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

416 related items for PubMed ID: 11652657

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Roe to Casey: a survey of abortion law.
    Pirner RK, Williams LB.
    Washburn Law J; 1993; 32(2):166-89. PubMed ID: 11659798
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Tribe's judicious feminism -- Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes.
    Allen AL.
    Stanford Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 44(1):179-203. PubMed ID: 11659573
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Abortion rights under state constitutions: fighting the abortion war in the state courts.
    Chaput KA.
    Oregon Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 70(3):593-628. PubMed ID: 11659531
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Abortion rights of young women: the Supreme Court attacks the most vulnerable.
    Heller S.
    Washburn Law J; 1990 Nov; 30(1):15-28. PubMed ID: 11659579
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The viability of the trimester approach.
    Calder KA.
    Univ Baltimore Law Rev; 1984 Nov; 13(2):322-45. PubMed ID: 11658808
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Abortion choice and the law in Vermont: a recent study.
    Olmstead FH.
    Vt Law Rev; 1982 Nov; 7(2):281-313. PubMed ID: 11655820
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. The future of abortion.
    McDaniel A.
    Newsweek; 1989 Jul 17; 114(3):14-21, 24-27. PubMed ID: 11655929
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. The trimester approach: how long can the legal fiction last?
    Casurella JG, Schrock CT.
    Mercer Law Rev; 1984 Jul 17; 35(4):891-913. PubMed ID: 11658750
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Abortion and the consideration of fundamental, irreconcilable interests.
    Jones CJ.
    Syracuse Law Rev; 1982 Jul 17; 33(2):565-613. PubMed ID: 11658668
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The new pro-life legislation: patterns and recommendations.
    Witherspoon JP.
    St Marys Law J; 1976 Jul 17; 7(4):637-97. PubMed ID: 11664635
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Rationalizing the abortion debate: legal rhetoric and the abortion controversy.
    Chemerinsky E.
    Buffalo Law Rev; 1982 Jul 17; 31(1):107-64. PubMed ID: 11655711
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. The erosion of Roe v. Wade; do minors have any rights?
    Sourial WH.
    Whittier Law Rev; 1992 Jul 17; 13(1):285-332. PubMed ID: 11656215
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Massachusetts parental/judicial consent law for minors' abortions: perspectives on the past, present, and future.
    Joseph MA.
    New Engl Law Rev; 1992 Jul 17; 26(3):1051-99. PubMed ID: 11659665
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Reproduction and the law.
    Erickson NS.
    Med Trial Tech Q; 1985 Jul 17; 32(2):165-74. PubMed ID: 11649200
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Missouri loses latest round in battle over permissible abortion regulations.
    Baldwin ML.
    UMKC Law Rev; 1982 Jul 17; 50(3):320-39. PubMed ID: 11658633
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 21.