147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11664032)
1. Abortion policy: ideology, political cleavage and the policy process.
Palley HA
Policy Stud J; 1978; 7(2):224-33. PubMed ID: 11664032
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Harris v. McRae. 30 Jun 1980.
U.S. Supreme Court
U S Rep U S Supreme Court; 1980; 448():297-357. PubMed ID: 12038373
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Abortion on demand in a post-Wade context: must the state pay the bills?
Fordham Law Rev; 1973; 41(4):921-44. PubMed ID: 11661025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Beal, Maher and Poelker: the end of an era?
Gall-Clayton N
J Fam Law; 1978; 17(1):49-92. PubMed ID: 11655402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. beal v. Doe, Maher v. Roe, and non-therapeutic abortions: the state does not have to pay the bill.
Norman AB
Loyola Univ Chic Law J; 1977; 9(1):288-311. PubMed ID: 11661567
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Doe v. Beal: abortion, Medicaid, and equal protection.
Wilcox JK
Va Law Rev; 1976 May; 62(4):811-37. PubMed ID: 11663695
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The impact of public abortion funding decisions on indigent women: a proposal to reform state statutory and constitutional abortion funding provisions.
Corns CA
Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1991; 24(2):371-403. PubMed ID: 11656224
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of recent Medicaid decisions on a constitutional right: abortions only for the rich?
Lalli MA
Fordham Urban Law J; 1978; 6(3):687-710. PubMed ID: 11663905
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. State of Georgia, Dept. of Medical Assistance v. Heckler.
U.S. District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Fed Suppl; 1984 Apr; 583():1377-82. PubMed ID: 11648336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Constitutional law--United States Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment...--Harris v. McRae, 100 S.Ct. 2671 (1980).
Barnett BA
Temple Law Q; 1981; 54(1):109-44. PubMed ID: 11655628
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The Supreme Court, abortion policy, and state response: a preliminary analysis.
Nicholson JB; Steward DW
Publius; 1978; 8(1):159-78. PubMed ID: 11664024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Harris v. McRae: the Hyde Amendment stands while rights of poor women fall.
Sewell CC; Wetterer MA
KY Law J; 1980-1981; 69(2):359-91. PubMed ID: 11655486
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Doe v. Beal. 21 Jul 1975.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Fed Report; 1975; 523():611-36. PubMed ID: 11645909
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. State limitations upon the availability and accessibility of abortions after Wade and Bolton.
Finn J
Univ Kans Law Rev; 1976; 25(1):87-107. PubMed ID: 11663734
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The Hyde Amendment and Medicaid abortions.
Gunty S
Forum; 1981; 16(4):825-40. PubMed ID: 11651839
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Doe v. Mathews.
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
Fed Suppl; 1976 Oct; 422():141-7. PubMed ID: 11648360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Harris v. McRae: the Court retreats from Roe v. Wade.
Brock VM
Loyola Law Rev; 1980; 26(3):749-60. PubMed ID: 11664179
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Harris v. McRae: whatever happened to the Roe v. Wade abortion right?
Crocker L
Pepperdine Law Rev; 1981; 8(3):861-97. PubMed ID: 11650497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Ms. Pilpel v. Mr. Hyde.
Buckley WF
Hum Life Rev; 1978; 4(1):89-108. PubMed ID: 11661548
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
