223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16200693)
1. 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]
2. Family law I: abortion.
Koscs ME
Annu Surv Am Law; 1984; 2():929-60. PubMed ID: 16086473
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The next abortion decision.
N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A34. PubMed ID: 16450474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Parental notification and a minor's right to an abortion after Hodgson and Akron II.
Graziano SG
Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1991; 17(3):581-97. PubMed ID: 16145809
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Grounded in the reality of their lives: listening to teens who make the abortion decision without involving their parents.
Ehrlich JS
Berkeley Womens Law J; 2003; 18():61-180. PubMed ID: 15156878
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Abortion in America.
Shostak AB
Futurist; 1991; 25(4):20-4. PubMed ID: 16145782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Case reopens abortion issue for justices.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A19. PubMed ID: 16450459
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Preserving the right to choose: a minor's right to confidential reproductive health care.
Bertuglia J
Womens Rights Law Report; 2001; 23(1):63-77. PubMed ID: 12774775
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The intimidation of American physicians--banning partial-birth abortion.
Greene MF
N Engl J Med; 2007 May; 356(21):2128-9. PubMed ID: 17452436
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
