Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 110.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

29 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

the clinic, id., at 131; accord, id., at 1342 (Doe 5). 

This  description  of  doctor-patient  interactions  at  June
Medical is similar to those recounted in testimony heard by
the legislature.  See Record 11263 (“there was no doctor/pa-
tient relationship”); id., at 11226 (“I can tell you, women I’ve
counseled,  many  times  they  don’t  know  who  the  abortion 
provider is”).  Amici who have had abortions recount simi-
larly  distant  relationships  with  their  abortion  doctors.14 
For these reasons, the first prong of the third-party stand-
ing rule cannot be met.

Nor can the second, which requires that there be a hin-
drance to the ability of the third  party  to bring suit.  See 
Kowalski, 543 U. S., at 130.  The plurality opinion in Sin-
gleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 117 (1976), found that women
seeking abortions were hindered from bringing suit, but the 
reasoning  in  that  opinion  is  hard  to  defend.    The  opinion
identified two purported obstacles to suits by women wish-
ing to obtain abortions—the women’s desire to protect their 
privacy and the prospect of mootness.  Ibid.  But as Justice 
Powell  said  at  the  time,  these  “alleged  ‘obstacles’  . . .  are 
chimerical.”  Id., at 126 (opinion concurring in part and dis-
senting in part).

First,  a  woman  who  challenges  an  abortion  restriction 
can sue under a pseudonym, and many have done so.  Ibid. 
(“Our docket regularly contains cases in which women, us-
ing pseudonyms, challenge statutes that allegedly infringe 
their  right  to  exercise the  abortion  decision”).    Other  pre-
cautions  may  be  taken  during  the  course  of  litigation  to 
avoid revealing their identities.  See App. 196.15  And there 

—————— 

14 See Brief for 2,624 Women Injured by Abortion et al. as Amici Curiae 
14–22 (firsthand accounts of abortion procedures in Louisiana); Brief for
Priests for Life et al. as Amici Curiae 7–8, and App. (accounts from Lou-
isiana and other States). 

15 Four  cases  to  reach  this  Court  have  featured  exclusively  women 
plaintiffs.  See Beal v. Doe, 432 U. S. 438 (1977); Maher v. Roe, 432 U. S. 
464  (1977);  Poelker  v.  Doe,  432  U. S.  519  (1977)  (per curiam);  H.  L.  v.