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.
127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2603858)
1. Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees. Annas GJ; Glantz LH; Mariner WK Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):169-77. PubMed ID: 2603858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Webster and the fundamental right to make medical decisions. Orentlicher D Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):184-8. PubMed ID: 2603860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Perspectives on the abortion controversy: amici for appellees -- Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees Webster and women's equality Webster and the fundamental right to make medical decisions Abortion counseling and the First Amendment: open questions after Webster Brief for 885 law professors in support of maintaining adherence to the Roe decision. Annas GJ; Glantz LH; Mariner WK; Johnsen D; Wilder MJ; Orentlicher D; Pine RN; Michelman FI; Redlich N; Neuwirth SR; Carty-Bennia D Am J Law Med; 1990 Jan; 15(2-3):169-203. PubMed ID: 11656584 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice. Sayeed SA Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Roe v. Wade is constitutionally unprincipled and logically incoherent: a brief in support of judicial restraint. Gerard JB Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):222-6. PubMed ID: 2603866 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Webster versus reproductive health services. Rhodes AM MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs; 1989; 14(6):423. PubMed ID: 2514333 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Webster and women's equality. Johnsen D; Wilder MJ Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):178-84. PubMed ID: 2603859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A closer look. Conner SL Ala Med; 1990; 60(1-2):4. PubMed ID: 2239628 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Abortion 1982: the Supreme Court once again. Healey JM Conn Med; 1982 Nov; 46(11):681. PubMed ID: 7172671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The Supreme Court retreats another step on abortion. Rosoff JI Fam Plann Perspect; 1990; 22(4):182-3. PubMed ID: 2226750 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Consent requirements for treatment of minors. Thompson HA Tex Med; 1989 Aug; 85(8):56-9. PubMed ID: 2763219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Webster case: implications for Georgia physicians. Harris AL J Med Assoc Ga; 1989 Sep; 78(9):633-6. PubMed ID: 2778409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]