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.
129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30021079)
1. Radical Changes for Reproductive Health Care - Proposed Regulations for Title X. Bronstein JM N Engl J Med; 2018 Aug; 379(8):706-708. PubMed ID: 30021079 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Refusal clause seen as threat to reproductive health, gag on information. Krisberg K Nations Health; 2005 Feb; 35(1):1, 10. PubMed ID: 15810206 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Statutory prohibition on use of appropriated funds in programs where abortion is a method of family planning; standard of compliance for family planning services projects--PHS. Final rules. Fed Regist; 1988 Feb; 53(21):2922-46. PubMed ID: 10285637 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. "Rust v. Sullivan". Rhodes AM MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs; 1991; 16(6):329-30. PubMed ID: 1749321 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
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]
12. 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]
13. Showing them the way. Feds settle Mo. abortion-referral controversy that jeopardized clinic funding. Galloro V Mod Healthc; 2001 Aug; 31(33):22-3. PubMed ID: 11521479 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. The Chastity Act: government manipulation of abortion information and the First Amendment. Benshoof J Harv Law Rev; 1988 Jun; 101(8):1916-37. PubMed ID: 10288540 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Abortion 'gag' rule. Notkin H West J Med; 1991 Aug; 155(2):191. PubMed ID: 1926860 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Counseling and referrals for women with unplanned pregnancies at publicly funded family planning organizations in Texas. White K; Adams K; Hopkins K Contraception; 2019 Jan; 99(1):48-51. PubMed ID: 30287246 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The Title X family planning subsidies: the government's role in moral issues. Reitler EG Harvard J Legis; 1990; 27(2):453-95. PubMed ID: 11656070 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Legislative restrictions on abortion. Hill BJ Virtual Mentor; 2012 Feb; 14(2):133-6. PubMed ID: 23116955 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]