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.
139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23013071)
1. Cutting family planning in Texas. White K; Grossman D; Hopkins K; Potter JE N Engl J Med; 2012 Sep; 367(13):1179-81. PubMed ID: 23013071 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Publicly Funded Family Planning Under Unprecedented Attack. Gold RB; Hasstedt K Am J Public Health; 2017 Dec; 107(12):1895-1897. PubMed ID: 29048961 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. [Financial problems involving contraceptives among women in poverty]. Zier U; Nitsche D; Homann C; Münster E Gesundheitswesen; 2012 Dec; 74(12):836-8. PubMed ID: 23254464 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Teen pregnancy in Rhode Island: policies to improve outcomes. Magee SR; Nothnagle M; Sutter MB Med Health R I; 2010 Nov; 93(11):336-8. PubMed ID: 21155513 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Responding to Evolving Abortion Regulations - The Critical Role of Primary Care. Beaman J; Schillinger D N Engl J Med; 2019 May; 380(18):e30. PubMed ID: 30995367 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Abortion services in Canada: a patchwork quilt with many holes. Eggertson L CMAJ; 2001 Mar; 164(6):847-9. PubMed ID: 11276554 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A steep price. Conde C Tex Med; 2012 Jul; 108(7):18-25. PubMed ID: 22777860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. "Rust v. Sullivan". Rhodes AM MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs; 1991; 16(6):329-30. PubMed ID: 1749321 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Women and children last--the predictable effects of proposed federal funding cuts. Annas GJ; Mariner WK N Engl J Med; 2011 Apr; 364(17):1590-1. PubMed ID: 21470003 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Does parental consent for birth control affect underage pregnancy rates? The case of Texas. Girma S; Paton D Demography; 2013 Dec; 50(6):2105-28. PubMed ID: 23765262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Perceived and insurance-related barriers to the provision of contraceptive services in U.S. abortion care settings. Kavanaugh ML; Jones RK; Finer LB Womens Health Issues; 2011; 21(3 Suppl):S26-31. PubMed ID: 21530835 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Family planning as a cost-saving preventive health service. Cleland K; Peipert JF; Westhoff C; Spear S; Trussell J N Engl J Med; 2011 May; 364(18):e37. PubMed ID: 21506736 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Title X in California. Siegle MF Perspect Sex Reprod Health; 2006 Dec; 38(4):231; author reply 231. PubMed ID: 17191358 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Sex, lies, and silence: reproductive health in a hostile environment. Chavkin W Am J Public Health; 2001 Nov; 91(11):1739-41. PubMed ID: 11684590 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Legislative restrictions on abortion. Hill BJ Virtual Mentor; 2012 Feb; 14(2):133-6. PubMed ID: 23116955 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The economics of abortion access in the US: restrictions on government funding for abortion is the post-Roe battleground. Fried MG Conscience; 2005-2006; 26(4):11-5. PubMed ID: 16619422 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of sustainability policies on sterilization services in Latin America. Haws J; Bakamjian L; Williams T; Lassner KJ Stud Fam Plann; 1992; 23(2):85-96. PubMed ID: 1604462 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]