650 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11664779)
1. Constitutional law--substantive due process--abortion--reasonable statutory recordkeeping and reporting requirements upheld.
Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1976; 1976(4):977-99. PubMed ID: 11664779
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. A decade of cementing the mosaic of Roe v. Wade: is the composite a message to leave abortion alone?
Kudner KE
Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1984; 15(2):681-753. PubMed ID: 11649780
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Missouri loses latest round in battle over permissible abortion regulations.
Baldwin ML
UMKC Law Rev; 1982; 50(3):320-39. PubMed ID: 11658633
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Judicial supremacy, right-to-life and the abortion decision.
Lindholm LM
Public Aff Q; 1988 Apr; 2(2):1-20. PubMed ID: 11651912
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Pregnant women's rights and the legal impact of theories of when life begins.
Crepps J; Miller A
Am J Ethics Med; 1994; 3(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 11652827
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Hospitalization requirements for second trimester abortions: for the purpose of health or hindrance?
Foley MC
Georgetown Law J; 1983 Feb; 71(3):991-1021. PubMed ID: 11655620
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Webster and the future of substantive due process.
Bopp J; Coleson RE
Duquesne Law Rev; 1990; 28(2):271-94. PubMed ID: 11656037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The abortion cases: a return to Lochner, or a new substantive due process?
Albany Law Rev; 1973; 37(4):776-97. PubMed ID: 11663363
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Massachusetts parental/judicial consent law for minors' abortions: perspectives on the past, present, and future.
Joseph MA
New Engl Law Rev; 1992; 26(3):1051-99. PubMed ID: 11659665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Abortion regulation: the circumscription of state intervention by the doctrine of informed consent.
Abbot L
Georgia Law Rev; 1981; 15(3):681-713. PubMed ID: 11658321
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: constitutional principles and political turbulence.
Bigel AI
Univ Dayton Law Rev; 1993; 18(3):733-62. PubMed ID: 11659777
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The erosion of Roe v. Wade; do minors have any rights?
Sourial WH
Whittier Law Rev; 1992; 13(1):285-332. PubMed ID: 11656215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Unburdening the undue burden standard: orienting Casey in constitutional jurisprudence.
Metzger GE
Columbia Law Rev; 1994; 94():2025-89. PubMed ID: 11660149
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
