701 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15999438)
21. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Webster case: implications for Georgia physicians.
Harris AL
J Med Assoc Ga; 1989 Sep; 78(9):633-6. PubMed ID: 2778409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. What human life amendments mean and don't mean.
Murphy TF
Am J Bioeth; 2010 Dec; 10(12):47-8. PubMed ID: 21161842
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Abortion rights after South Dakota.
McDonagh E
Free Inq; 2006; 26(4):34-8. PubMed ID: 16830439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The Supreme Court, privacy, and abortion.
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 1989 Oct; 321(17):1200-3. PubMed ID: 2677728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. State abortion statutes on the eve of the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
Terwilliger LM
J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jun; 25(6):161-74. PubMed ID: 10123589
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Inverting the viability test for abortion law.
Ching B
Womens Rights Law Report; 2000; 22(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 16281341
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Roe v. Wade and the common law: denying the blessings of liberty to our posterity.
Roden GJ
Univ West Los Angel Law Rev; 2003; 35():212-96. PubMed ID: 15568273
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Legal abortion: the impending obsolescence of the trimester framework.
Mangel CP
Am J Law Med; 1988; 14(1):69-108. PubMed ID: 3068986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The inapplicability of parental involvement laws to the distribution of mifepristone (RU-486) to minors.
Scuder AC
Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2002; 10(3):711-41. PubMed ID: 16594112
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Abortion 1982: the Supreme Court once again.
Healey JM
Conn Med; 1982 Nov; 46(11):681. PubMed ID: 7172671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Abortion and legal process in the United States: an overview of the post-Webster legal landscape.
Baron CH
Law Med Health Care; 1989; 17(4):368-75. PubMed ID: 2628652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. The juridical status of the fetus: a proposal for legal protection of the unborn.
King PA
Mich Law Rev; 1979 Aug; 77(7):1647-87. PubMed ID: 10245967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Impact of the abortion decisions upon the father's role.
Witherspoon JP
Jurist; 1975; 35(1):32-65. PubMed ID: 11664577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The fight over Roe v. Wade: the Webster briefs.
Fam Plann Perspect; 1989; 21(3):134-6. PubMed ID: 2759219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Abortion: rights, responsibilities, obligations.
Walsh KP
Am J Bioeth; 2010 Dec; 10(12):63-4. PubMed ID: 21161852
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court. Introduction: did the amici effort make a difference?
Kolbert K
Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):153-68. PubMed ID: 2603857
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
