| Argument |
Maximum
Points |
| Nature of right-F argues rt is fund'l-part
of the fundamental rt of
privacy- by analogy to right to choose to have a child - an aspect of
the rt
in Griswold and Roe to decide whether or not to bear a child |
4
points |
| F argues rt to have a child is a rt deeply
rooted in history &
tradition |
2 points |
| F argues central to personal
identity-autonomy in imp decision of
whether to bear child, a decision that affects a person for the rest of
her life |
2 points |
| NE argues the rt is nonfund'l-analogy and
history and tradition-Michael
H., not a trad'l family unit, no long tradition of approval of having
children outside of marriage |
4 points |
| NE argues rt is nonfund'l eco. rt-rt. to
state funding-not rt to
decide to have a child |
3 points |
| NE agues that even if the right is fund'l,
the law does not impose an Undue Burden on the exercise of the right -
woman not
prohibited from having a child,
state just refuses to pay, more expensive to have an
additional child, but not physically impossible, eco burdens not
considered to be undue burdens in Casey |
4
points |
| F argues Undue Burden-law poses a
substantial obstacle-its purpose is
to hinder the woman and not just to persuade her not to have another
child; undue burden under Casey |
2
points |
| Standard of review: strict or minimum scrutiny (argue each alternatively)(pts allocated for accurate description of each standard) | 3
points |
| NE argues satisfies minimum scrutiny (rat'l
means to legit
end)-discouraging single women who receive ADWC benefits from having
additional children is a legitimate end and refusing to provide more
benefits is a rational means to that end; also lowering state spending
in a fiscal crisis is a legitimate end and cutting ADWC is rationally
related to that legitimate objective |
3
points |
| F argues NE fails minimum scrutiny test
because the end of discouraging women from having children is not
legitimate |
2
points |
| NE argues satisfies strict scrutiny because
the end of discouraging
more children born outside of marriage is just as compelling as the
state’s interest in potential life in Casey and the means are the least
restrictive means available since the law does not prohibit the having
of children only imposes a financial disincentive |
4
points |
| F argues fails strict test because end of
conserving state's fiscal
resources is not a compelling end and neither is objective of
discouraging childbirth which arguably is not even legitimate; even
if there is a compelling end, the means are not necessary; the state
could instead offer family planning services including contraceptives
and an educational program, etc. to discourage single women on welfare
from having additional children |
4
points |
| Miscellaneous and special level of
understanding of const'al
issues |
3
points |