94 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24034806)
1. A statement on abortion by 100 professors of obstetrics: 40 years later.
One Hundred Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Contraception; 2013 Oct; 88(4):568-76. PubMed ID: 24034806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A statement on abortion by 100 professors of obstetrics: 40 years later.
One Hundred Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Sep; 209(3):193-9. PubMed ID: 23500455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A statement on abortion by 900 professors of obstetrics and gynecology after the reversal of Roe vWade.
Espey E; Teal S; Peipert JF
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Jan; 230(1):10-11. PubMed ID: 37914059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Projected Implications of Overturning Roe v Wade on Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs.
Vinekar K; Karlapudi A; Nathan L; Turk JK; Rible R; Steinauer J
Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Aug; 140(2):146-149. PubMed ID: 35852261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. State legislation on abortion after Roe v. Wade: selected constitutional issues.
Bryant MD
Am J Law Med; 1976; 2(1):101-32. PubMed ID: 973625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Roe v. Wade reaffirmed, again.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Oct; 16(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 3771197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Court reaffirms Roe but upholds restrictions.
Fam Plann Perspect; 1992; 24(4):174-7, 185. PubMed ID: 1526274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Brief for 885 law professors in support of maintaining adherence to the Roe decision.
Michelman FI; Redlich N; Neuwirth SR; Carty-Bennia D
Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):197-203. PubMed ID: 2603862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Partial-birth abortion, Congress, and the Constitution.
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 1998 Jul; 339(4):279-83. PubMed ID: 9673308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Abortion: the new debate.
Callahan D
Prim Care; 1986 Jun; 13(2):255-62. PubMed ID: 3523563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Roe v. Wade. Jane's perspective.
Kaplan L
Conscience; 1998; 18(4):27-8. PubMed ID: 12178883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Roe v. Wade. Revisiting the fundamentals.
Benshoof J
Conscience; 1998; 18(4):16-7. PubMed ID: 12178876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The legal status of abortion in the states if Roe v. Wade is overruled.
Linton PB
Issues Law Med; 2007; 23(1):3-43. PubMed ID: 17703698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The concept of wrongful life in the law.
Kasper AS
Women Health; 1983; 8(1):81-7. PubMed ID: 6868627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Legal aspects of abortion practice.
Goldman EB
Clin Obstet Gynaecol; 1986 Mar; 13(1):135-43. PubMed ID: 3709009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Abortion attitudes and performance among male and female obstetrician-gynecologists.
Weisman CS; Nathanson CA; Teitelbaum MA; Chase GA; King TM
Fam Plann Perspect; 1986; 18(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 3792525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Will Webster redefine Roe v. Wade? The Supreme Court could use a Missouri case to begin limiting abortion rights.
Chopko ME
Health Prog; 1989 Jun; 70(5):58-64. PubMed ID: 10293331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Roe v. Wade and the lesson of the pre-Roe case law.
Morgan RG
Mich Law Rev; 1979 Aug; 77(7):1724-48. PubMed ID: 10245969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
