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
90 related items for PubMed ID: 24034806
1. A statement on abortion by 100 professors of obstetrics: 40 years later. One Hundred Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Contraception; 2013 Oct; 88(4):568-76. PubMed ID: 24034806 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A statement on abortion by 900 professors of obstetrics and gynecology after the reversal of Roe vWade. Espey E, Teal S, Peipert JF. Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Jan; 230(1):10-11. PubMed ID: 37914059 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Fetal viability as a threshold to personhood. A legal analysis. Peterfy A. J Leg Med; 1995 Dec; 16(4):607-36. PubMed ID: 8568420 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Projected Implications of Overturning Roe v Wade on Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs. Vinekar K, Karlapudi A, Nathan L, Turk JK, Rible R, Steinauer J. Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Aug 01; 140(2):146-149. PubMed ID: 35852261 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. State legislation on abortion after Roe v. Wade: selected constitutional issues. Bryant MD. Am J Law Med; 1976 Aug 01; 2(1):101-32. PubMed ID: 973625 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Roe v. Wade reaffirmed, again. Annas GJ. Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Oct 01; 16(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 3771197 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Brief for 885 law professors in support of maintaining adherence to the Roe decision. Michelman FI, Redlich N, Neuwirth SR, Carty-Bennia D. Am J Law Med; 1989 Oct 01; 15(2-3):197-203. PubMed ID: 2603862 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Partial-birth abortion, Congress, and the Constitution. Annas GJ. N Engl J Med; 1998 Jul 23; 339(4):279-83. PubMed ID: 9673308 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Abortion: the new debate. Callahan D. Prim Care; 1986 Jun 23; 13(2):255-62. PubMed ID: 3523563 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Roe v. Wade. Jane's perspective. Kaplan L. Conscience; 1998 Jun 23; 18(4):27-8. PubMed ID: 12178883 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Abortion: rights or technicalities? A comparison of Roe v. Wade with the abortion decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Brown HO. Hum Life Rev; 1975 Jun 23; 1(3):60-74. PubMed ID: 11662181 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Roe v. Wade. Revisiting the fundamentals. Benshoof J. Conscience; 1998 Jun 23; 18(4):16-7. PubMed ID: 12178876 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The legal status of abortion in the states if Roe v. Wade is overruled. Linton PB. Issues Law Med; 2007 Jun 23; 23(1):3-43. PubMed ID: 17703698 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The concept of wrongful life in the law. Kasper AS. Women Health; 1983 Jun 23; 8(1):81-7. PubMed ID: 6868627 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Abortion attitudes and performance among male and female obstetrician-gynecologists. Weisman CS, Nathanson CA, Teitelbaum MA, Chase GA, King TM. Fam Plann Perspect; 1986 Mar 23; 18(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 3792525 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Will Webster redefine Roe v. Wade? The Supreme Court could use a Missouri case to begin limiting abortion rights. Chopko ME. Health Prog; 1989 Jun 23; 70(5):58-64. PubMed ID: 10293331 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Roe v. Wade and the lesson of the pre-Roe case law. Morgan RG. Mich Law Rev; 1979 Aug 23; 77(7):1724-48. PubMed ID: 10245969 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Next] [New Search]