In the case of Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al., 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that imposed restrictions on abortion services. The law required doctors to provide women seeking abortions with specific information about fetal development and alternatives to abortion; it also mandated reporting requirements for facilities providing abortions and stipulated conditions under which married women had to notify their husbands before obtaining an abortion. The court struck down these provisions as unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote, arguing they placed undue burdens on both women seeking abortions and physicians providing them. This decision reaffirmed Roe v Wade's central holding that states cannot place undue burdens or substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion pre-viability.

In the dissenting opinion for Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Justice Stevens argued that the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act was unconstitutional because it interfered with a woman's right to make personal decisions regarding her own body. He believed that the majority had misinterpreted Roe v. Wade by upholding provisions in the act which required physicians to provide women seeking abortions with specific information about fetal development and alternatives to abortion, as well as requiring spousal notification in some cases. These requirements, he argued, were not designed to protect maternal health or potential life but rather sought to discourage women from exercising their constitutional right to choose an abortion. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's decision on procedural grounds; instead of remanding parts of the case back down for further fact-finding (as is customary when there are unresolved issues), they chose instead simply uphold all aspects of law without proper scrutiny.