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.
82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1936220)
1. Court upholds Title X ban on abortion information. Fam Plann Perspect; 1991; 23(4):178-81. PubMed ID: 1936220 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Implications of the Federal Abortion Ban for Women's Health in the United States. Weitz TA; Yanow S Reprod Health Matters; 2008 May; 16(31 Suppl):99-107. PubMed ID: 18772090 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Supreme Court and the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care. Poppema ST MedGenMed; 2007; 9(3):41; author reply 41. PubMed ID: 18159625 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The Supreme Court and the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care. Gartner EC MedGenMed; 2007; 9(3):41; author reply 41. PubMed ID: 18159623 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Abortion in the United States: barriers to access. Fried MG Health Hum Rights; 2000; 4(2):174-94. PubMed ID: 10796974 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The Supreme Court and the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care. Nordholm S MedGenMed; 2007; 9(3):41; author reply 41. PubMed ID: 18159624 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A national voice for women's health concerns. Norinsky M Health PAC Bull; 1979; 11(2):21-2. PubMed ID: 10247064 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. High Court overturns Dooling decision ruling Hyde constitutional; HHS discontinues Medicaid financing for abortions. Kaunitz K Health Law Vigil; 1980 Jul; 3(15):3-5. PubMed ID: 10297867 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. U.S. Supreme Court considers new Title X regulations. Fam Plann Perspect; 1991; 23(1):38-40. PubMed ID: 2029942 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Employe must complain to EEOC before feds force abortion payment. Geisel J Mod Healthc; 1980 Mar; 10(3):34. PubMed ID: 10245570 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The "gag rule" revisited: physicians as abortion gatekeepers. Bloche MG Law Med Health Care; 1992; 20(4):392-402. PubMed ID: 11651561 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Must we really make the case for abortion rights all over again? Forde C Conscience; 2005; 26(1):22-3. PubMed ID: 16639810 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Title X, the abortion debate, and the First Amendment. Shapiro AA Columbia Law Rev; 1990 Oct; 90(6):1737-78. PubMed ID: 15739274 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]