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.
1082 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 973625)
1. State legislation on abortion after Roe v. Wade: selected constitutional issues. Bryant MD Am J Law Med; 1976; 2(1):101-32. PubMed ID: 973625 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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. Potential constitutional issues raised by the proposed amendments to the Georgia abortion statute. Berg RN J Med Assoc Ga; 1982 Feb; 71(2):128-31. PubMed ID: 7077199 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. The economic impact of state restrictions on abortion: parental consent and notification laws and Medicaid funding restrictions. Haas-Wilson D J Policy Anal Manage; 1993; 12(3):498-511. PubMed ID: 10127357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. A decade of cementing the mosaic of Roe v. Wade: is the composite a message to leave abortion alone? Kudner KE Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1984; 15(2):681-753. PubMed ID: 11649780 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Abortion 1982: the Supreme Court once again. Healey JM Conn Med; 1982 Nov; 46(11):681. PubMed ID: 7172671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A world without Roe: how different would it be? Glendon MA Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(4):30-1. PubMed ID: 2745061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Criminal liability of physicians: an encroachment on the abortion right? Barber RA Am Crim Law Rev; 1981; 18(4):591-615. PubMed ID: 11655468 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Roe v. Wade and the history of abortion regulation. Linton PB Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):227-33. PubMed ID: 2690604 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Roe v. Wade and the lesson of the pre-Roe case law. Morgan RG Mich Law Rev; 1979 Aug; 77(7):1724-48. PubMed ID: 10245969 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. U.S. abortion policy since Roe v. Wade. Mcfarlane DR Am J Gynecol Health; 1993; 7(4):98-106. PubMed ID: 12288251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]