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.
545 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663584)
21. Nor piety nor wit: the Supreme Court on abortion. Dellapenna JW Columbia Human Rights Law Rev; 1974 Fall-1975 Winter; 6(2):379-413. PubMed ID: 11663599 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Abortion and a nation at war. First Things; 1992 Oct; 26():9-13. PubMed ID: 11659506 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court. Linton PB St Louis Univ Public Law Rev; 1993; 13(1):15-137. PubMed ID: 11656611 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The social construction of personhood. Burkhart J Soc Thought; 1989; 15():2-13. PubMed ID: 11659411 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Political effects of court decisions on abortion: a comparison between the United States and the German Federal Republic. George J Int J Law Fam; 1989 Apr; 3(1):106-36. PubMed ID: 11656044 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Overruling Roe v. Wade: an analysis of the proposed Constitutional amendments. Rice CE Boston Coll Ind Commer Law Rev; 1973 Dec; 15(2):307-41. PubMed ID: 11663416 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Abortion and section 7 of the Charter: proposing a constitutionally valid foetal protection law. McCourt KM; Love DJ Manit Law J; 1989; 18(3):365-94. PubMed ID: 11656021 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Casey, Bray and beyond: religious liberty and the abortion debate. Simmons PD St Louis Univ Public Law Rev; 1993; 13(1):467-88. PubMed ID: 11656618 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Abortion and democracy for women: a critique of Tremblay v. Daigle. Greschner D McGill Law J; 1990 Sep; 35(3):633-69. PubMed ID: 11656074 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Envisioning a future for reproductive liberty: strategies for making the rights real. Pine RN; Law SA Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1992; 27(2):407-63. PubMed ID: 11656200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. The fetus and the law--whose life is it anyway? Gallagher J Ms; 1984 Sep; 13(3):62, 64, 66+. PubMed ID: 11655606 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. The Morgentaler decision: Parliament's options. Hovius B Can Fam Law Q; 1988; 3():137-65. PubMed ID: 11659378 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. The contemporary American abortion controversy: stages in the argument. Railsback CC Q J Speech; 1984 Nov; 70(4):410-24. PubMed ID: 11655797 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Abortion and Constitution: United States and West Germany. Kommers DP Am J Comp Law; 1977; 25(2):255-85. PubMed ID: 11663731 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Abortion and the Constitution: the need for a life-protective amendment. Destro RA Calif Law Rev; 1975 Sep; 63(5):1250-351. PubMed ID: 11663611 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]