Similar articles

• Location and life: how Stenberg v. Carhart undercut Roe v. Wade.

  Stith R. Stith R. William Mary J Women Law. 2003 Winter;9(2):255-78. William Mary J Women Law. 2003. PMID: 15977326 No abstract available.
• Inverting the viability test for abortion law.

  Ching B. Ching B. Womens Rights Law Report. 2000 Fall-Winter;22(1):37-45. Womens Rights Law Report. 2000. PMID: 16281341 No abstract available.
• 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. Van Detta JA. South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud. 2001 Spring;10(2):211-92. South Calif Rev Law Womens Stud. 2001. PMID: 16485363 No abstract available.
• Gestational burdens and fetal status: justifying Roe v. Wade.

  Robertson JA. Robertson JA. Am J Law Med. 1987;13(2-3):189-212. Am J Law Med. 1987. PMID: 3333215 Review. No abstract available.
• Teenagers and pregnancy: the law in 1979.

  Paul EW, Pilpel HF. Paul EW, et al. Fam Plann Perspect. 1979 Oct;11(5):297-302. Fam Plann Perspect. 1979. PMID: 391587 Review. No abstract available.