The Supreme Court and abortion: 2. Sidestepping social realities.
作者信息
Mechanic D
出版信息
Hastings Cent Rep. 1980 Dec;10(6):17-9.
PMID:7007284
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The Supreme Court and abortion: 2. Sidestepping social realities.
Hastings Cent Rep. 1980 Dec;10(6):17-9.
2
3
The Hyde Amendment and the future.
Fam Plann Perspect. 1980 Jul-Aug;12(4):172.
4
Constitutional law--health law--constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment--medically necessary abortions need not be funded by the state or federal government under Medicaid--Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).宪法——卫生法——《海德修正案》的合宪性——医疗必需的堕胎无需由州或联邦政府根据医疗补助计划提供资金——哈里斯诉麦克雷案，美国最高法院判例汇编第448卷，第297页（1980年）
Whittier Law Rev. 1981;3(3):381-408.
5
Abortion 1980: the debate continues.
Conn Med. 1980 Sep;44(9):605.
6
Public funding of medically necessary abortions is not required under the Medicaid Act: Harris v. McRae, 100 S.Ct. 2671 (1980).
Tex Tech Law Rev. 1981;12(2):483-99.
7
The courts and elective abortions under Medicaid.法院与医疗补助计划下的选择性堕胎
Soc Serv Rev. 1980 Mar;54(1):124-34. doi: 10.1086/643808.
8
9
Abortion funding and wise social policy: implications of Harris v. McRae.堕胎资金与明智的社会政策：哈里斯诉麦克雷案的影响
Women Health. 1980 Winter;5(4):79-83.
10
Harris v. McRae: the Hyde Amendment stands while rights of poor women fall.哈里斯诉麦克雷案：海德修正案得以维持，而贫困女性的权利却受损。
KY Law J. 1980;69(2):359-91.
Zotero 插件