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 *

253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12436734)

  • 1. Roe v. Wade at twenty-nine: the future of abortion rights in the U.S. remains an open question.
    Drenning MG
    Health Care Law Mon; 2002 Feb; ():6-7. PubMed ID: 12436734
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Handicapping the odds on the future of Roe v. Wade: can the right to abortion survive in the High Court?
    Drenning MG
    Health Care Law Mon; 2003 Mar; ():3-9. PubMed ID: 12698761
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Supreme Court Ruling on the Texas Abortion Law: Beginning to Unravel Roe v Wade.
    Cohen IG; Reingold RB; Gostin LO
    JAMA; 2022 Feb; 327(7):621-622. PubMed ID: 35089318
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How important was the Pill to women's economic well-being? If Roe v. Wade were overturned, how might society change?
    Joyce T
    J Policy Anal Manage; 2013; 32(4):879-87. PubMed ID: 24665470
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Supreme Court, the Texas Abortion Law (SB8), and the Beginning of the End of Roe v Wade?
    Cohen IG; Adashi EY; Gostin LO
    JAMA; 2021 Oct; 326(15):1473-1474. PubMed ID: 34554180
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The End of Roe v Wade and New Legal Frontiers on the Constitutional Right to Abortion.
    Cohen IG; Murray M; Gostin LO
    JAMA; 2022 Jul; 328(4):325-326. PubMed ID: 35802387
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The partial death of abortion rights.
    Charo RA
    N Engl J Med; 2007 May; 356(21):2125-8. PubMed ID: 17452437
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Symposium: A Celebration of Reproductive Rights: Twenty-Five Years of Roe v. Wade.
    Perry T; Garcia MT; Baird B; Frietsche S
    Womens Rights Law Report; 1998; 19(3):247-59. PubMed ID: 15871152
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. State Abortion Restrictions and the New Supreme Court: Women's Access to Reproductive Health Services.
    Reingold RB; Gostin LO
    JAMA; 2019 Jul; 322(1):21-22. PubMed ID: 31166573
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court. Conclusion: the future of abortion as a "private choice".
    Grant ER
    Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):233-43. PubMed ID: 2603867
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The intimidation of American physicians--banning partial-birth abortion.
    Greene MF
    N Engl J Med; 2007 May; 356(21):2128-9. PubMed ID: 17452436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Supreme Court and the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care.
    Poppema ST
    MedGenMed; 2007; 9(3):41; author reply 41. PubMed ID: 18159625
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Supreme Court and the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care.
    Gartner EC
    MedGenMed; 2007; 9(3):41; author reply 41. PubMed ID: 18159623
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The argument that never ends.
    Simon R
    US News World Rep; 2003 Jan; 134(2):24. PubMed ID: 12561696
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.
    Harv Law Rev; 2016 Nov; 130(1):397-406. PubMed ID: 28117562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sara Weddington on Roe v. Wade. Interview by Lee Stockdale.
    Weddington S
    Health Matrix; 1989; 7(2):59-62. PubMed ID: 10294685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The rhetoric of disrespect: uncovering the faulty premises infecting reproductive rights.
    Reilly EA
    Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 1996; 5(1):147-205. PubMed ID: 16594108
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Constitutionalizing Roe, Casey and Carhart: a legislative due-process anti-discrimination principle that gives constitutional content to the "undue burden" standard of review applied to abortion control legislation.
    Van Detta JA
    South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 2001; 10(2):211-92. PubMed ID: 16485363
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The right to privacy: Roe v. Wade revisited.
    Smith PA
    Jurist; 1983; 43(2):289-317. PubMed ID: 16086474
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Supreme Court and the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care.
    Pevsner WJ
    MedGenMed; 2007 Aug; 9(3):41; author reply 41. PubMed ID: 18092047
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.