Moot Court/Abortion Writing Follow-Up

Due Friday, March 18 (by 9am)

You must answer both of these questions. Your answers should run

approximately 1-2 pages each, and each response will count as 25

points.

1) Which side should win your Moot Court case and why?

Make sure to use the facts and precedent for support.

I believe that the respondent should win the Moot Court case. The

movements monitored were all in public, and could have been easily

observed on foot or without the trackers. In US v. Knotts, the Court

declared that if information can be collected by public observance, it is

not a violation of the fourth to collect it. The Court also ruled in Horton

v. California that public evidence is not protected by the fourth

amendment. The students had none of the expectation of privacy that

won Katz the case in US v. Katz because, unlike in Katz, the students did

not close a door between them and the public. They were on public

school grounds and in an alley. There is no reason to think they had

privacy. Even at night, schools are full of people; custodians and

janitorial staff, night meetings and groups, and security officers are still

abundant at night. Anyone could have walked past the alley and seen

the students disposing of the supplies used to vandalize the statue.

When the Constitution delegated to the states the power to

establish schools, it also allowed those schools to act in loco parentis,

meaning in place of parents. No one thinks twice about a parent

enabling the GPS tracking device on their childs phone so why should

this be any different? The school is trying to help raise responsible

members of society and so has every reason to want to investigate and

punish criminal activity.

Apart from wanting to help its students transition gracefully into

adulthood, the school also has the interests of keeping order in their

own school and community to think about. In the case of TLO v. New

Jersey, the Court ruled that if the school has reasonable suspicion of

forbidden activities, the need to maintain order and discipline in a

school trumps the individual students right to absolute privacy, and so

a warrant is not required for a search. TLO is the standard to apply here

because of the school setting, and the Principle had a tip from a very

reliable source, the student body president, that these particular

students were intending to vandalize the opposing schools statue. The

standard from US v. Maynard is not applicable because, while the

polices relationship to civilians is one of law enforcement, a principles

relationship to students is much more along the lines of a parent figure.

Furthermore, the principle had every reason to want to deescalate the

conflict between her school and the rival school to maintain harmony in

the community. In keeping with the Courts ruling in Morse v. Frederick,

the schools authority extends beyond school property, and the illegal

actions were not on private property. Furthermore, the statue itself was

on the campus of another public school in the same district, so the

principles of the two schools were part of a team working to help all the

schools in the area get along.

2) How would you evaluate the way the Court has approached abortion

over the last 43 years since Roe v. Wade? To do this, you must answer 2

sub-questions:

a) Do you like either of the standards the Court has devised, the

trimester framework of Roe or the undue burden standard of Casey, or

would you prefer a different one? Explain.

I absolutely detest the undue burden standard introduced in

Casey, because, to me, any unnecessary complication to an abortion is

an undue burden, but the court didnt specify what constitutes an undue

burden, so states have been able to impose all sorts of restrictions. As

abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, many of the

complicated and demanding procedural requirements are unnecessary.

A woman should not be forced to look at her fetus before aborting. I

would consider that to be an undue emotional burden. She should not

be subjected to an anal ultrasound. To me, that is an undue physical

burden. Mandatory waiting periods do nothing but disrupt womens

lives even more as they need to take more time off work, pay for

housing, or make multiple trips if the clinic is far from their house. It

disproportionately affects poor women for whom the financial and time
burdens are much more significant, but both are burdens for every

woman, and are unnecessary and therefore undue.

I think the Roe standard was an important first step in the

abortion rights movement. Realistically, I dont think the Court was

going to take abortion from completely illegal in many places to

completely legal anywhere. What I dont like is that the Court still allows

the states significant control over second and third trimester abortions,

and they can still put restrictions in place on first trimester abortions. A

woman deserves the right to control her body at any point in a

pregnancy. Yes, later abortion are riskier, but they are still a very safe

procedure, and if the women know the risks, they should be allowed to

make their own choice, because however risky a legal late-term

abortion would be, an illegal one would be much more dangerous.

