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.
125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16479704)
1. Britell v. United States. United States. District Court, District of Massachusetts Wests Fed Suppl; 2002; 204():182-98. PubMed ID: 16479704 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Britell v. United States. United States. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit Wests Fed Rep; 2004; 372():1370-84. PubMed ID: 16477723 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Court rules U.S. need not pay for abortion of doomed fetus. Murphy DE N Y Times Web; 2005 Aug; ():A16. PubMed ID: 16138443 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. WomanCare of Southfield, P.C. v. Granholm. United States. District Court, Michigan Wests Fed Suppl; 2001; 143():849-55. PubMed ID: 16479702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Bell v. Low Income Women of Texas. Texas. Supreme Court Wests South West Report; 2002; 95():253-66. PubMed ID: 16479705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fetal viability as a threshold to personhood. A legal analysis. Peterfy A J Leg Med; 1995 Dec; 16(4):607-36. PubMed ID: 8568420 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. WomanCare of Southfield, P.C. v. Granholm. United States. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division Wests Fed Suppl; 2001; 143():827-48. PubMed ID: 16479703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Doe v. Mathews. U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Fed Suppl; 1976 Oct; 422():141-7. PubMed ID: 11648360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. American Federation of Government Employees v. Devine. U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Fed Suppl; 1981 Oct; 525():250-4. PubMed ID: 11648351 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Women's Health Services v. Maher. U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut Fed Suppl; 1981 May; 514():265-76. PubMed ID: 11648347 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Jane L. v. Bangerter. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Fed Report; 1996 Dec; 102():1112-8. PubMed ID: 11648427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reproductive Health Services v. Freeman. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit Fed Report; 1980 Jan; 614():585-601. PubMed ID: 11648325 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. North Florida Women's Health Services v. State. Florida. Supreme Court Wests South Report; 2003; 866():612-74. PubMed ID: 16479690 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Jane L. v. Bangerter. U.S. District Court, D. Utah, C.D Fed Suppl; 1992 Dec; 809():865-80. PubMed ID: 11648409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Selective abortion in Brazil: the anencephaly case. Diniz D Dev World Bioeth; 2007 Aug; 7(2):64-7. PubMed ID: 17614991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reproductive Health Services v. Webster, 17 March 1987, amended on 30 April 1987. United States. District Court, Western District of Missouri Annu Rev Popul Law; 1987; 14():43-4. PubMed ID: 12346730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]