406 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663614)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. State regulation of late abortion and the physician's duty of care to the viable fetus.
Wood MA; Hawkins LB
Miss Law Rev; 1980; 45(3):394-422. PubMed ID: 11664113
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. The abortion decision and evolving limits on state intervention.
MacDougal D; Nasser WP
Haw Bar J; 1975; 11():51-72. PubMed ID: 11664576
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Abortion--an update.
Guthman HL
Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):175-91. PubMed ID: 11649201
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. State protection of the viable unborn child after Roe v. Wade: how little, how late?
Rees G
LA Law Rev; 1976; 37(1):270-82. PubMed ID: 11663713
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. The legal impact of the Roe and Doe decisions.
Granfield D
Jurist; 1973; 33(2):113-22. PubMed ID: 11663427
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The invalidity of Canada's abortion law--section 251 of the Criminal Code.
Picher PC
Crim Rep Can New Ser; 1974; 24():1-31. PubMed ID: 11663529
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The abortion cases.
Rust ME
ABA J; 1986 Feb; 72():50-3. PubMed ID: 11655726
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Trimesters and technology: revamping Roe v. Wade.
Rhoden NK
Yale Law J; 1986 Mar; 95(4):639-97. PubMed ID: 11655828
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The viability of the trimester approach.
Calder KA
Univ Baltimore Law Rev; 1984; 13(2):322-45. PubMed ID: 11658808
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
