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 *

454 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14758819)

  • 21. What Lawrence v. Texas says about the history and future of reproductive rights.
    Dailard C
    Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar; 31(3):717-23. PubMed ID: 16700117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Abortion: U.S.A. style.
    Pilpel HF
    J Sex Res; 1975 May; 11(2):113-8. PubMed ID: 1142743
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Family law I: abortion.
    Koscs ME
    Annu Surv Am Law; 1984; 2():929-60. PubMed ID: 16086473
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Access to abortion services: abortions performed by mid-level practitioners.
    Kowalczyk EA
    Trends Health Care Law Ethics; 1993; 8(3):37-45. PubMed ID: 8118134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Case reopens abortion issue for justices.
    Greenhouse L
    N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A19. PubMed ID: 16450459
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The price of abortion: sixteen years later.
    Chopko ME; Harris PH; Alvare HM
    Natl Forum; 1989; 69(4):18, 20, 22. PubMed ID: 16100836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Choosing balance: congressional powers and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
    Schecter A
    Fordham Law Rev; 2005 Mar; 73(4):1987-2206. PubMed ID: 15828129
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Rust v. Sullivan: a better debate.
    America (NY); 1991 Jun; 164(22):611. PubMed ID: 15991418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. After Ayotte: the need to defend abortion rights with renewed "purpose.".
    Harv Law Rev; 2006 Jun; 119(8):2552-73. PubMed ID: 16827220
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Parents, judges, and a minor's abortion decisions: third party participation and the evolution of a judicial alternative.
    Green W
    Akron Law Rev; 1983; 17(1):87-110. PubMed ID: 16086471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Assessing the viability of a substantive due process right to in vitro fertilization.
    Harv Law Rev; 2005 Jun; 118(8):2792-813. PubMed ID: 15988862
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Abortion issue moves to states: shift on federal bench spurs governors, legislators to battle Roe.
    Solomon D
    Wall St J (East Ed); 2006 Mar; ():A4. PubMed ID: 16578913
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Abortion wars, once again. The case being argued this week before the Supreme Court may determine just how far state restrictions can go.
    Halloran L
    US News World Rep; 2005 Dec; 139(21):29-30. PubMed ID: 16389673
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. On the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000.
    Arkes H
    Hum Life Rev; 2000; 26(4):15-26. PubMed ID: 12530369
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Coercing conscience: the effort to mandate abortion as a standard of care.
    Kramlich M
    Natl Cathol Bioeth Q; 2004; 4(1):29-40. PubMed ID: 15192848
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Minor rights: the adolescent abortion cases.
    Guggenheim M
    Hofstra Law Rev; 2002; 30(3):589-646. PubMed ID: 15212070
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Winter count: taking stock of abortion rights after Casey and Carhart.
    Borgmann CE
    Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar; 31(3):675-716. PubMed ID: 16700116
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The Casey undue burden standard: problems predicted and encountered, and the split over the Salerno test.
    Burdick R
    Hastings Constit Law Q; 1996; 23():825-76. PubMed ID: 16086482
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Abortion and birth control--right to abortion and regulation thereof: the United States Supreme Court invalidates a statute banning partial birth abortions: Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
    Joersz M
    N D Law Rev; 2001; 77(2):345-73. PubMed ID: 12956123
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.