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.
269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11656347)
21. Unburdening the undue burden standard: orienting Casey in constitutional jurisprudence. Metzger GE Columbia Law Rev; 1994; 94():2025-89. PubMed ID: 11660149 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. State constitutions: the new battlefield for abortion rights. Steinschneider J Harv Womens Law J; 1987; 10():284-94. PubMed ID: 11649953 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Equality of rights under the law: state constitutional protection for abortion rights in Maryland and beyond. Forman S Wis Womens Law J; 1991; 6():87-117. PubMed ID: 11656290 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Constitutional law--health law--constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment--medically necessary abortions need not be funded by the state or federal government under Medicaid--Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). Brath MS Whittier Law Rev; 1981; 3(3):381-408. PubMed ID: 11655629 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Doe v. Rose. 27 Jun 1974. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Fed Report; 1974; 499():1112-7. PubMed ID: 11645988 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Indigent women--what right to abortion? Friedman BW NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1978; 23(4):709-41. PubMed ID: 11662584 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The road not taken: state constitutions as an alternative source of protection for reproductive rights. O'Neill KF N Y Law School Hum Rights Annu; 1993; 11(Part 1):1-77. PubMed ID: 11656430 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. The effect of recent Medicaid decisions on a constitutional right: abortions only for the rich? Lalli MA Fordham Urban Law J; 1978; 6(3):687-710. PubMed ID: 11663905 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Abortion funding and wise social policy: implications of Harris v. McRae. Gold RB Women Health; 1980; 5(4):79-83. PubMed ID: 11655640 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. The abortion funding conundrum: inalienable rights, affirmative duties, and the dilemma of dependence. Tribe LH Harv Law Rev; 1985 Nov; 99(1):330-43. PubMed ID: 11655827 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Harris v. McRae: the Hyde Amendment stands while rights of poor women fall. Sewell CC; Wetterer MA KY Law J; 1980-1981; 69(2):359-91. PubMed ID: 11655486 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Equal protection--abortions. House DE Denver Law J; 1975; 52(1):100-6. PubMed ID: 11663570 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Abortion, conscience and the Constitution: an examination of federal institutional conscience clauses. Pilpel HF; Patton DE Columbia Human Rights Law Rev; 1974 Fall-1975 Winter; 6(2):279-305. PubMed ID: 11663597 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. The unborn and the born again. New Repub; 1977 Jul; 177(27):5-6+. PubMed ID: 11663777 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers: abortion funding restrictions as an unconstitutional condition. Sherman CW Calif Law Rev; 1982 Jul; 70(4):978-1013. PubMed ID: 11655731 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Prenatal and postnatal rights of incarcerated mothers. Norz F Columbia Human Rights Law Rev; 1989; 20(2):S:55-73. PubMed ID: 11659489 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Tax-supported abortions: the legal issues. Schulte EJ Cathol Lawyer; 1975; 21(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 11663586 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Right to abortion quietly advances in state courts. Holmes SA N Y Times Web; 1998 Dec; ():1, 25. PubMed ID: 11647595 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]