SCFI CPs.docx by babbian

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 7

									SCFI 2009                                                                                                                        One CP Per Round
Project Mayhem                                                                                                                                       ___ of ___
                                                                            Index
Index .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Reproductive Rights Adv. CP ........................................................................................................................ 2
2NC Reproductive Rights CP ........................................................................................................................ 3
Guaranteed Income CP ................................................................................................................................. 4
Intermediate Scrutiny CP ............................................................................................................................... 5
Maher v. Roe CP ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Maher v. Roe CP ........................................................................................................................................... 7




                                                                                                                                                                   1
SCFI 2009                                                                                                                     One CP Per Round
Project Mayhem                                                                                                                                   ___ of ___
                                                 Reproductive Rights Adv. CP

Text –
The United States Supreme Court should rule that all individuals have a
constitutional right of reproductive freedom.



Observation One – Competition
The CP competes through net-benefits. We don’t link to any of the poverty or social
service related disads. Even if they win the CP results in the same action, the
perception of the decision will not be couched in poverty.

Observation Two – Solvency
The only thing that matters is a constitutional right to life.
Martha f Davis, Professor Women's Rights Lawyering, Constitutional Law and Professional Responsibility, Northeastern School of Law 1995 Brutal Need:
Lawyers and the Welfare Rights Movement, 1960-1973, 133

A contrary result in Dandridge would have permitted wholesale challenges to the barriers created by state legislature and congress to deny welfare assistance to
groups of needy people. Distinctions between grant levels of individuals in equal need, whether because of differences in categories or their state of residence,
might have been brought down. Traditional divisions between state and federal authority, and between the three branches of government, would doubtless have
             equal protection clause would have become the main vehicle for establishing a constitutional
been altered. The
guarantee of human life. In these other ways, affirmative judicial scrutiny to guarantee equal protection could have led to a different America.




                                                                                                                                                               2
SCFI 2009                                                             One CP Per Round
Project Mayhem                                                                   ___ of ___
                           2NC Reproductive Rights CP

Their Davis evidence is a lie – it says nothing about reproductive rights, and only
suggests that an opposite ruling in Dandridge would allow some barriers to be
challenged. It is not exclusive or unique.

Don’t believe their Andreasen evidence – at best it says the regulation of the family
size is only justified in welfare contexts, at worst it just suggests that the state can
promote ideal family sizes, not limit reproduction.

Their Spahn evidence isn’t talking about family caps or reproductive right, it’s about
population control in the third world and about forcing contraceptives on foreign
populations. Three decades of jurisprudence proves their impact is empirically
denied.




                                                                                           3
SCFI 2009                                                                                                                      One CP Per Round
Project Mayhem                                                                                                                                     ___ of ___
                                                         Guaranteed Income CP

Text –
The United States Supreme Court should rule that all individuals have a
constitutional right to an income necessary for survival.



Observation One – Competition
The CP competes through net-benefits. We don’t link to any of the social service
related disads because direct cash assistance is not a social service. Cross apply
from topicality.

Observation Two – Solvency

Guaranteeing a right to “Survival income” solves and will produce legislative
responses that strengthen economic equality.
Peter B. Edelman, Professor of Law @ Georgetown University Law Center, “The Next Century of Our Constitution.” November, 1987
(http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T6997486946&homeCsi=12491&A=0.5947429957286783&urlEnc=ISO-8859-
1&&citeString=39%20Hastings%20L.J.%201&countryCode=USA)

The problem, though, is that the other branches are not about to act. Once again we are confronted with a less than ideal set of choices and, while it seems
terribly pessimistic, we may still be confronted with an unresponsive Congress by the time the kind of litigation I suggested
is brought before a more responsive Supreme Court. Under these circumstances it seems to me that there is no alternative but to use the
courts as soon as there is any likelihood that they will be responsive.
Using the courts when the legislature is unresponsive has a value beyond the net benefit achieved in terms of limited
relief initially obtained. History suggests that judicial involvement can spark legislative reverberation (and sometimes retaliation, to be sure). The
Supreme [*55] Court's involvement in race cases was surely one of the cornerstones in the foundation that underlay the great civil rights legislation of the
1960s. A   declaration from the Court of a right to survival income might evoke a resonating legislative response.




