IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v13y1994i1-2p111-126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Keeping Abortion Clinics Open: The Importance of Ragsdale v. Turnock in the Post‐Casey Era

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Gluck Mezey
  • Raymond Tatalovich
  • Michael Walsh

Abstract

In 1973, Roe v. Wade constitutionalized a woman's right to an abortion. But, while Roe removed most legal obstacles to abortion, it did not address the limited availability of abortion services in the nation. The case examined here, Ragsdale v. Turnock, revolved around an Illinois statute that imposed far‐reaching restrictions on abortion clinics, the site of most U.S. abortions since Roe. The crucial role of clinics in providing abortion services explains why the dispute represented by Ragsdale had the potential for an enormous impact on legalized abortion in the United States. Because of the number of women affected, the Ragsdale litigation could have led to the most significant judicial ruling since Roe. The suit resulted in a settlement in which plaintiffs secured the right to a legal clinic abortion during the first 18 weeks of pregnancy. Although the case was settled to the satisfaction of pro‐choice advocates, a similar law today might well survive constitutional scrutiny.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Gluck Mezey & Raymond Tatalovich & Michael Walsh, 1994. "Keeping Abortion Clinics Open: The Importance of Ragsdale v. Turnock in the Post‐Casey Era," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 13(1‐2), pages 111-126, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:13:y:1994:i:1-2:p:111-126
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1994.tb00582.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1994.tb00582.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1994.tb00582.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:13:y:1994:i:1-2:p:111-126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.