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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16273684)

  • 1. Lochner redeemed: family privacy after Troxel and Carhart.
    Meyer DD
    UCLA Law Rev; 2001 Jun; 48(5):1125-90. PubMed ID: 16273684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Substantive due process after Gonzales v. Carhart.
    Calabresi SG
    Mich Law Rev; 2008 Jun; 106(8):1517-42. PubMed ID: 18595213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Casey and the resuscitation of Roe v. Wade.
    Robertson JA
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1992; 22(5):24-8. PubMed ID: 1428831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Abortion: rights or technicalities? A comparison of Roe v. Wade with the abortion decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court.
    Brown HO
    Hum Life Rev; 1975; 1(3):60-74. PubMed ID: 11662181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The right of privacy and restraints on abortion under the "undue burden" test: a jurisprudential comparison of Planned Parenthood v. Casey with European practice and Italian law.
    Ross CS
    Indiana Int Comp Law Rev; 1993; 3():199-231. PubMed ID: 12091926
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A world without Roe: how different would it be?
    Glendon MA
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(4):30-1. PubMed ID: 2745061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Roe v. Wade reaffirmed, again.
    Annas GJ
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Oct; 16(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 3771197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Whither the family and family privacy?
    Jones TR; Peterman L
    Tex Rev Law Polit; 1999; 4(1):193-236. PubMed ID: 15706723
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. From arguments to Supreme Court opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
    Kassop N
    PS (Wash DC); 1993 Mar; 26(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 12085874
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. State constitutional privacy rights post Webster--broader protection against abortion restrictions?
    Ezzard MM
    Denver Univ Law Rev; 1990; 67(3):401-19. PubMed ID: 15999439
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Abortion counseling: to benefit maternal health.
    Steinberg TN
    Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(4):483-517. PubMed ID: 2699161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The development of the undue burden standard in Stenberg v. Carhart: will proposed RU-486 legislation survive?
    Guenther H
    Indiana Law Rev; 2002; 35(3):1021-44. PubMed ID: 16211757
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. "Partial-birth abortion" and the Supreme Court.
    Annas GJ
    N Engl J Med; 2001 Jan; 344(2):152-6. PubMed ID: 11150367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 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. The legal status of abortion in the states if Roe v. Wade is overruled.
    Linton PB
    Issues Law Med; 2007; 23(1):3-43. PubMed ID: 17703698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.