                                                                                                                                                               4
SCFI 2009                                                                                                                        One CP Per Round
Project Mayhem                                                                                                                                 ___ of ___
                                                       Intermediate Scrutiny CP
Text –
The United States Supreme Court should grant certiorari to a relevant test case and
rule that all claims for social services made by persons living the United States must
be evaluated at the level of intermediate scrutiny.


Observation One – Competition
The CP competes through net-benefits and is mutually exclusive. You cannot defend
strict scrutiny and intermediate at the same time. The CP is plan MINUS. The perm
would result in legal confusion, turning the case.

Observation Two – Solvency

We solve 100% without linking to the legitimacy, SOP, or Sotomayor disads.
Intermediate scrutiny is a better approach for poverty and can solve.
PETER EDELMAN             in 2005, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, June, 2005, “BOOK REVIEW: Where Is FDR When We Need Him?”
93 Geo. L.J. 1681

                                                                                                                           makes some sense.
In retrospect, this is not terribly surprising. With only strict scrutiny and rational basis to choose from, the decision in Dandridge
                                                                              Court does not require a compelling necessity and a
Justice Stewart's insensitive rhetoric n20 notwithstanding, it is understandable that the
tight fit, as strict scrutiny would demand, for every legislative decision about public benefits to [*1685] the poor. It is not surprising that
the Court shrinks from looking over the shoulder of Congress or state legislatures about the precise details of how
they allocate limited public funds to the poor. Nonetheless, it is beyond dispute that the poor are a minority -- at least by reference to the way we
measure poverty in the United States. In 2004, 12.7 percent of Americans were counted as poor. n21 And it seems clear to me that they do not have a fair shot
at winning their share of battles in the legislature. So even if "strict scrutiny" is inappropriate, rational basis seems wrong too. But there is another
approach that was not available to the Court in Dandridge. Since the mid-1970s, the Court has also had a
methodology of "intermediate scrutiny," adopted in a series of gender discrimination cases, where it demands that a state show a substantial
interest to justify the policy it has adopted. n22 This approach makes sense in the area of poverty.




                                                                                                                                                            5
SCFI 2009                                                                                                              One CP Per Round
Project Mayhem                                                                                                                            ___ of ___
                                                           Maher v. Roe CP
Text:
The United States Supreme Court should grant certiorari to a relevant test case and
overrule Maher V. Roe.


Competition-
  a. Avoids all social services disads and doesn’t link to our Dandridge Bad args
     from case.
     b. Even if you can do both, you should reward us for finding the case that
        actually applies to poverty as a suspect class. They are twenty years too late,
        Dandridge has been distinguished. They should lose.
Solvency-
Maher V. Roe must be overturned to guarantee equal protection and improved
intransigence of all that are affected negatively by social or economic legislation that
has been or will be insulated from judicial review. This subsumes Dandridge and all
aff impacts.
Wendy K. Mariner, 1986 Associate Professor of Health Law at the Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, and Lecturer in Social
Medicine and Health Policy at Harvard University Medical School. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 12 Am. J. L. and Med. 345 ARTICLE: Access to Health
Care and Equal Protection of the Law: The Need for a New Heightened Scrutiny * l/n


