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.
148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663546)
1. Abortion and Dr. Edelin. Lewin N New Repub; 1975 Mar; 172(9):16-9. PubMed ID: 11663546 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Floyd v. Anders. 4 Nov 1977. U.S. District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division Fed Suppl; 1977; 440():535-40. PubMed ID: 11646007 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Roe! Doe! Where are you?: the effect of the Supreme Court's abortion decisions. Satris MJ Univ Calif Davis Law Rev; 1974; 7():432-56. PubMed ID: 11661108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Abortion: are medicine and the law on a collision course? Pollner F Med World News; 1985 Jul; 26(13):66-68, 70, 73+. PubMed ID: 11645557 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Enforcement of state abortion statutes after Roe: a state-by-state analysis. Linton PB Univ Detroit Law Rev; 1990; 67(2):157-259. PubMed ID: 11659261 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the current state of abortion law. Berlin SI Second Opin; 1993 Jan; 18(3):104-9. PubMed ID: 11645221 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Criminal liability of physicians: an encroachment on the abortion right? Barber RA Am Crim Law Rev; 1981; 18(4):591-615. PubMed ID: 11655468 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Medical responsibility for fetal survival under Roe and Doe. Sendor BB Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1975; 10(2):444-71. PubMed ID: 11663614 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The aftermath of Casey: is a sonogram requirement unduly burdensome? Trense CF Law Psychol Rev; 1993; 17():225-41. PubMed ID: 11659925 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Survey of abortion law. Platt JG; O'Malley K Ariz State Law J; 1980; 1980(1):67-216. PubMed ID: 11655392 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Webster, privacy, and RU486. Haas EM J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1990; 6():277-96. PubMed ID: 11645679 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The Supreme Court on abortion funding: the second time around. Horan DJ; Marzen TJ St Louis Univ Law J; 1981; 25(2):411-27. PubMed ID: 11655812 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Abortion choice and the law in Vermont: a recent study. Olmstead FH Vt Law Rev; 1982; 7(2):281-313. PubMed ID: 11655820 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Informed consent to abortion: a refinement. Jipping TL Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1987-1988 Winter; 38(3):329-86. PubMed ID: 11659038 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. S.J. Res. 110: Human Life Federalism Amendment. Hatch OG Congr Rec (Dly Ed); 1981 Sep; 127(131):S10194-8. PubMed ID: 11658572 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]