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

365 related items for PubMed ID: 11655923

  • 1. Why the government is not required to subsidize abortion counseling and referral.
    Hirt TC.
    Harv Law Rev; 1988 Jun; 101():1895-915. PubMed ID: 11655923
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 4. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers: Medi-Cal funding of abortion.
    Hendrickson E.
    Gold Gate Univ Law Rev; 1978 Jun; 9(2):361-419. PubMed ID: 11664072
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. The Supreme Court on abortion funding: the second time around.
    Horan DJ, Marzen TJ.
    St Louis Univ Law J; 1981 Jun; 25(2):411-27. PubMed ID: 11655812
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. National health care legislation and the funding of abortion.
    Mahoney HM.
    America (NY); 1993 Oct 16; 169(11):8-9. PubMed ID: 11659793
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. New York v. Sullivan.
    U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Fed Report; 1989 Nov 01; 889():401-18. PubMed ID: 11648392
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. The Title X family planning gag rule: can the government buy up constitutional rights?
    Chervin CI.
    Stanford Law Rev; 1989 Jan 01; 41(2):401-34. PubMed ID: 11655926
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. The abortion funding conundrum: inalienable rights, affirmative duties, and the dilemma of dependence.
    Tribe LH.
    Harv Law Rev; 1985 Nov 01; 99(1):330-43. PubMed ID: 11655827
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Unburdening the undue burden standard: orienting Casey in constitutional jurisprudence.
    Metzger GE.
    Columbia Law Rev; 1994 Nov 01; 94():2025-89. PubMed ID: 11660149
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The selective funding problem: abortions and religious schools.
    McConnell MW.
    Harv Law Rev; 1991 Mar 01; 104(5):989-1050. PubMed ID: 11656068
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. The law of choice and choice of law: abortion, the right to travel, and extraterritorial regulation in American federalism.
    Kreimer SF.
    N Y Univ Law Rev; 1992 Jun 01; 67(3):451-519. PubMed ID: 11656241
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Informed consent to abortion: a refinement.
    Jipping TL.
    Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1992 Jun 01; 38(3):329-86. PubMed ID: 11659038
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Official tells of U.S. plan to discourage abortions.
    Hilts PJ.
    N Y Times Web; 1991 Mar 20; ():A22. PubMed ID: 11647434
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Public funding of medically necessary abortions is not required under the Medicaid Act: Harris v. McRae, 100 S.Ct. 2671 (1980).
    Gray AD.
    Tex Tech Law Rev; 1981 Mar 20; 12(2):483-99. PubMed ID: 11655635
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 19.