189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23116955)
1. Legislative restrictions on abortion.
Hill BJ
Virtual Mentor; 2012 Feb; 14(2):133-6. PubMed ID: 23116955
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Lost in a doctrinal wasteland: the exceptionalism of doctor-patient speech within the Rehnquist Court's First Amendment jurisprudence.
Berg PE
Health Matrix Clevel; 1998; 8(2):153-77. PubMed ID: 10182216
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The economic impact of state restrictions on abortion: parental consent and notification laws and Medicaid funding restrictions.
Haas-Wilson D
J Policy Anal Manage; 1993; 12(3):498-511. PubMed ID: 10127357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Roe v. Wade reaffirmed, again.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Oct; 16(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 3771197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Gagging the clinics.
Smolowe J
Time; 1991 Jun; 137(22):16-7. PubMed ID: 10111508
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. South Dakota's abortion script--threatening the physician-patient relationship.
Lazzarini Z
N Engl J Med; 2008 Nov; 359(21):2189-91. PubMed ID: 19020321
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Family law I: abortion.
Koscs ME
Annu Surv Am Law; 1984; 2():929-60. PubMed ID: 16086473
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. RU-486: legal and policy issues confronting the Food and Drug Administration.
Muhl C
J Leg Med; 1993 Jun; 14(2):319-47. PubMed ID: 8340714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Air Force women's access to abortion services and the erosion of 10 U.S.C., section 1093.
Wilde ML
William Mary J Women Law; 2003; 9(3):351-412. PubMed ID: 15977327
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Abortion: U.S.A. style.
Pilpel HF
J Sex Res; 1975 May; 11(2):113-8. PubMed ID: 1142743
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Abortion in 1938 and today: plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Bourne RW
South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 2003; 12(2):225-75. PubMed ID: 16493843
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: a path to constitutional equalibrium.
Chopko ME
Campbell Law Rev; 1990; 12(2):181-220. PubMed ID: 11656527
[No 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. Fetal viability as a threshold to personhood. A legal analysis.
Peterfy A
J Leg Med; 1995 Dec; 16(4):607-36. PubMed ID: 8568420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The future of abortion.
McDaniel A
Newsweek; 1989 Jul; 114(3):14-21, 24-27. PubMed ID: 11655929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Rust v. Sullivan: a better debate.
America (NY); 1991 Jun; 164(22):611. PubMed ID: 15991418
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
