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.
130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7021885)
1. The Hyde Amendment in action. How did the restriction of federal funds for abortion affect low-income women? Cates W JAMA; 1981 Sep; 246(10):1109-12. PubMed ID: 7021885 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The Supreme Court and abortion: 2. Sidestepping social realities. Mechanic D Hastings Cent Rep; 1980 Dec; 10(6):17-9. PubMed ID: 7007284 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. After the Hyde Amendment: public funding for abortion in FY 1978. Gold RB Fam Plann Perspect; 1980; 12(3):131-4. PubMed ID: 6995148 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of the Hyde Amendment. Smith DB; Carl GF; Cates W JAMA; 1982 Feb; 247(8):1128. PubMed ID: 11643709 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Restriction of federal funds for abortion: 18 months later. Gold J; Cates W Am J Public Health; 1979 Sep; 69(9):929-30. PubMed ID: 382879 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. A consequentialist ethical analysis of federal funding of elective abortions. Gleeson EI; Guerrini CJ Bioethics; 2021 May; 35(4):331-336. PubMed ID: 33594696 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, 1982. Nestor B; Gold RB Fam Plann Perspect; 1984; 16(3):128-33. PubMed ID: 6432576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. The impact of restricting Medicaid financing for abortion. Trussell J; Menken J; Lindheim BL; Vaughan B Fam Plann Perspect; 1980; 12(3):120-3, 127-30. PubMed ID: 6995147 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Hope Medical Group for Women v. Edwards. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Fed Report; 1998 Sep; 63():418-29. PubMed ID: 11648424 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The impact of public abortion funding decisions on indigent women: a proposal to reform state statutory and constitutional abortion funding provisions. Corns CA Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1991; 24(2):371-403. PubMed ID: 11656224 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The Hyde Amendment and the future. Rosoff JI Fam Plann Perspect; 1980; 12(4):172. PubMed ID: 7002585 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Dalton. U.S. District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Little Rock Division Fed Suppl; 1994 Jul; 860():609-31. PubMed ID: 11648416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The public funding of abortion services: comparative developments in the United States and Australia. Petersen KA Int Comp Law Q; 1984 Jan; 33(1):158-80. PubMed ID: 16032815 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Orr v. Nelson. U.S. District Court, D. Nebraska Fed Suppl; 1994 Nov; 902():1019-22. PubMed ID: 11648423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare--abortions: final regulation. Fed Regist; 1979 Oct; 44(209):61597-8. PubMed ID: 10297597 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Illinois v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Fed Report; 1985 Aug; 772():329-35. PubMed ID: 11648364 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]