PLEASE MAKE SURE TO READ ALL DIRECTIONS. please DO NOT use any OUTSIDE SOURCES OTHER THAN WHAT I HAVE PROVIDED
Please see links below that could not be attached for more information 
https://www.npr.org/2010/06/30/128212951/reframing-the-abortion-debate-focus-on-fetus
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/clinic/
Please upload your paper as a WORD or PDF document ONLY.  Other formats are not accepted as they cannot be read by the Canvas software.
The paper will respond to the hypothetical case: State of Olympus v. Mindy Vo 375 Right to Contraceptives Case.pdf
Materials for the paper are in modules: Final Project Information – Readings
Failure to refer to the readings will result in a below passing grade.  You must use all materials on the syllabus that address these issues and pay particular attention to the cases listed on the last page of the hypothetical case.  But remember if it is not relevant do not include it.  Your job is to demonstrate you’ve completed and understood our course material in answering the prompt so NO OUTSIDE MATERIALS.  No quoting, use your own words.
Page Length: 6 pages – anything under is likely missing key elements of the course materials –  DOUBLE SPACED  
You are preparing an essay that will argue why the law in question either IS or IS NOT constitutional.  Your paper will address the same side you’ll prepare for your oral argument.  Your brief and oral argument will contain similar elements.  The format is listed below.  You are expected to write this in FULL essay format with full paragraphs and sentences NOT BULLETED POINTS – grammar counts!  You will break your paragraphs up by headings exclusively as indicated below.  You MUST use AT LEAST 6 cases in the hypothetical posted on Canvas
in addition to any relevant course materials (to the extent it is relevant) – this includes any readings, lecture or media you think help support/advance your thesis and includes cases from Rossum, Tarr & Munoz) . 
To use the cases as support you should explain BRIEFLY what the case you are discussing has in common with the hypothetical and why the court should do the same thing in the hypothetical case as it did in the support case OR why the cases are different and therefore the Court should do something different.  Some of the cases will not say what you want them to say (they seem not to help you) – to fix that problem  you can DISTINGUISH the case from the hypothetical.  Explain what is different about the case from the hypothetical and why that should NOT be the case the Court uses to make its decision. 
You must demonstrate that you have done the readings, have thought critically about them and can make a persuasive argument using the cases.  This is NOT a summary of 6 cases, it is a comparison of the facts and laws of the cases to the hypothetical.  Simply summarizing cases is NOT sufficient.  You must should why they are alike or different and why the Court should use them (or not) to come the decision you’d like it to come to! 
You MUST include a discussion of the appropriate standard of review for the case.   Which standard is appropriate and why?  This should be your first major argument and therefore a roadmap point (header). 
A successful brief will use the cases fluidly as needed.  In some papers it would make sense to do this chronologically to set up what the Court has said about certain issues and types of law, in others it would not make sense since the law has changed.  A paper that simply summarizes each case without providing analysis of how or why they help your case will not earn a passing grade.  A paper that simply tries to persuade the court that the policy is/not constitutional without showing how other laws are relevant will not earn a passing grade.   
Main Argument: The heading will actually be your main argument but should NOT include the words “Main Argument”
Your first heading should be your main argument – write out in full sentence.  Eg: The Contraceptive Ban Act violates the 14th  Amendment. Then in FULL essay paragraph form continue the main argument with support – the supporting sentences for the main argument should be the 2-3 roadmap points you will use in your oral argument.  You must also include the standard of review as an argument and therefore should appear in the first paragraph. BRIEFLY follow the argument with an introduction of the case of your client.  THIS SHOULD BE AN ESSAY NOT AN OUTLINE.
Roadmap Point #1:
Your next paragraph will begin your argument and the header should be your first roadmap point written out in full sentence. You will need to address the standard of review and how the law does/does not satisfy it and why.  Remember legal argumentation is reason through analogy so you will need to show how other laws that you argue are similar have satisfied or failed the standard.  Continue the argument with support from the case law.  This should NOT simply be separate paragraphs discussing each case – this should synthesize the case law that satisfies your argument
EG: The Court should review this case with strict scrutiny because according to Washington v. Glucksberg strict scrutiny applies when there’s a fundamental right  OR The Court should use the intermediate standard of review because this case involves gender OR Rational basis is the appropriate standard since there is no fundamental right in this case.
Roadmap Points #2-3 etc …
Follow the structure as above for remaining roadmap points. Be sure to include any additional standards of review if there are more than one.
Conclusion
The header should recap the main argument and supporting sentences should recap the roadmap points – use different language than in your introduction.  Finally tell the court what you would like it to do – E.G.  The law is constitutional as there is no fundamental right to education and undocumented students are not a suspect class and therefore this court should overturn the lower court and strike down the law.  
Include a reference page AND a separate list of cases  
NOTE on references: If you read the case from Rossum, Tarr & Munoz please cite “as cited in  Rossum, Tarr & Munoz ” EG: Plyer v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982) as cited in  Rossum, Tarr & Munoz
To repeat, there are likely readings (not cases) that will be very helpful to you that should be included but if the reading is not relevant do not include it. There is a list of cases at the end of the hypothetical that will be the most important cases to use but you may find some that are also important but these will not count towards the 6 mentioned above.