In the Singleton v. Wulff case of 1975, two physicians challenged a Missouri law that prohibited Medicaid funding for non-therapeutic abortions. The doctors claimed this violated their patients' constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Initially, the District Court ruled in favor of the physicians but on appeal, it was argued they lacked standing to sue as they were not directly affected by the law. However, Supreme Court held that doctors could represent their patients’ interests in court when challenging abortion-funding restrictions because these laws potentially infringed upon women’s constitutional rights to choose an abortion. The Supreme Court also addressed whether states could use federal funds for certain medical procedures while excluding others like non-therapeutic abortions. Ultimately, it remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings regarding whether such exclusion violates Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause of Constitution.

In the case of Singleton v. Wulff, Justice White dissented, arguing that physicians should not have standing to assert their patients' rights in court. He believed that allowing doctors to do so would create a conflict of interest because they could potentially benefit financially from the outcome of such cases. Furthermore, he argued that it was inappropriate for courts to make assumptions about whether or not women would want their doctors representing them in these matters without explicit consent given by those women themselves. Lastly, he contended that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent where other professionals might also seek to represent their clients or customers in court without proper authorization.