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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

149 related items for PubMed ID: 10183821

  • 21.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
    U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
    Fed Suppl; 1993 May 12; 822():227-39. PubMed ID: 11648410
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. A relational approach to moral decision-making: the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
    Sullivan PA, Goldzwig SR.
    Q J Speech; 1995 May 12; 81(2):167-90. PubMed ID: 11808622
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Casey and its impact on abortion regulation.
    Moses MF.
    Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar 12; 31(3):805-15. PubMed ID: 16700123
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. The Supreme Court, the Texas Abortion Law (SB8), and the Beginning of the End of Roe v Wade?
    Cohen IG, Adashi EY, Gostin LO.
    JAMA; 2021 Oct 19; 326(15):1473-1474. PubMed ID: 34554180
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Supreme Court affirms abortion rights; allows most state limits.
    Hosp Ethics; 1992 Oct 19; 8(5):15-6. PubMed ID: 10120134
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Handicapping the odds on the future of Roe v. Wade: can the right to abortion survive in the High Court?
    Drenning MG.
    Health Care Law Mon; 2003 Mar 19; ():3-9. PubMed ID: 12698761
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Abortion compromise -- inevitable and impossible.
    Law SA.
    Univ Ill Law Rev; 1992 Mar 19; 25(4):921-41. PubMed ID: 11656296
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: the reaffirmation of Roe or the beginning of the end?
    Henry KS.
    Univ Louisv J Fam Law; 1992 Mar 19; 32(1):93-113. PubMed ID: 11660011
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Reproductive rights and the medical care system: a plea for rational health policy.
    Stephenson PA, Wagner MG.
    J Public Health Policy; 1993 Mar 19; 14(2):174-82. PubMed ID: 8408608
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Reproductive self-determination in the Third Circuit: the statutory proscription of wrongful birth and wrongful life claims as an unconstitutional violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden standard.
    Intromasso C.
    Womens Rights Law Report; 2003 Mar 19; 24(2):101-20. PubMed ID: 15568248
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. The right of privacy and restraints on abortion under the "undue burden" test: a jurisprudential comparison of Planned Parenthood v. Casey with European practice and Italian law.
    Ross CS.
    Indiana Int Comp Law Rev; 1993 Mar 19; 3():199-231. PubMed ID: 12091926
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Further evidence on the internal validity of the early legal access research design.
    Bailey MJ, Guldi M, Hershbein BJ.
    J Policy Anal Manage; 2013 Mar 19; 32(4):899-904. PubMed ID: 24665473
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Implications of the Federal Abortion Ban for Women's Health in the United States.
    Weitz TA, Yanow S.
    Reprod Health Matters; 2008 May 19; 16(31 Suppl):99-107. PubMed ID: 18772090
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. If only policy analysis were so easy.
    Joyce T.
    J Policy Anal Manage; 2013 May 19; 32(4):897-9. PubMed ID: 24665472
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Winter count: taking stock of abortion rights after Casey and Carhart.
    Borgmann CE.
    Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar 19; 31(3):675-716. PubMed ID: 16700116
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. 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 Mar 19; 10(2):211-92. PubMed ID: 16485363
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.