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.
438 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11658954)
1. Prenatal caretaking: limits of state intervention with and without Roe. Rush SE Univ Fla Law Rev; 1987; 39(1):55-112. PubMed ID: 11658954 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Roe v. Wade and the traditional legal standards concerning pregnancy. Hopkin WR Temple Law Q; 1974; 47(4):715-38. PubMed ID: 11664349 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. On the legal status of the proposition that "life begins at conception. Rubenfeld J Stanford Law Rev; 1991 Feb; 43(3):599-635. PubMed ID: 11645689 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. To be or not to be: protecting the unborn's potentiality of life. Parness JA; Pritchard SK Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1982; 51(2):257-98. PubMed ID: 11658559 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Technological advances and Roe v. Wade: the need to rethink abortion law. Martyn K UCLA Law Rev; 1982; 29(5-6):1194-215. PubMed ID: 11655743 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Current technology affecting Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. Buckley M NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1982; 27(4):1221-60. PubMed ID: 11651778 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Rationalizing the abortion debate: legal rhetoric and the abortion controversy. Chemerinsky E Buffalo Law Rev; 1982; 31(1):107-64. PubMed ID: 11655711 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Pregnant women's rights and the legal impact of theories of when life begins. Crepps J; Miller A Am J Ethics Med; 1994; 3(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 11652827 [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. Oh my God, I'm pregnant. Minter CV Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1973; 1(1):119-29. PubMed ID: 11663469 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The creation of fetal rights: conflicts with women's constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and equal protection. Johnsen DE Yale Law J; 1986 Jan; 95(3):599-625. PubMed ID: 11658701 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The right to begin life with sound body and mind: fetal patients and conflicts with their mothers. Dougherty CJ Univ Detroit Law Rev; 1985; 63(1-2):89-117. PubMed ID: 11659281 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A decision-theoretic reconstruction of Roe v. Wade. Lockhart T Public Aff Q; 1991 Jul; 5(3):243-58. PubMed ID: 11656064 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The new pro-life legislation: patterns and recommendations. Witherspoon JP St Marys Law J; 1976; 7(4):637-97. PubMed ID: 11664635 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The new neonatal dilemma: live births from late abortions. Rhoden NK Georgetown Law J; 1984 Jun; 72(5):1451-509. PubMed ID: 11658578 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton: the compelling state interest test in substantive due process. Gelinas A Wash Lee Law Rev; 1973; 30(3):628-46. PubMed ID: 11663508 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The Supreme Court 1972 term. Foreward: toward a model of roles in the due process of life and law. Tribe LH Harv Law Rev; 1973 Nov; 87(1):1-53. PubMed ID: 11663596 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The Human Life Federalism Amendment: an assessment. Caron WR Cathol Lawyer; 1982; 27(2):87-111. PubMed ID: 11655614 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]