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.
126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14986665)
21. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court. Linton PB St Louis Univ Public Law Rev; 1993; 13(1):15-137. PubMed ID: 11656611 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Punishing drug addicts who have babies: women of color, equality, and the right of privacy. Roberts DE Harv Law Rev; 1991 May; 104(7):1419-82. PubMed ID: 11650979 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Rust v. Sullivan and the control of knowledge. Roberts DE George Washington Law Rev; 1993 Mar; 61(3):587-656. PubMed ID: 11656321 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Power and disadvantage in medical relationships. Peppin P Tex J Women Law; 1994; 3(2):221-63. PubMed ID: 11660410 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Justice Holmes and Roe v. Wade. Novick SM Trial; 1989 Dec; 25(12):58-64. PubMed ID: 11656018 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. The implantation of rights: an argument for unconditionally funded Norplant removal. Arnow RS Berkeley Womens Law J; 1996; 11():19-48. PubMed ID: 11657484 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Workability of the undue burden test. Schneider EA Temple Law Rev; 1993; 66(3):1003-37. PubMed ID: 11659882 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. U.S. Supreme Court Wests Supreme Court Report; 1986 Jun; 106():2169-216. PubMed ID: 12041287 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. In a different voice: relational feminism, abortion rights, and the feminist legal agenda. Karlan PS; Ortiz DR Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1993; 87(3):858-96. PubMed ID: 11656396 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Norplant meets the new eugenicists: the impermissibility of coerced contraception. Mertus J; Heller S St Louis Univ Public Law Rev; 1992; 11(2):359-83. PubMed ID: 11652703 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Court-ordered cesareans: can a pregnant woman refuse? Leavine BA Houst Law Rev; 1992; 29(1):185-218. PubMed ID: 11656666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. The Supreme Court, the "facts of life" and "the thoughtful part of the nation. Destro RA Hum Life Rev; 1994; 20(3):28-48. PubMed ID: 11656359 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Autonomy's magic wand: abortion and constitutional interpretation. Allen AL Boston Univ Law Rev; 1992 Sep; 72(4):683-98. PubMed ID: 11656223 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Silent no more: physicians' legal and ethical obligations to patients seeking abortions. Law SA Rev Law Soc Change; 1994-1995; 21(2):279-321. PubMed ID: 11660619 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Beyond abortion: refusal of caesarean section. Mahowald M Bioethics; 1989 Apr; 3(2):106-21. PubMed ID: 11649241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Reproduction and the law. Erickson NS Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):165-74. PubMed ID: 11649200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The Norplant condition: one step forward or two steps back? Ballard T Harv Womens Law J; 1993; 16():139-87. PubMed ID: 11652871 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court -- amici for appellees. Annas GJ Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):169-203. PubMed ID: 11644396 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Prenatal drug exposure: the constitutional implications of three governmental approaches. Smith GB; Dabiri GM Const Law J; 1991; 2(1):53-126. PubMed ID: 12083093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]