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

1083 related items for PubMed ID: 11664349

  • 1. Roe v. Wade and the traditional legal standards concerning pregnancy.
    Hopkin WR.
    Temple Law Q; 1974; 47(4):715-38. PubMed ID: 11664349
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Prenatal caretaking: limits of state intervention with and without Roe.
    Rush SE.
    Univ Fla Law Rev; 1987; 39(1):55-112. PubMed ID: 11658954
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The legal status of the unborn after Webster.
    Parness JA.
    Dickinson Law Rev; 1990; 95(1):1-22. PubMed ID: 11659394
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Oh my God, I'm pregnant.
    Minter CV.
    Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1973; 1(1):119-29. PubMed ID: 11663469
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. To be or not to be: protecting the unborn's potentiality of life.
    Parness JA, Pritchard SK.
    Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1982; 51(2):257-98. PubMed ID: 11658559
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Current technology affecting Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence.
    Buckley M.
    NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1982; 27(4):1221-60. PubMed ID: 11651778
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 8. Technological advances and Roe v. Wade: the need to rethink abortion law.
    Martyn K.
    UCLA Law Rev; 1982; 29(5-6):1194-215. PubMed ID: 11655743
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Abortion and the Constitution: the need for a life-protective amendment.
    Destro RA.
    Calif Law Rev; 1975 Sep; 63(5):1250-351. PubMed ID: 11663611
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton: the compelling state interest test in substantive due process.
    Gelinas A.
    Wash Lee Law Rev; 1973 Sep; 30(3):628-46. PubMed ID: 11663508
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. On the legal status of the proposition that "life begins at conception.
    Rubenfeld J.
    Stanford Law Rev; 1991 Feb; 43(3):599-635. PubMed ID: 11645689
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. A decision-theoretic reconstruction of Roe v. Wade.
    Lockhart T.
    Public Aff Q; 1991 Jul; 5(3):243-58. PubMed ID: 11656064
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 14. The Supreme Court 1972 term. Foreward: toward a model of roles in the due process of life and law.
    Tribe LH.
    Harv Law Rev; 1973 Nov; 87(1):1-53. PubMed ID: 11663596
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Reexamining Roe: nineteenth-century abortion statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Witherspoon JS.
    St Marys Law J; 1985 Nov; 17(1):29-71. PubMed ID: 11655872
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. The fetus under Section 1983: still struggling for recognition.
    Czepiga PT.
    Syracuse Law Rev; 1983 Nov; 34(4):1029-65. PubMed ID: 11655745
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Roe v. Wade--the abortion decision--an analysis and its implications.
    Riggs T.
    San Diego Law Rev; 1973 Jun; 10(4):844-56. PubMed ID: 11661026
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 55.