In the case of Maher, Commissioner of Social Services of Connecticut v. Roe et al., 1976, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that states are not required to fund non-therapeutic abortions for women who cannot afford them. The court held that while a state could not prohibit an abortion within its jurisdiction, it was under no obligation to pay for one either. This decision came after a woman in Connecticut challenged the state's policy which only provided Medicaid coverage for abortions deemed medically necessary by a physician. The plaintiff argued this violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights as it discriminated against low-income women seeking elective abortions compared with those who could afford private healthcare services or whose pregnancies posed health risks covered by Medicaid. However, the court disagreed stating there was no constitutional violation because financial need does not identify a suspect class warranting heightened scrutiny and that indigency is merely relevant to whether certain burdensome prerequisites to obtaining an abortion can be imposed.

In the dissenting opinion for Maher v. Roe, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on abortion rights. He contended that by allowing Connecticut to deny Medicaid funding for non-therapeutic abortions while providing it for childbirth expenses, the state effectively imposed a penalty on women who chose to exercise their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. This, he believed, violated both equal protection and due process principles because it discriminated against poor women and interfered with their personal decisions about family life and childbearing. Furthermore, he rejected the majority's distinction between positive (providing funds) and negative (withholding funds) state actions as irrelevant in this context since either way could significantly influence a woman’s choice.