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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663853)

  • 21. Where privacy fails: equal protection and the abortion rights of minors.
    Schmidt CG
    N Y Univ Law Rev; 1993 Jun; 68(3):597-638. PubMed ID: 11659822
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. An analysis of the 1974 Massachusetts Abortion Statute and a minor's right to abortion.
    Malfa KA
    New Engl Law Rev; 1975; 10(2):417-54. PubMed ID: 11664438
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Abortion and the consideration of fundamental, irreconcilable interests.
    Jones CJ
    Syracuse Law Rev; 1982; 33(2):565-613. PubMed ID: 11658668
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Reading Casey: structuring the woman's decisionmaking process.
    Goldstein RD
    William Mary Bill Rights J; 1996; 4(3):787-880. PubMed ID: 11660789
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Abortion: the father's rights.
    Gilbert RA
    Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1973; 42(3):441-67. PubMed ID: 11664234
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Constitutional law--right to privacy--spousal consent to abortion: foreshadowing the fall of parental consent.
    Kenworthy L
    Suffolk Univ Law Rev; 1975; 9(3):841-72. PubMed ID: 11664519
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Normative judgment, social change, and legal reasoning in the context of abortion and privacy.
    Schnably SJ
    Rev Law Soc Change; 1984-1985; 13(4):715-910. PubMed ID: 11659092
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 'Fathers'' foetuses and abortion decision-making: the reproduction of maternal ideology in Canadian judicial discourse.
    Fegan EV
    Soc Leg Stud; 1996 Mar; 5(1):75-93. PubMed ID: 11658110
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Abortion and liberalism: a comparison between the abortion decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Constitutional Court of West Germany.
    Morris DG
    Hastings Int Comp Law Rev; 1988; 11(2):159-245. PubMed ID: 11655935
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Abortion: the future cases--fathers' rights.
    Avansino F
    Univ San Francisco Law Rev; 1973; 8(2):472-92. PubMed ID: 11664407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Paternal child-support tort parallel for the abortion on maternal demand era: the work of Regan, Levy, and Duncan.
    Swan GS
    Glendale Law Rev; 1981-1982; 5(2):151-87. PubMed ID: 11652440
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Roe to Casey: a survey of abortion law.
    Pirner RK; Williams LB
    Washburn Law J; 1993; 32(2):166-89. PubMed ID: 11659798
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Canada's Supreme Court rejects ex-lover's effort to halt abortion.
    Barron J
    N Y Times Web; 1989 Aug; ():A1, A3. PubMed ID: 11647413
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Due process and equal protection: constitutional implications of abortion notice and reporting requirements.
    Rickless DM
    Boston Univ Law Rev; 1976 May; 56(3):522-41. PubMed ID: 11664624
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.