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.
321 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16967565)
21. Patients' rights. Simon NF Annu Surv Am Law; 1977 Jun; (3):535-59. PubMed ID: 11686180 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Abortion rights after South Dakota. McDonagh E Free Inq; 2006; 26(4):34-8. PubMed ID: 16830439 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Defending my "rethinking" of Roe. Manninen BA Am J Bioeth; 2010 Dec; 10(12):W3-5. PubMed ID: 21161830 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The free exercise rights of pregnant women who refuse medical treatment. Cherry AL Tenn Law Rev; 2002; 69(3):563-622. PubMed ID: 15378820 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Who gets to choose? Responses to the foetal/maternal conflict. Hyams R E Law; 1995 Dec; 2(3):E7. PubMed ID: 16969923 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Fetuses are neither violinists nor violators. Eberl JT Am J Bioeth; 2010 Dec; 10(12):53-4. PubMed ID: 21161846 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Protection of RU-486 as contraception, emergency contraception and as an abortifacient under the law of contraception. Wyser-Pratte RC Oregon Law Rev; 2000; 79(4):1121-56. PubMed ID: 12452141 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Constitutional law--U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision clarifies concept of fetal viability and scope of physician's discretion in determining when viability is reached. Slandell H Temple Law Q; 1979; 52(4):1240-59. PubMed ID: 11664078 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Abortion and maternal-fetal conflict: broadening our concerns. Shultz MM South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 1992; 1():79-98. PubMed ID: 16437820 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Abortion in Ireland. Rafferty OP America (NY); 1992 Oct; 167(12):293-5. PubMed ID: 11659518 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Abortion, secular dogma, and the sacrament of sex: another failed attempt to impose moral idiosyncrasies through the ruse of argument. Trotter G Am J Bioeth; 2010 Dec; 10(12):51-2. PubMed ID: 21161845 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Towards a practical implementation of the abortion decision: the interests of the physician, the woman and the fetus. Sebek M De Paul Law Rev; 1976; 25(3):676-706. PubMed ID: 11664630 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Bioethical consideration of maternal-fetal issues. Post LF Fordham Urban Law J; 1997; 24(4):757-75. PubMed ID: 12455510 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Rights of and duties to non-consenting patients--informed refusal in the developing world. van Bogaert LJ Dev World Bioeth; 2006 Mar; 6(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 16436170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Rights of the pregnant child vs. rights of the unborn under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Janoff AF Boston Univ Int Law J; 2004; 22(1):163-88. PubMed ID: 16514751 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Prenatal v. parental rights: what a difference an "a" makes. Gallagher A St Marys Law J; 1989; 21(2):301-24. PubMed ID: 16100799 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The rhetoric of disrespect: uncovering the faulty premises infecting reproductive rights. Reilly EA Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 1996; 5(1):147-205. PubMed ID: 16594108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]