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.
172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663801)
1. Third party consent to abortions before and after Danforth: a theoretical analysis. Schell MS J Fam Law; 1976; 15(3):508-36. PubMed ID: 11663801 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. 31 Jan 1975. U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D Fed Suppl; 1975; 392():1362-79. PubMed ID: 11646047 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Justice Harry A. Blackmun: the abortion decisions. Fuqua D Ark Law Rev; 1980; 34(2):276-96. PubMed ID: 11658349 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Abortion and privacy: a woman's right to self determination. Kraus AR Southwest Univ Law Rev; 1978; 10(1):173-93. PubMed ID: 11664982 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Spousal notification and consent in abortion situations: Scheinberg v. Smith. Wiemers D Houst Law Rev; 1982 Jul; 19(5):1025-39. PubMed ID: 11658560 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Court curbs family veto on abortion. MacKenzie JP Washington Post; 1976 Jul; ():A1+. PubMed ID: 11648683 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Poe v. Gerstein. 18 Aug 1975. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Fed Report; 1975; 517():787-97. PubMed ID: 11646046 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Conn v. Conn. Indiana. Court of Appeals, First District Wests North East Rep; 1988 Jul; 525():612-6. PubMed ID: 12041181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The consent question--parental and spousal consent for abortions. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1976 Sep; 32(9):27-30. PubMed ID: 11664739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The family at bay. DeMarco D Hum Life Rev; 1982; 8(4):44-54. PubMed ID: 11651705 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Constitutional law--abortion--parental and spousal consent requirements violate right to privacy in abortion decision. Sanders JE Univ Kans Law Rev; 1976; 24(2):446-62. PubMed ID: 11664628 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The validity of parental consent statutes after Planned Parenthood. Talbert JT J Urban Law; 1977; 54(1):127-64. PubMed ID: 11664823 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The right to an abortion--problems with parental and spousal consent. Goldbach V NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1976; 22(1):65-86. PubMed ID: 11664694 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Workability of the undue burden test. Schneider EA Temple Law Rev; 1993; 66(3):1003-37. PubMed ID: 11659882 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Doe v. Doe. 3 Jul 1974. Massachusetts. Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk North East Rep Second Ser; 1974; 314():128-39. PubMed ID: 12038346 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Constitutional law--abortion--parental and spousal consent requirements--right to privacy. Long SL; Ravenscraft P Akron Law Rev; 1976; 10(2):367-82. PubMed ID: 11664733 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: the reaffirmation of Roe or the beginning of the end? Henry KS Univ Louisv J Fam Law; 1993-1994 Winter; 32(1):93-113. PubMed ID: 11660011 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The theory of the Danforth case. Canavan F Hum Life Rev; 1976; 2(4):5-14. PubMed ID: 11662291 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]