Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

476 U.S. 747 (1986) · Docket No. 84-495

Full caption: Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Superseded

Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Argued
November 5, 1985
Decided
June 11, 1986
Majority author
Blackmun, J.
Joined by
Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, JJ.
Vote
5-4

Question presented

Whether Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act provisions — including informed consent requirements, reporting requirements, and standards for post-viability abortions — violate Roe.

Holding

The challenged Pennsylvania provisions are unconstitutional as inconsistent with Roe.

Key reasoning

Justice Blackmun struck down informed consent requirements that included fetal development information, reporting requirements that risked patient anonymity, and post-viability standards deemed too restrictive.

§ 1 Reasoning

Justice Blackmun struck down informed consent requirements that included fetal development information, reporting requirements that risked patient anonymity, and post-viability standards deemed too restrictive.

§ 2 Opinions

Majority

Blackmun, J.

Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, JJ.

The challenged Pennsylvania provisions are unconstitutional as inconsistent with Roe.

Concurrence

Stevens, J.

Not joined by any other justice

Emphasized women's privacy and autonomy.

Dissent

Burger, C.J.

Not joined by any other justice

For the first time, called for reconsidering Roe: 'We should reexamine Roe.'

Dissent

White, J.

Rehnquist, J.

Would have overruled Roe.

Dissent

O'Connor, J.

Rehnquist, J.

Applied 'unduly burdensome' analysis.

“The Constitution embodies a promise that a certain private sphere of individual liberty will be kept largely beyond the reach of government.” Blackmun, J. (majority) · 476 U.S. at 772

§ 3 Key quotes

“In my view, the time has come to reexamine Roe.”
Burger, C.J. (dissenting)476 U.S. at 785

§ 4 Practical effect

Pennsylvania's specific provisions invalidated. Chief Justice Burger's dissent — his first calling for reconsidering Roe — signaled shifting court composition.

§ 5 Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

Abolitionist framing

Not a major abolitionist reference case. Reflects the pre-Casey era of vigorous Roe enforcement.

Mainstream pro-life framing

Mainstream pro-life groups noted with satisfaction Chief Justice Burger's shift.

Pro-choice framing

Celebrated as one of the last strong reaffirmations of Roe before the Court's composition shifted.

§ 6 Significance

3/ 10

Superseded by Casey and Dobbs.

Legal precedential weight4
Practical impact on access3
Movement relevance (abolitionist)2
Enduring relevance, 20261

§ 7 Sources

Secondary sources

  • None recorded.