223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16200693)
21. Armstrong v. Mazurek.
U.S. District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division
Fed Suppl; 1995 Sep; 906():561-9. PubMed ID: 11648422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The worst of both worlds?: parental involvement requirements and the privacy rights of mature minors.
O'Shaughnessy M
Ohio State Law J; 1996; 57(5):1731-65. PubMed ID: 16086519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Informed consent and the First Amendment.
Mariner WK; Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 2015 Apr; 372(14):1285-7. PubMed ID: 25830420
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The Supreme Court and abortion rights.
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 2007 May; 356(21):2201-7. PubMed ID: 17476003
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. Location and life: how Stenberg v. Carhart undercut Roe v. Wade.
Stith R
William Mary J Women Law; 2003; 9(2):255-78. PubMed ID: 15977326
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Contemporary Australian abortion law: the description of a crime and the negation of a woman's right to abortion.
Rankin MJ
Monash Univ Law Rev; 2001; 27(2):229-52. PubMed ID: 16493805
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Forgotten Supreme Court abortion cases: Drs. Hawker and Hurwitz in the deck and defrocked.
Lucas R
Pepperdine Law Rev; 2003 May; 30(4):641-70. PubMed ID: 15237509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. South Dakota's abortion script--threatening the physician-patient relationship.
Lazzarini Z
N Engl J Med; 2008 Nov; 359(21):2189-91. PubMed ID: 19020321
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Minor rights: the adolescent abortion cases.
Guggenheim M
Hofstra Law Rev; 2002; 30(3):589-646. PubMed ID: 15212070
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Abortion rights after South Dakota.
McDonagh E
Free Inq; 2006; 26(4):34-8. PubMed ID: 16830439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Air Force women's access to abortion services and the erosion of 10 U.S.C., section 1093.
Wilde ML
William Mary J Women Law; 2003; 9(3):351-412. PubMed ID: 15977327
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Abortion 1990s: contemporary issues and the activist court.
Bertz RC
West State Univ Law Rev; 1992; 19(2):393-429. PubMed ID: 16047452
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Splitting the baby: when can a pregnant minor obtain an abortion without parental consent? The Ex parte Anonymous cases (Alabama 2001).
Rosenberg SP
Conn Law Rev; 2002; 34(3):1109-41. PubMed ID: 15212029
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Econometric analyses of U.S. abortion policy: a critical review.
Klick J
Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar; 31(3):751-82. PubMed ID: 16700120
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Review of abortion policy: legality, medicaid funding, and parental involvement, 1967-1994.
Merz JF; Jackson CA; Klerman JA
Womens Rights Law Report; 1995; 17(1):1-61. PubMed ID: 11863033
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Abortion legislation after Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: model statutes and commentaries.
Smolin DM
Cumberland Law Rev; 1989-1990; 20(1):71-163. PubMed ID: 15999438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
