1. Massey v. Carter

2. The Case  Debra Massey and Robert Carter had an illicit sexual encounter which resulted in Massey’s pregnancy.  Massey and her common law husband, Derek Jackson, carried the pregnancy into the second trimester.  During this time, a paternity test revealed that Carter was the father, not Jackson.

3. The Case  Massey and Jackson decided to terminate the pregnancy in order to save their relationship.  Carter filed for a restraining order under Oklahoma state laws regarding child protective services, stating that when custody of the child is in dispute, no decisions regarding the child’s welfare can be made without joint consent stating that when custody of the child is in dispute, no decisions regarding the child’s welfare can be made without joint consent  The subsequent delays pushed the pregnancy into the third trimester, and ultimately to delivery

4. The Problem  Since Massey and Jackson carried the pregnancy to term, and Oklahoma currently has a ban on partial-birth (Dilation and Extraction) abortions, they filed a lawsuit against Carter and the State arguing that she was denied her rights to privacy.  Carter counter-sued for custody

5. The Result  During trial, Massey’s attorneys argue that she was denied her right to privacy she was denied her right to privacy Specifically, unwanted government intrusions (according to Griswold and Roe)Specifically, unwanted government intrusions (according to Griswold and Roe) that the state of Oklahoma is at fault for using stalling injunctions that the state of Oklahoma is at fault for using stalling injunctions and that Carter is personally responsible. and that Carter is personally responsible.  Oklahoma prosecutors and Carter argue that The state was representing Carter’s interests, and not their own, which are broader than the mandates in Roe The state was representing Carter’s interests, and not their own, which are broader than the mandates in Roe and that Carter’s parental interests coincided with state interests in preserving life until family court could decide on custody. and that Carter’s parental interests coincided with state interests in preserving life until family court could decide on custody.

6. The Hearings  Family Court Allowed the custodial injunction and restraining order Allowed the custodial injunction and restraining order  Small claims court: Ruled against the state injunction as intrusive Ruled against the state injunction as intrusive  The Court of Appeals Found in favor of Carter, but remanded that there may be a constitutional issue regarding the interpretation of Roe as it applies to personal interest as opposed to state Found in favor of Carter, but remanded that there may be a constitutional issue regarding the interpretation of Roe as it applies to personal interest as opposed to state

7. The Arguments  Massey Argues that the same principles that applies to unwarranted government intrusions should also apply to the individual Argues that the same principles that applies to unwarranted government intrusions should also apply to the individual And that if the privacy protections are to be meaningful, they must be completely inclusive And that if the privacy protections are to be meaningful, they must be completely inclusive

8. The Arguments  Oklahoma Argues that parental interests are not the same as state interests Argues that parental interests are not the same as state interests That the two occasionally coincide That the two occasionally coincide And that from the language of Roe, the second trimester is when the state has a fundamental interest to intervene And that from the language of Roe, the second trimester is when the state has a fundamental interest to intervene  Carter (jointly) Argues that upon being informed of paternity that his interests were made an issue Argues that upon being informed of paternity that his interests were made an issue That during the second and third trimesters are when personal interests take more importance (echoing Roe) That during the second and third trimesters are when personal interests take more importance (echoing Roe)  Both And that the existing Oklahoma laws are currently protecting all parties involved And that the existing Oklahoma laws are currently protecting all parties involved

9. Potential Results  Depending on your ruling today, there are at least two potential outcomes: Uphold the lower courts (no change) Uphold the lower courts (no change) and incorporate the arguments of Carter into your decision as a limitation to Roeand incorporate the arguments of Carter into your decision as a limitation to Roe Strike down the lower courts decisions Strike down the lower courts decisions Necessitating some new language as to how state and personal interests relate to existing casesNecessitating some new language as to how state and personal interests relate to existing cases And rewriting the state’s position on partial-birth abortion legalityAnd rewriting the state’s position on partial-birth abortion legality

10. The Debate  Teams: See instructions  Time: Decision: 10 min Decision: 10 min Arguments: 20 min (10 per team) Arguments: 20 min (10 per team) Prep: whatever’s still available before 11:45 Prep: whatever’s still available before 11:45