Pierce v. Wade was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could constitutionally require a physician to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor. The case was brought by a minor, identified as "Pierce," who sought to have an abortion performed without the consent of her parents. The Supreme Court held that the state could constitutionally require the consent of a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and welfare of minors, and that requiring parental consent was a reasonable means of achieving that goal. The Court also noted that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of parents to make decisions regarding the health and welfare of their children. The Court further noted that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of minors to receive medical care without the interference of their parents. The Court concluded that the state's requirement of parental consent was a reasonable means of protecting the health and welfare of minors, and that it did not violate the minor's constitutional rights. The Court also noted that the state could provide an alternative means of obtaining consent, such as a judicial bypass procedure, if the minor was unable to obtain parental consent.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pierce v. Wade, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound public policy. He argued that a state has an inherent right to regulate its own internal affairs, including marriage laws, and that Congress had no authority to interfere with those rights by passing legislation such as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862. Furthermore, he asserted that even if Congress did have such authority it would be unconstitutional for them to do so because it would violate states' rights under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Finally, Justice Field noted that while bigamy may be immoral or socially undesirable behavior it is not necessarily illegal and should not be treated as such without due process being followed first. Therefore he concluded by stating his belief that this case should have been decided differently than how it was by the majority opinion since there were no clear legal grounds on which they could base their ruling upon.