413 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16281341)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Abortion and its viability standard: the woman's diminishing right to choose.
Swyers MH
Geoge Mason Univ Civ Rights Law J; 1997; 8(1-2):87-109. PubMed ID: 14628785
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. On the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000.
Arkes H
Hum Life Rev; 2000; 26(4):15-26. PubMed ID: 12530369
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Implications of the Federal Abortion Ban for Women's Health in the United States.
Weitz TA; Yanow S
Reprod Health Matters; 2008 May; 16(31 Suppl):99-107. PubMed ID: 18772090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The next abortion decision.
N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov; ():A34. PubMed ID: 16450474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Consensual sex without assuming the risk of carrying an unwanted fetus; another foundation for the right to an abortion.
Walen A
Brooklyn Law Rev; 1997; 63():1051-140. PubMed ID: 12173635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The women of Roe v. Wade.
Glendon MA
Hum Life Rev; 2003; 29(3):31-8. PubMed ID: 14964200
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Partial-birth abortion: should moral judgment prevail over medical judgment?
Walther KE
Loyola Univ Chic Law J; 2000; 31(4):693-736. PubMed ID: 11962531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The partial death of abortion rights.
Charo RA
N Engl J Med; 2007 May; 356(21):2125-8. PubMed ID: 17452437
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Must we really make the case for abortion rights all over again?
Forde C
Conscience; 2005; 26(1):22-3. PubMed ID: 16639810
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The argument that never ends.
Simon R
US News World Rep; 2003 Jan; 134(2):24. PubMed ID: 12561696
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
