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

255 related items for PubMed ID: 16211757

  • 1. The development of the undue burden standard in Stenberg v. Carhart: will proposed RU-486 legislation survive?
    Guenther H.
    Indiana Law Rev; 2002; 35(3):1021-44. PubMed ID: 16211757
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Abortion and birth control--right to abortion and regulation thereof: the United States Supreme Court invalidates a statute banning partial birth abortions: Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
    Joersz M.
    N D Law Rev; 2001; 77(2):345-73. PubMed ID: 12956123
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Stenberg v. Carhart: women retain their right to choose.
    Berkowitz JF.
    J Crim Law Criminol; 2001; 91(2):337-83. PubMed ID: 12774791
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Stenberg v Carhart: a divided US Supreme Court debates partial birth abortion.
    Heffernan L.
    Mod Law Rev; 2001 Jul; 64(4):618-27. PubMed ID: 16538739
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 9. Reproductive self-determination in the Third Circuit: the statutory proscription of wrongful birth and wrongful life claims as an unconstitutional violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden standard.
    Intromasso C.
    Womens Rights Law Report; 2003 Jul; 24(2):101-20. PubMed ID: 15568248
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 11. State's partial-birth abortion ban supported.
    Chopko M, Moses M.
    Origins; 2000 Mar 09; 29(38):617-23. PubMed ID: 11913443
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Court rules that government can't outlaw type of abortion: a Nebraska case.
    Greenhouse L.
    N Y Times Web; 2000 Jun 29; ():A1. PubMed ID: 15586921
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Justices to review federal ban on disputed abortion method; case may hinge on Alito, Court's newest member.
    Greenhouse L.
    N Y Times Web; 2006 Feb 22; ():A1, A14. PubMed ID: 16514736
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Partial-birth abortion: should moral judgment prevail over medical judgment?
    Walther KE.
    Loyola Univ Chic Law J; 2000 Feb 22; 31(4):693-736. PubMed ID: 11962531
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 17. The Casey undue burden standard: problems predicted and encountered, and the split over the Salerno test.
    Burdick R.
    Hastings Constit Law Q; 1996 Feb 22; 23():825-76. PubMed ID: 16086482
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. New York v. Sullivan: shhh ... don't say the "a" word! Another outcome-oriented abortion decision.
    Kendall CC.
    John Marshall Law Rev; 1990 Feb 22; 23(4):753-70. PubMed ID: 16622962
    [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 13.