Similar articles

• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: devaluing the right to choose.

  Binion G. Binion G. Women Polit. 1991;11(2):41-60. doi: 10.1300/J014v11n02_03. Women Polit. 1991. PMID: 11656100 No abstract available.
• Supreme Court, 5-4, narrowing Roe v. Wade, upholds sharp state limits on abortion.

  Greenhouse L, Dionne EJ. Greenhouse L, et al. N Y Times Web. 1989 Jul 4:1, 10-13. N Y Times Web. 1989. PMID: 11646725 No abstract available.
• Perspectives on the abortion controversy: amici for appellees -- Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees Webster and women's equality Webster and the fundamental right to make medical decisions Abortion counseling and the First Amendment: open questions after Webster Brief for 885 law professors in support of maintaining adherence to the Roe decision.

  Annas GJ, Glantz LH, Mariner WK, Johnsen D, Wilder MJ, Orentlicher D, Pine RN, Michelman FI, Redlich N, Neuwirth SR, Carty-Bennia D. Annas GJ, et al. Am J Law Med. 1990 Jan 8;15(2-3):169-203. Am J Law Med. 1990. PMID: 11656584 No abstract available.
• From arguments to Supreme Court opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

  Kassop N. Kassop N. PS (Wash DC). 1993 Mar;26(1):53-8. PS (Wash DC). 1993. PMID: 12085874 Review. No abstract available.
• Abortion USA.

  [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Lancet. 1989 Apr 22;1(8643):879-80. Lancet. 1989. PMID: 2564953 Review.