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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1744530)

  • 1. Rust v. Sullivan, and the future of abortion under a more conservative Supreme Court.
    Browning DA
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1991 Sep; 80(9):499-501. PubMed ID: 1744530
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A future for Title X?
    Richards C
    Fam Plann Perspect; 1991; 23(5):228-9. PubMed ID: 1743277
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Perspectives. Family planning remains mired in politics.
    Kent C
    Faulkner Grays Med Health; 1992 Jun; 46(23):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10118065
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech, privacy, and the power of the purse: lessons from the abortion "gag rule" case.
    Wing KR
    J Health Polit Policy Law; 1992; 17(1):163-75. PubMed ID: 1619248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Rust v. Sullivan: a better debate.
    America (NY); 1991 Jun; 164(22):611. PubMed ID: 15991418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The pregnant silence: Rust v. Sullivan, abortion rights, and publicly funded speech.
    Weeks AB
    North Carol Law Rev; 1992 Jun; 70(5):1623-68. PubMed ID: 16044600
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Abortion providers bounce back.
    Carney EN
    Natl J (Wash); 1996 Jul; 28(29-30):1584-6. PubMed ID: 10159048
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Supreme Court and abortion: 1. Upholding constitutional principles.
    Noonan JT
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1980 Dec; 10(6):14-6. PubMed ID: 7461954
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Law, medicine, and the "gag rule".
    Ball JR
    Ann Intern Med; 1991 Sep; 115(5):403-4. PubMed ID: 1863032
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. State abortion statutes on the eve of the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
    Terwilliger LM
    J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jun; 25(6):161-74. PubMed ID: 10123589
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Rust corrodes: the First Amendment implications of Rust v. Sullivan.
    Fitzpatrick M
    Stanford Law Rev; 1992 Nov; 45(1):185-227. PubMed ID: 10183813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Perspectives. Supreme Court ruling opens Pandora's Box.
    Moskowitz DB
    Faulkner Grays Med Health; 1991 Jun; 45(23):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10110606
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Standards of compliance for abortion-related services in family planning services projects. Office of Population Affairs, OPHS, DHHS. Final rules.
    Fed Regist; 2000 Jul; 65(128):41270-80. PubMed ID: 11067676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Abortion. A pro-life foreign policy.
    Rosenberg D
    Newsweek; 2001 Sep; 138(10):24. PubMed ID: 11550611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. "Rust v. Sullivan".
    Rhodes AM
    MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs; 1991; 16(6):329-30. PubMed ID: 1749321
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Roe v. Wade and the euthanasia debate.
    Bopp J; Coleson RE
    Issues Law Med; 1997; 12(4):343-54. PubMed ID: 9114604
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Bound and gagged: America's family planning network.
    Dryfoos JG
    J Am Health Policy; 1992; 2(1):44-8. PubMed ID: 10116482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The abortion arena: recent activity.
    Goldstein LS; Comeau DJ
    Leg Med; 1982; ():213-26. PubMed ID: 7121180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.