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.
248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11659426)
61. Fetal research: a view from right to life to wrongful birth. Munson JW Chic Kent Law Rev; 1975; 52(1):133-56. PubMed ID: 11664521 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
62. Prenatal sex determination: a new family-building strategy. Khanna SK Manushi; 1995; (86):23-9. PubMed ID: 12319800 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Why a constitutional amendment? Noonan JT Hum Life Rev; 1975; 1(1):26-43. PubMed ID: 11663540 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
64. Boy or girl: now choice, not chance. Leff DN Med World News; 1975 Dec; 16(26):45-48+. PubMed ID: 11662184 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
65. Constitutional law: Pennsylvania's wrongful birth statute's impact on abortion rights: state action and undue burden -- Edmonds v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital Radiology Associates. Silverman AM Temple Law Rev; 1993; 66(3):1087-105. PubMed ID: 11659883 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
66. Finding fathers: artificial insemination, lesbians, and the law. Arnup K Can J Women Law; 1994; 7(1):97-115. PubMed ID: 11660009 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
67. Picture perfect: the politics of prenatal testing. Kristol E First Things; 1993 Apr; 32():17-24. PubMed ID: 11659558 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
69. 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]
70. The mother. Tisdale S Hippocrates (Sausalito); 1988; 2(3):64-72. PubMed ID: 11650165 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
71. Surrogate law: the decision in a novel case in New Jersey could have wide-reaching implications for infertile couples and surrogate motherhood. Galen M Natl Law J; 1986 Sep; 9(3):1, 8, 10. PubMed ID: 11658784 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
72. A right without access? Payment for elective abortions after Maher v. Roe. Ryan JS Cap Univ Law Rev; 1978; 7(3):483-96. PubMed ID: 11663178 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
73. Manipulating the genetic code: jurisprudential conundrums. Smith GP Georgetown Law J; 1976 Feb; 64(3):697-733. PubMed ID: 11660899 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
74. The conflict between "disabling" and "enabling" paradigms in law: sterilization, the developmentally disabled, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Dugan JC Cornell Law Rev; 1993 Mar; 78(3):507-42. PubMed ID: 11659683 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
76. The right to abortion under Medicaid. Butler PA Clgh Rev; 1974 Apr; 7(12):713-20. PubMed ID: 11663473 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
77. An Act to provide for the regulation of the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for the purpose of detecting genetic or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital malformations or sex-linked disorders and for the prevention of the misuse of such techniques for the purpose of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide; and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Dated 20 September 1994. India Int Dig Health Legis; 1995; 46(1):47-9. PubMed ID: 11660855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
78. The abortion polemic: a restatement of pros and cons. Pérez de Agulló M Rev Jurid Univ P R; 1973; 42(2):247-76. PubMed ID: 11663393 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
79. 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]
80. Whose right to life? Implications of Roe v. Wade. Cane MB Fam Law Q; 1973; 7(4):413-32. PubMed ID: 11663407 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]