454 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14758819)
1. Physician assistant as abortion provider: lessons from Vermont, New York, and Montana.
Schirmer JT
Hastings Law J; 1997 Nov; 49(1):253-88. PubMed ID: 14758819
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Mazurek v. Armstrong: should states be allowed to restrict the performance of abortions to licensed physicians only?
Bazzelle RY
Thurgood Marshall Law Rev; 1998; 24(1):149-82. PubMed ID: 16200693
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Forgotten Supreme Court abortion cases: Drs. Hawker and Hurwitz in the deck and defrocked.
Lucas R
Pepperdine Law Rev; 2003 May; 30(4):641-70. PubMed ID: 15237509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Abortion in 1938 and today: plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Bourne RW
South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 2003; 12(2):225-75. PubMed ID: 16493843
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. What happens if Roe is overruled? Extraterritorial regulation of abortion by the states.
Bradford CS
Ariz Law Rev; 1993; 35(1):87-171. PubMed ID: 12645556
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Abortion legislation after Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: model statutes and commentaries.
Smolin DM
Cumberland Law Rev; 1989-1990; 20(1):71-163. PubMed ID: 15999438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Parental notification of abortion and minors' rights under the Montana constitution.
Hayhurst MB
Mont Law Rev; 1997; 58(2):565-98. PubMed ID: 16180294
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. State constitutional privacy rights post Webster--broader protection against abortion restrictions?
Ezzard MM
Denver Univ Law Rev; 1990; 67(3):401-19. PubMed ID: 15999439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Casey reflections.
Cavendish EA
Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2002; 10(2):305-14. PubMed ID: 16526134
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. When the shouting has to stop: America and abortion.
Economist; 1992 Apr; 323(7756):15-6. PubMed ID: 16001469
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. In new court, Roe may stand, so foes look to limit its scope.
Toner R; Liptak A
N Y Times Web; 2005 Jul; ():A1, A16. PubMed ID: 16060018
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. New York v. Sullivan: shhh ... don't say the "a" word! Another outcome-oriented abortion decision.
Kendall CC
John Marshall Law Rev; 1990; 23(4):753-70. PubMed ID: 16622962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Abortion in America.
Shostak AB
Futurist; 1991; 25(4):20-4. PubMed ID: 16145782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Abortion rights after South Dakota.
McDonagh E
Free Inq; 2006; 26(4):34-8. PubMed ID: 16830439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The worst of both worlds?: parental involvement requirements and the privacy rights of mature minors.
O'Shaughnessy M
Ohio State Law J; 1996; 57(5):1731-65. PubMed ID: 16086519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Consti-tortion: tort law as an end-run around abortion rights after Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Stone AJ
Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2000; 8(2):471-515. PubMed ID: 16594110
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. What "choice" do they have?: protecting pregnant minors' reproductive rights using state constitutions.
Weissmann R
Annu Surv Am Law; 1999; 1999(1):129-67. PubMed ID: 11958234
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Journey through the courts: minors, abortion and the quest for reproductive fairness.
Ehrlich JS
Yale J Law Fem; 1998; 10(1):1-27. PubMed ID: 16596765
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Casey and its impact on abortion regulation.
Moses MF
Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar; 31(3):805-15. PubMed ID: 16700123
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Abortion 1990s: contemporary issues and the activist court.
Bertz RC
West State Univ Law Rev; 1992; 19(2):393-429. PubMed ID: 16047452
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
