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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11664851)

  • 1. planned Parenthood v. Danforth: resolving the antinomy.
    Straus TR
    Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1977; 4(2):425-40. PubMed ID: 11664851
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Abortion statutes after Danforth: an examination.
    Moss GW
    J Fam Law; 1976; 15(3):537-67. PubMed ID: 11663802
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Supreme Court says spouse, parent can't block abortion.
    Fam Plann Popul Rep; 1976 Aug; 5(4):53-7. PubMed ID: 11664665
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Constitutional law: further guidelines for abortion legislation.
    Oklahoma Law Rev; 1976; 29(3):785-8. PubMed ID: 11664737
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Abortion in the American context.
    Noonan JT
    Hum Life Rev; 1977; 3(1):29-38. PubMed ID: 11662324
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Constitutional law--abortion--no requirement of spousal or parental consent to woman's decision to abort.
    Slattery GF
    Tulane Law Rev; 1977 Jun; 51(4):1279-86. PubMed ID: 11664902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Court curbs family veto on abortion.
    MacKenzie JP
    Washington Post; 1976 Jul; ():A1+. PubMed ID: 11648683
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. The right to abortion: the end of parental and spousal consent requirements.
    Newbery SA
    Ark Law Rev; 1977; 31(1):122-6. PubMed ID: 11662408
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The theory of the Danforth case.
    Canavan F
    Hum Life Rev; 1976; 2(4):5-14. PubMed ID: 11662291
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Sexual privacy: access of a minor to contraceptives, abortion, and sterilization without parental consent.
    Henenberg K
    Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1977; 12(1):221-44. PubMed ID: 11664910
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Constitutional law--abortion--statute requiring spousal and parental consent declared unconstitutional.
    Lenobel J
    Cumberland Law Rev; 1977; 7(3):539-50. PubMed ID: 11661517
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. 1 Jul 1976.
    U.S. Supreme Court
    U S Rep U S Supreme Court; 1976; 428():52-105. PubMed ID: 12038364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.