In the case of Roe et al. v. Doe, 1974, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could require that an individual be notified before their spouse sought an abortion. The case involved a Georgia law which required such notification and was challenged by "Mary Doe," who claimed it violated her right to privacy as established in Roe v. Wade (1973). The court ruled in favor of Mary Doe, stating that requiring spousal notification placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions and infringed upon their constitutional rights to privacy and personal liberty. This decision further solidified the precedent set by Roe v. Wade regarding reproductive rights.

The dissenting opinion in the Roe v. Doe case argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power, infringing upon states' rights to regulate their own welfare systems. The dissenters believed that there was no constitutional right to privacy involved in this case and thus, it should not be used as a basis for striking down state laws regulating welfare benefits. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of equal protection clause, arguing that differential treatment does not necessarily mean unconstitutional discrimination. Furthermore, they contended that such decisions should be left to legislative bodies who are more equipped to handle complex social issues like poverty and public assistance rather than courts.