Opinion ID: 763594
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The pre-petition physician consultation

Text: 33 The model petition appended to Rule 24 would have the minor swear that she has consulted with the physician who is to perform the abortion, or with a referring physician concerning the abortion. The district court held that this requirement likely places an unconstitutional burden on the minor. According to the district court, arranging for and going to the consultation, all the while keeping it secret, would create many difficulties for minors seeking abortions. Recognizing that the minor must consult with a physician sometime before the abortion is performed, MPP argues on appeal that the requirement is unduly burdensome in that it forces the minor to consult with a physician prior to filing her petition, whereas absent the requirement she could consult with a physician at any time, including the day the procedure is to be performed. 34 However, as the state notes, nothing in the Consent Act demands that the consultation be face-to-face, and telephone consultation would decrease the logistical problems. In addition, this requirement of a pre-petition consultation with a physician seems designed to assist the juvenile court in its determination of whether the minor is capable of making the decision or whether the abortion is in her best interests. Accordingly, requiring an early, as opposed to later, consultation does not amount to an undue burden, especially as it is aimed at inform[ing] the woman's free choice, not hinder[ing] it. Casey, 505 U.S. at 877, 112 S.Ct. 2791. The Court in Casey held that a state can require that a doctor give a woman certain information before she may have an abortion. 505 U.S. at 884, 112 S.Ct. 2791. Due to the peculiar vulnerability of children; their inability to make crucial decisions in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing, Bellotti, 443 U.S. at 634, 99 S.Ct. 3035, the requirement is particularly justified where the person seeking an abortion is a minor. Therefore, MPP did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, as regards the pre-petition physician consultation requirement. 35 Because our determination that MPP did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding any of the challenged provisions is sufficient to reverse the district court's grant of the injunction, we decline to address the district court's ruling on the other three injunction factors.