Realistically, most women who are in their third trimester of pregnancy

have already decided to have the baby, and if they change their mind

then, the government needs to trust that they have a very good reason

and allow them to make their own choices.

My ideal standard would be an almost complete freedom to

abortion with one caveat; if the woman is so far along that the fetus

could survive if born by cesarean section and could then be put up for
adoption, then that would be preferable to an abortion at that point.

Abortion clinics should not have any more restrictions than any other

health service, they should not have different standards to adhere to,

and all the so-called precautions need to be done away with. Studies

show that the majority of women dont regret their abortion and dont

change their mind once its made up, so mandatory waiting periods are

nothing but a sham to make abortions more difficult to obtain. Why do

we have more restrictions on women seeking abortions than people

trying to by guns? What other process requires women to look at

images designed to upset her? I believe that a woman should be able to

choose whether or not to be pregnant, so if the baby can survive outside

the womb, thats fine, but if not, she needs the choice to terminate a

pregnancy safely. Realistically, desperate women will find a way to

abort even if its illegalbut many more will die or suffer serious

complications or even die as a result.

There are so many reasons a woman might choose not to be

pregnant and every woman, family, and situation is different, so I dont

think one government standard or ruling can apply to every situation.

Maybe the woman already has a family and feels she has her hands full,

either time-wise or financially. Maybe shes at a point in her life where

she cant have a child, and even going through a pregnancy before an

adoption would severely disrupt her life. Maybe shes not healthy.

Maybe the baby would be born with some disability that shes not

equipped to take care ofchildren with disabilities are much less likely

to be adopted.

The government needs to stop telling women what to do with

their bodies and trust their ability to make important decisions

concerning their bodies, their families, and their lives.

b) As you have learned, although the Court affirmed a fundamental right

to an abortion in Roe and Casey, it has judged constitutional a wide

array of abortion regulations. What do you think of the Courts

decisions in terms of these state regulations? Which has the Court

gotten right and which has it gotten wrong? Explain.

I think the government has gotten it right every time they have

struck down restrictions and wrong every time they have allowed them.

Under Caseys undue burden standard, all states have to do is

demonstrate some interest other than preventing abortion that their

restriction is looking out for. Many of these are ill-disguised shams

whose true intent is to make it as difficult as possible to obtain

abortions under the guise of health requirements and other

protections against emotional duress and other issues. Abortion is one

of the safest medical procedures that exist. There is absolutely no

reason that there needs to be stronger health requirements for clinics

than any other outpatient surgery center.

I would argue that the mandatory waiting periods are undue

burdens because by the time a woman makes up her mind to have an

abortion, she has made her choice and knows when she is ready.

Instead, mandatory waiting periods force womenespecially those

who need to travel any sort of significant distance to reach the nearest

abortion providerto take more time off work, frequently make two

trips, and pay for housing. This requirement disproportionately affects

poorer women, for whom taking time off work and paying for travel and

lodgings is a greater burden, but it is unfair to all women.

Forced ultrasounds are also an undue burden. The goal is to make

a woman so emotional that she would change her mind about the

abortion, essentially making her feel awful in order to influence a huge

life decision. Most women are very sure of their decision when they go

to have an abortion, and this will not change their minds. It will,

however, upset many of them.

 Anal ultrasounds are completely absurd. Im still waiting for

someone to tell my why some states require women to undergo one

before an abortion but dont insist upon putting a stick up the rear of

someone attempting to buy a gun. The anal ultrasound is intended to

humiliate the women and serves no other functional purpose, since it is

extraordinarily rare for an anal ultrasound to be required to ensure a

healthy procedure.

There are many reasons why a minor might not want to tell their

parents that they are pregnant, and they shouldnt have to go to the

courts to get a bypass order. Maybe theyre worried that their parents

will throw them out of the house if they learn they are pregnant. Maybe

they know that their parents are pro-life and would either be incredibly

hurt by the decision or angered to the point of causing lasting damage to

the relationship. If someone is old enough to make the decision to have

sex, they are old enough to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

End of story, in my book.