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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16086512)

  • 21. The constitutional implications of human cloning.
    Foley EP
    Ariz Law Rev; 2000; 42(3):647-730. PubMed ID: 15747441
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Predicting the judicial response to an asserted right to reproductive cloning.
    Lewis JL
    J Leg Med; 2008; 29(4):523-36. PubMed ID: 19023779
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. State Restrictions on Mifepristone Access - The Case for Federal Preemption.
    Zettler PJ; Sarpatwari A
    N Engl J Med; 2022 Feb; 386(8):705-707. PubMed ID: 35020981
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; policy interpretation--Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
    Fed Regist; 1979 Oct; 44(197):58509-11. PubMed ID: 10244079
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Genetics, crime, and individual rights.
    Walters R
    Forum Appl Res Public Policy; 1993; 8(3):16-7. PubMed ID: 11652659
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Policy choices and model acts: preparing for the next public health emergency.
    Wing K
    Health Matrix Clevel; 2003; 13(1):71-83. PubMed ID: 14569658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. The impact of state laws protecting abortion clinics and reproductive rights on crimes against abortion providers: deterrence, backlash, or neither?
    Pridemore WA; Freilich JD
    Law Hum Behav; 2007 Dec; 31(6):611-27. PubMed ID: 17268826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Congress and the welfare state: some historical reflections.
    Patterson JT
    Soc Sci Hist; 2000; 24(2):367-78. PubMed ID: 17133710
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Regulating eugenics.
    Harv Law Rev; 2008 Apr; 121(6):1578-99. PubMed ID: 18524068
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Antinomy: the use, rights and regulation of laboratory animals.
    Thomas BL
    Pepperdine Law Rev; 1986 Mar; 13(3):723-58. PubMed ID: 16047421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Surrogacy: a last resort alternative for infertile women or a commodification of women's bodies and children?
    Kerian CL
    Wis Womens Law J; 1997; 12(1):113-66. PubMed ID: 16281339
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Abortion rights after South Dakota.
    McDonagh E
    Free Inq; 2006; 26(4):34-8. PubMed ID: 16830439
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Constitutional constraints on the regulation of cloning.
    Burt RA
    Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics; 2009; 9 Suppl():495-506. PubMed ID: 19757717
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Womb for rent: Norplant and the undoing of poor women.
    Vance JL
    Hastings Constit Law Q; 1994; 21(3):827-55. PubMed ID: 11863029
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A woman decides: Justice O'Connor and due process rights of choice.
    Davis PC; Gilligan C
    McGeorge Law Rev; 2001; 32(3):895-914. PubMed ID: 16493803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Why Ashcroft is wrong on assisted suicide.
    Lund N
    Commentary; 2002 Feb; 113(2):50-5. PubMed ID: 15991405
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The entitlement ethic.
    Nowicki M
    J Healthc Resour Manag; 1996; 14(1):29-31. PubMed ID: 10156235
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.