need for reassessment of the constitutional right to abortion.
    Kunz KA
    Marquette Law Rev; 1987; 70(3):534-71. PubMed ID: 11655884
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Normative judgment, social change, and legal reasoning in the context of abortion and privacy.
    Schnably SJ
    Rev Law Soc Change; 1984-1985; 13(4):715-910. PubMed ID: 11659092
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Abortion politics: writing for an audience of one.
    Estrich SR; Sullivan KM
    Univ PA Law Rev; 1989 Nov; 138(1):119-55. PubMed ID: 11656496
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Abortion and a nation at war.
    First Things; 1992 Oct; 26():9-13. PubMed ID: 11659506
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Notes from the field: a reply to Professor Colker.
    Burns SE
    Harv Womens Law J; 1990; 13():189-206. PubMed ID: 11656054
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Perspectives on the abortion controversy: amici for appellees -- Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees Webster and women's equality Webster and the fundamental right to make medical decisions Abortion counseling and the First Amendment: open questions after Webster Brief for 885 law professors in support of maintaining adherence to the Roe decision.
    Annas GJ; Glantz LH; Mariner WK; Johnsen D; Wilder MJ; Orentlicher D; Pine RN; Michelman FI; Redlich N; Neuwirth SR; Carty-Bennia D
    Am J Law Med; 1990 Jan; 15(2-3):169-203. PubMed ID: 11656584
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Supreme Court, the "facts of life" and "the thoughtful part of the nation.
    Destro RA
    Hum Life Rev; 1994; 20(3):28-48. PubMed ID: 11656359
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Workability of the undue burden test.
    Schneider EA
    Temple Law Rev; 1993; 66(3):1003-37. PubMed ID: 11659882
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 32.