In the case of Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana v. James H. Armstrong et al., 1996, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Montana law that restricted performing abortions to licensed physicians only. The respondents, who were non-physician clinicians providing abortion services, argued that this law violated their Equal Protection rights as it was not medically necessary and served no valid state interest but rather aimed at limiting access to abortions. However, the court held that there was no evidence suggesting an unconstitutional purpose behind this legislation since it had been enacted before any non-physicians sought to perform abortions in Montana and its exceptions did not single out or target those seeking abortions specifically. Furthermore, they noted that similar laws existed in other states without challenge and found no reason why physician-only requirements would be less constitutional for abortion than for other medical procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Mazurek v. Armstrong, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Montana law requiring only physicians to perform abortions was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on similar restrictions. He contended that there was no evidence showing non-physician health professionals were less capable of performing early-stage abortions than doctors, and thus this restriction served no legitimate purpose other than limiting women’s access to abortion services. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring clear indications that the law was enacted not for health or safety reasons but rather as an attempt by anti-abortion legislators in Montana to restrict access to legal abortions. Therefore, according to Justice Stevens' dissenting view, this law should have been struck down as unconstitutional under Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey precedents which protect a woman's right to choose.