---
title: "Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists"
description: "The challenged Pennsylvania provisions are unconstitutional as inconsistent with Roe."
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "1986-06-11"
citation: "476 U.S. 747 (1986)"
docket: "84-495"
status: "Superseded"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/thornburgh-v-acog-1986.html"
---

# Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

_Full caption: Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists_

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

**Status:** Superseded

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

## 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.

## 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.

## Opinions

### Majority — Blackmun, J.

_Joined by 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.

_Joined by Rehnquist, J._

Would have overruled Roe.

### Dissent — O'Connor, J.

_Joined by Rehnquist, J._

Applied 'unduly burdensome' analysis.

## Key quotes

> "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

> "In my view, the time has come to reexamine Roe."
> — Burger, C.J. (dissenting) · 476 U.S. at 785

## Practical effect

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

## 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.

## Significance

Superseded by Casey and Dobbs.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 3 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 4 |
| Practical impact on access | 3 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 2 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 1 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/747](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/747/)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- [Roe v. Wade (1973)](roe-v-wade-1973.md)
- Akron v. Akron Center (1983)

**Cited by later cases:**

- [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md)