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.
175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31116380)
21. An historical perspective on the law of personality and status with special regard to the human fetus and the rights of women. Curran WJ Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc; 1983; 61(1):58-75. PubMed ID: 6343918 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear fetal protection employment policy. Michel SE Occup Health Saf; 1990 Jul; 59(7):40-1. PubMed ID: 2388739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. The social meaning of the Norplant condition: constitutional considerations of race, class, and gender. Albiston C Berkeley Womens Law J; 1994; 9():9-57. PubMed ID: 16767841 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Women's rights in Stalinist Hungary: the abortion trials of 1952-53. Peto A; Kossuth E Hung Stud Rev; 2002; 29(1-2):49-76. PubMed ID: 17233136 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. The validity of legislative restrictions on abortion under the Oregon constitution. Tweedt DE Temple Law Rev; 1992; 65(4):1349-71. PubMed ID: 16047444 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Constitutionalizing Roe, Casey and Carhart: a legislative due-process anti-discrimination principle that gives constitutional content to the "undue burden" standard of review applied to abortion control legislation. Van Detta JA South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud; 2001; 10(2):211-92. PubMed ID: 16485363 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. State Abortion Restrictions and the New Supreme Court: Women's Access to Reproductive Health Services. Reingold RB; Gostin LO JAMA; 2019 Jul; 322(1):21-22. PubMed ID: 31166573 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Constitutional analysis of the Baby M decision. Stark B Harv Womens Law J; 1988; 11():19-52. PubMed ID: 16100827 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. How technology is reframing the abortion debate. Callahan D Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Feb; 16(1):33-42. PubMed ID: 3514547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Pro-choice: a new militancy. Davis SE Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(6):32-3. PubMed ID: 2606658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Disputes over frozen preembryos and the "right not to be a parent". Pachman TS Columbia J Gend Law; 2003; 12(1):128-53. PubMed ID: 16281330 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Vigilante Injustice - Deputizing and Weaponizing the Public to Stop Abortions. Charo RA N Engl J Med; 2021 Oct; 385(16):1441-1443. PubMed ID: 34551227 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. A Violent Birth: Reframing Coerced Procedures During Childbirth as Obstetric Violence. Borges MT Duke Law J; 2018 Jan; 67(4):827-62. PubMed ID: 29469554 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Roe v. Wade and the common law: denying the blessings of liberty to our posterity. Roden GJ Univ West Los Angel Law Rev; 2003; 35():212-96. PubMed ID: 15568273 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Whole Women's Victory - or Not? Charo RA N Engl J Med; 2016 Sep; 375(9):809-11. PubMed ID: 27579630 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. A feminist response to 'Unborn child abuse: contemplating legal solution. Dawson TB Can J Fam Law; 1991; 9(2):157-76. PubMed ID: 11656495 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. We must all support women in the fight for abortion. The Lancet Lancet; 2019 May; 393(10186):2099. PubMed ID: 31226031 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]