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.
166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11664982)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. A thorn in the side of privacy: the need for reassessment of the constitutional right to abortion. Kunz KA Marquette Law Rev; 1987; 70(3):534-71. PubMed ID: 11655884 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
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. 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]
28. 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]
29. 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]
30. Embryo transplant, parental conflict, and reproductive freedom: a prospective analysis of issues and arguments created by forthcoming technology. Coleman MN Hofstra Law Rev; 1987; 15(3):609-30. PubMed ID: 11659072 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
33. The evolution of the right to privacy after Roe v. Wade. Barnard D Am J Law Med; 1987; 13(2 3):365-525. PubMed ID: 11659051 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Constitutional law--abortion--court focuses on husband's interest regarding spousal notification requirement to procure abortion: Scheinberg v. Smith, 659 F.2d 746 (5th Cir. 1981). Adams C Cumberland Law Rev; 1982-1983; 13(1):143-59. PubMed ID: 11658434 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. The right of minors to confidential access to contraceptives. Morano AL Albany Law Rev; 1982; 47(1):214-40. PubMed ID: 11658598 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. The husband's rights in abortion. Etzioni A Trial; 1976 Nov; 12(11):56-8. PubMed ID: 11664680 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. The theory of the Danforth case. Canavan F Hum Life Rev; 1976; 2(4):5-14. PubMed ID: 11662291 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The father's rights in the abortion decision. Schultz WL Tex Tech Law Rev; 1975; 6(3):1075-94. PubMed ID: 11664508 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]