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

220 related items for PubMed ID: 16200693

  • 1. Mazurek v. Armstrong: should states be allowed to restrict the performance of abortions to licensed physicians only?
    Bazzelle RY.
    Thurgood Marshall Law Rev; 1998; 24(1):149-82. PubMed ID: 16200693
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Family law I: abortion.
    Koscs ME.
    Annu Surv Am Law; 1984; 2():929-60. PubMed ID: 16086473
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The next abortion decision.
    N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov 30; ():A34. PubMed ID: 16450474
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Journey through the courts: minors, abortion and the quest for reproductive fairness.
    Ehrlich JS.
    Yale J Law Fem; 1998 Nov 30; 10(1):1-27. PubMed ID: 16596765
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Consti-tortion: tort law as an end-run around abortion rights after Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
    Stone AJ.
    Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2000 Nov 30; 8(2):471-515. PubMed ID: 16594110
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Physician assistant as abortion provider: lessons from Vermont, New York, and Montana.
    Schirmer JT.
    Hastings Law J; 1997 Nov 30; 49(1):253-88. PubMed ID: 14758819
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. The inapplicability of parental involvement laws to the distribution of mifepristone (RU-486) to minors.
    Scuder AC.
    Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2002 Nov 30; 10(3):711-41. PubMed ID: 16594112
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Parental notification and a minor's right to an abortion after Hodgson and Akron II.
    Graziano SG.
    Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1991 Nov 30; 17(3):581-97. PubMed ID: 16145809
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Winter count: taking stock of abortion rights after Casey and Carhart.
    Borgmann CE.
    Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar 30; 31(3):675-716. PubMed ID: 16700116
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Grounded in the reality of their lives: listening to teens who make the abortion decision without involving their parents.
    Ehrlich JS.
    Berkeley Womens Law J; 2003 Mar 30; 18():61-180. PubMed ID: 15156878
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Casey and its impact on abortion regulation.
    Moses MF.
    Fordham Urban Law J; 2004 Mar 30; 31(3):805-15. PubMed ID: 16700123
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Abortion in America.
    Shostak AB.
    Futurist; 1991 Mar 30; 25(4):20-4. PubMed ID: 16145782
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. What "choice" do they have?: protecting pregnant minors' reproductive rights using state constitutions.
    Weissmann R.
    Annu Surv Am Law; 1999 Mar 30; 1999(1):129-67. PubMed ID: 11958234
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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 30; 10(2):211-92. PubMed ID: 16485363
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Case reopens abortion issue for justices.
    Greenhouse L.
    N Y Times Web; 2005 Nov 29; ():A19. PubMed ID: 16450459
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Parental notification of abortion and minors' rights under the Montana constitution.
    Hayhurst MB.
    Mont Law Rev; 1997 Nov 29; 58(2):565-98. PubMed ID: 16180294
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Preserving the right to choose: a minor's right to confidential reproductive health care.
    Bertuglia J.
    Womens Rights Law Report; 2001 Nov 29; 23(1):63-77. PubMed ID: 12774775
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. The intimidation of American physicians--banning partial-birth abortion.
    Greene MF.
    N Engl J Med; 2007 May 24; 356(21):2128-9. PubMed ID: 17452436
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. The Casey undue burden standard: problems predicted and encountered, and the split over the Salerno test.
    Burdick R.
    Hastings Constit Law Q; 1996 May 24; 23():825-76. PubMed ID: 16086482
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Parents, judges, and a minor's abortion decisions: third party participation and the evolution of a judicial alternative.
    Green W.
    Akron Law Rev; 1983 May 24; 17(1):87-110. PubMed ID: 16086471
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.