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.
124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11659352)
1. The politics of abortion: husband notification legislation, self-disclosure, and marital bargaining. Smith HW; Kronauge C Sociol Q; 1990; 31(4):585-98. PubMed ID: 11659352 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Spousal notification and consent in abortion situations: Scheinberg v. Smith. Wiemers D Houst Law Rev; 1982 Jul; 19(5):1025-39. PubMed ID: 11658560 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Notifying husbands about an abortion: an empirical look at constitutional and policy dilemmas. Plutzer E; Ryan B Sociol Soc Res; 1987 Apr; 71(3):183-9. PubMed ID: 11659056 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Constitutional law--abortion--parental and spousal consent requirements--right to privacy. Long SL; Ravenscraft P Akron Law Rev; 1976; 10(2):367-82. PubMed ID: 11664733 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Making rights real: Roe's impact on abortion access. Fung A Polit Soc; 1993 Dec; 21(4):465-504. PubMed ID: 11659973 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. A decade of cementing the mosaic of Roe v. Wade: is the composite a message to leave abortion alone? Kudner KE Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1984; 15(2):681-753. PubMed ID: 11649780 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Abortion rights of young women: the Supreme Court attacks the most vulnerable. Heller S Washburn Law J; 1990; 30(1):15-28. PubMed ID: 11659579 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Paternal interests in the abortion decision: does the father have a say? Diggins M Univ Chic Leg Forum; 1989; 1989():377-97. PubMed ID: 11656041 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The consent question--parental and spousal consent for abortions. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1976 Sep; 32(9):27-30. PubMed ID: 11664739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. "Crying stones": a comparison of abortion in Japan and the United States. Wardle LD N Y Law Sch J Int Comp Law; 1993; 14(2-3):183-259. PubMed ID: 11659814 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The spousal notice and consultation requirement: a new approach to state regulation of abortion. Blum BG Nova Law J; 1982; 6(3):457-74. PubMed ID: 11658764 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Sex as contract: abortion and expanded choice. Feaver PD; Kling R; Plofchan TK Stanford Law Pol Rev; 1992-1993 Winter; 4():211-20. PubMed ID: 11652652 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. 31 Jan 1975. U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D Fed Suppl; 1975; 392():1362-79. PubMed ID: 11646047 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Missouri loses latest round in battle over permissible abortion regulations. Baldwin ML UMKC Law Rev; 1982; 50(3):320-39. PubMed ID: 11658633 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Roe v. Rampton. 17 Jan 1975. U.S. District Court, D. Utah, Central Division Fed Suppl; 1975; 394():677-93. PubMed ID: 11645995 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Reproduction and the law. Erickson NS Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):165-74. PubMed ID: 11649200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Reading Casey: structuring the woman's decisionmaking process. Goldstein RD William Mary Bill Rights J; 1996; 4(3):787-880. PubMed ID: 11660789 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Jones v. Smith. U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida Fed Suppl; 1979 Jul; 474():1160-72. PubMed ID: 11648523 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Fed Report; 1991 Oct; 947():682-727. PubMed ID: 11648596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]