171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3333215)
1. Gestational burdens and fetal status: justifying Roe v. Wade.
Robertson JA
Am J Law Med; 1987; 13(2-3):189-212. PubMed ID: 3333215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Roe v. Wade and the traditional legal standards concerning pregnancy.
Hopkin WR
Temple Law Q; 1974; 47(4):715-38. PubMed ID: 11664349
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Current technology affecting Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence.
Buckley M
NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1982; 27(4):1221-60. PubMed ID: 11651778
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Technological advances and Roe v. Wade: the need to rethink abortion law.
Martyn K
UCLA Law Rev; 1982; 29(5-6):1194-215. PubMed ID: 11655743
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The new neonatal dilemma: live births from late abortions.
Rhoden NK
Georgetown Law J; 1984 Jun; 72(5):1451-509. PubMed ID: 11658578
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The born alive doctrine: a legal anachronism.
Westerfield L
South Univ Law Rev; 1976; 2(2):149-73. PubMed ID: 12083087
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Prenatal caretaking: limits of state intervention with and without Roe.
Rush SE
Univ Fla Law Rev; 1987; 39(1):55-112. PubMed ID: 11658954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. On the legal status of the proposition that "life begins at conception.
Rubenfeld J
Stanford Law Rev; 1991 Feb; 43(3):599-635. PubMed ID: 11645689
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Rationalizing the abortion debate: legal rhetoric and the abortion controversy.
Chemerinsky E
Buffalo Law Rev; 1982; 31(1):107-64. PubMed ID: 11655711
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The new pro-life legislation: patterns and recommendations.
Witherspoon JP
St Marys Law J; 1976; 7(4):637-97. PubMed ID: 11664635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Roe v. Wade reaffirmed, again.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Oct; 16(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 3771197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Sandra Day O'Connor and the justification of abortion.
Werhane PH
Theor Med; 1984 Oct; 5(3):359-63. PubMed ID: 11644178
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A decision-theoretic reconstruction of Roe v. Wade.
Lockhart T
Public Aff Q; 1991 Jul; 5(3):243-58. PubMed ID: 11656064
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The juridical status of the fetus: a proposal for legal protection of the unborn.
King PA
Mich Law Rev; 1979 Aug; 77(7):1647-87. PubMed ID: 10245967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Implications of the coming retreat from Roe v. Wade.
Rice CF
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1988; 4():1-21. PubMed ID: 11645610
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Is there life after Roe v. Wade?
Mahowald MB
Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(4):22-9. PubMed ID: 2663777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Location and life: how Stenberg v. Carhart undercut Roe v. Wade.
Stith R
William Mary J Women Law; 2003; 9(2):255-78. PubMed ID: 15977326
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The unwanted child: caring for the fetus born alive after an abortion.
Hastings Cent Rep; 1976 Oct; 6(5):10-5. PubMed ID: 972026
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
