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

646 related items for PubMed ID: 11664779

  • 1. Constitutional law--substantive due process--abortion--reasonable statutory recordkeeping and reporting requirements upheld.
    Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1976; 1976(4):977-99. PubMed ID: 11664779
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 3. Constitutional law--abortion--parental and spousal consent requirements--right to privacy.
    Long SL, Ravenscraft P.
    Akron Law Rev; 1976; 10(2):367-82. PubMed ID: 11664733
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. The invalidity of Canada's abortion law--section 251 of the Criminal Code.
    Picher PC.
    Crim Rep Can New Ser; 1974; 24():1-31. PubMed ID: 11663529
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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]

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

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. Judicial supremacy, right-to-life and the abortion decision.
    Lindholm LM.
    Public Aff Q; 1988 Apr; 2(2):1-20. PubMed ID: 11651912
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Pregnant women's rights and the legal impact of theories of when life begins.
    Crepps J, Miller A.
    Am J Ethics Med; 1994 Apr; 3(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 11652827
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Hospitalization requirements for second trimester abortions: for the purpose of health or hindrance?
    Foley MC.
    Georgetown Law J; 1983 Feb; 71(3):991-1021. PubMed ID: 11655620
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Webster and the future of substantive due process.
    Bopp J, Coleson RE.
    Duquesne Law Rev; 1990 Feb; 28(2):271-94. PubMed ID: 11656037
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [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 Feb; 13(1):285-332. PubMed ID: 11656215
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 20. Medical responsibility for fetal survival under Roe and Doe.
    Sendor BB.
    Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1975 Feb; 10(2):444-71. PubMed ID: 11663614
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 33.