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 *

562 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17076040)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Legal abortion: the impending obsolescence of the trimester framework.
    Mangel CP
    Am J Law Med; 1988; 14(1):69-108. PubMed ID: 3068986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Future fear: prenatal duties imposed by private parties.
    Solomon RI
    Am J Law Med; 1991; 17(4):411-34. PubMed ID: 1812768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The abortion battle: the Canadian scene.
    Sachdev P
    Med Law; 1994; 13(1-2):1-9. PubMed ID: 8065237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Reproductive rights and the medical care system: a plea for rational health policy.
    Stephenson PA; Wagner MG
    J Public Health Policy; 1993; 14(2):174-82. PubMed ID: 8408608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court. Conclusion: the future of abortion as a "private choice".
    Grant ER
    Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):233-43. PubMed ID: 2603867
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. New York v. Sullivan: shhh ... don't say the "a" word! Another outcome-oriented abortion decision.
    Kendall CC
    John Marshall Law Rev; 1990; 23(4):753-70. PubMed ID: 16622962
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Webster and the fundamental right to make medical decisions.
    Orentlicher D
    Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):184-8. PubMed ID: 2603860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Women's rights versus the protection of fetuses.
    Warren MA
    Midwest Med Ethics; 1991; 7(1):1, 3-7. PubMed ID: 16145788
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Cultural feminism: it sounds good, but will it work? Application to a husband's interest in his wife's abortion decision.
    Brunner SD
    Univ Dayton Law Rev; 1996; 22(1):101-23. PubMed ID: 16437821
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. R. v. Morgentaler.
    Canada. Supreme Court
    Dom Law Rep; 1988 Jan; 44():385-500. PubMed ID: 12041090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden.
    United States. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    Wests Fed Rep; 2004; 379():531-57. PubMed ID: 16477726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Anti-abortion movement.
    Wilson K
    Plan Parent Rev; 1985; 5(2):4-6. PubMed ID: 12340405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 29.