611 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663596)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. Abortion laws, religious beliefs and the first amendment.
Skahn SL
Valparaiso Univ Law Rev; 1980; 14(3):487-526. PubMed ID: 11664174
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Can Congress create people?
Buckley WF; Galebach SH; Bork R; Pilpel H
Hum Life Rev; 1981; 7(3):87-108. PubMed ID: 11655601
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The right to life in law: the embryo and fetus, the body and soul, the family and society.
Hicks SC
Fla State Univ Law Rev; 1991; 19(3):805-50. PubMed ID: 11656190
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. The constitutional validity of abortion legislation: a comparative note.
Glenn HP
McGill Law J; 1975; 21(4):673-84. PubMed ID: 11663622
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A human life statute.
Galebach SH
Hum Life Rev; 1981; 7(1):5-33. PubMed ID: 11651719
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Protecting the unborn.
Ramsey P
Commonweal; 1974 May; 100(13):308-14. PubMed ID: 11663442
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
