283 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18595213)
1. Substantive due process after Gonzales v. Carhart.
Calabresi SG
Mich Law Rev; 2008 Jun; 106(8):1517-42. PubMed ID: 18595213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Lochner redeemed: family privacy after Troxel and Carhart.
Meyer DD
UCLA Law Rev; 2001 Jun; 48(5):1125-90. PubMed ID: 16273684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Assessing the viability of a substantive due process right to in vitro fertilization.
Harv Law Rev; 2005 Jun; 118(8):2792-813. PubMed ID: 15988862
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Unborn children as constitutional persons.
Roden GJ
Issues Law Med; 2010; 25(3):185-273. PubMed ID: 20443281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. State constitutional privacy rights post Webster--broader protection against abortion restrictions?
Ezzard MM
Denver Univ Law Rev; 1990; 67(3):401-19. PubMed ID: 15999439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Abortion and birth control--right to abortion and regulation thereof: the United States Supreme Court invalidates a statute banning partial birth abortions: Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
Joersz M
N D Law Rev; 2001; 77(2):345-73. PubMed ID: 12956123
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The Supreme Court and the purposes of medicine.
Bloche MG
N Engl J Med; 2006 Mar; 354(10):993-5. PubMed ID: 16525134
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. The Carhart case and late-term abortions -- what's next in Australia?
Faunce T; Jefferys S
J Law Med; 2007 Aug; 15(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 17902487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Stenberg v. Carhart: have the states lost their power to regulate abortion?
Gauthier AM
New Engl Law Rev; 2002; 36(3):625-68. PubMed ID: 15212038
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The worst of both worlds?: parental involvement requirements and the privacy rights of mature minors.
O'Shaughnessy M
Ohio State Law J; 1996; 57(5):1731-65. PubMed ID: 16086519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The development of the undue burden standard in Stenberg v. Carhart: will proposed RU-486 legislation survive?
Guenther H
Indiana Law Rev; 2002; 35(3):1021-44. PubMed ID: 16211757
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Stenberg v. Carhart: women retain their right to choose.
Berkowitz JF
J Crim Law Criminol; 2001; 91(2):337-83. PubMed ID: 12774791
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Foreword: can Glucksberg survive Lawrence? Another look at the end of life and personal autonomy.
Kamisar Y
Mich Law Rev; 2008 Jun; 106(8):1453-78. PubMed ID: 18595210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