The need to make distinctions rather than dichotomies is especially pressing in cases involving access to health
care services. Access to medical care in the United States depends upon financial resources, in the form of private or government insurance or personal
financial reserves. The Supreme Court's characterization of classifications based on wealth (or poverty), therefore, has
precluded the application of equal protection to ensure equitable access to health care. At first blush, classifications
based on wealth or income seem "suspect." n37 Yet, since Dandridge v. Williams, n38 the [*354] Court has
insisted that indigency alone is not suspect and that classifications based on wealth will not constitute a suspect class
for the purpose of triggering strict scrutiny. n39
The Court's intransigence on this issue appears to arise from the Justices' inability to fashion or agree upon a test
which takes into account the importance of the benefit at stake. As a result, almost any classification system that
disadvantages the poor is automatically tagged as "social and economic legislation" and effectively insulated
from any serious form of judicial review.
The importance of the court's reluctance to accept indigency as a test of eligibility for health care can be seen in the
abortion funding cases. In Maher v. Roe, n40 the Court upheld a Connecticut Medicaid regulation that provided
funds for childbirth, but not for purely elective, nontherapeutic abortions, observing:
An indigent woman desiring an abortion does not come within the limited category of disadvantaged classes so recognized by our cases. Nor does the fact
that the impact of the regulation falls upon those who cannot pay lead to a different conclusion. In a sense, every
denial of welfare to an indigent creates a wealth classification as compared to nonindigents who are able to pay for
the desired goods or services. But this Court has never held that financial need alone identifies a suspect class for
the purposes of equal protection analysis. n41




                                                                                                                                                      6
SCFI 2009                                                                                                                     One CP Per Round
Project Mayhem                                                                                                                                    ___ of ___
                                                                Maher v. Roe CP

The Court found the foregoing language dispositive of the economic class issue in the later case of Harris v. McRae.
n42 In that case, the Hyde [*355] Amendment n43 was challenged as denying equal protection to indigent women
for whom abortions were medically necessary. n44 The Amendment withheld federal Medicaid funding for therapeutic abortions, except where
the life of the woman was threatened, even though it provided that childbirth be federally funded. In a five to four decision, the Court upheld the Amendment and
implicitly permitted the states to withhold funding for the same procedures. n45
The majority   viewed the classification drawn by the Hyde Amendment as based upon financial status; the distinction
was between those eligible for Medicaid benefits and those ineligible. This construction ensured that the classification
could not be suspect under Dandridge, Rodriguez and Maher. Neither the Hyde Amendment nor state Medicaid regulations carrying out
its mandate made this simple distinction, however. Under the Medicaid statute, the class of people eligible to receive benefits was
(and is) defined by two neutral criteria: financial need and medical need. n46 The Hyde Amendment excluded one
group of people, pregnant women for whom abortion was medically necessary, from the class eligible for benefits --
despite the fact that they met both statutory criteria. Poor women who needed therapeutic abortions were denied benefits; poor women who
needed other kinds of care were not.
The Hyde Amendment eliminated one Medicaid benefit. The effect of removing therapeutic abortion services (except in life-threatening cases) from the kinds of
medical care covered was to deprive one class of beneficiaries of access to particular services. Thus, the Hyde Amendment effectively discriminated on the basis
of the medical procedure needed.
The Court did not explicitly consider the effect of adding medical need to the status of indigency. Certainly, there was
no clear precedent for treating medical need as a suspect criterion. But the Court's cavalier disregard for the real
impact of its rote application of the prevailing model is disturbing. n47 Characterizing Medicaid-eligible women in need
of abortion [*356] as merely poor and, therefore, not members of a suspect class, it upheld, without really analyzing, the validity of
the Hyde Amendment as rationally related to a government "interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus." n48
Undoubtedly, the Court was concerned that if classifications based on wealth were held suspect (and therefore
presumptively invalid), it could slide down a slippery slope. Wealth discrimination pervades society. Indeed,
ability to pay is a structural component of our economic system, which organizes the distribution of most
goods and services based on price. Even government benefits may be distributed at a price. n49 If indigency
were found to be an unacceptable (read unconstitutional) barrier to access to goods and services, most pricing
systems would be unjustifiable.




                                                                                                                                                               7

								
To top